Reader comments · Tory MP who said equal access for gays would ‘mangle’ marriage raises consummation concerns · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory MP who said equal access for gays would ‘mangle’ marriage raises consummation concerns

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I vote we take marriage back to its ORIGINAL origins. Then let’s talk about marriage equality again!!!!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 3:01pm

      I’ve often wondered why the Christian Institute hasn’t begun a campaign to ban divorce. Imagine the hetero backlash it would unleash against them that would unleash. Perhaps this might be a tool to shut them up altogether.

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 May 2012, 3:21pm

        Indeed… there does smack of too much hypocrisy with people of the likes of Mr Leigh.

      2. Perhaps we should ask the question about how many of the CI leadership have had divorces. There is more than one from my understanding.

  2. Is he trying to say that homosexual intercourse is partial and imperfect?

    Depends on whose viewpoint you take.

    I would much rather have an entire weekend in the sack with my boyfriend than the 2 mins he might have annually with his wife!

    He is desperate trying to set up obstacles that are not there – because he knows equal marriage is going to happen.

    1. Spanner1960 28 May 2012, 12:54pm

      No, I think what he is trying to say is that, for instance, there is no such thing as lesbian intercourse, so theoretically it is not possible to consummate a marriage. This was the reason that particular clause was removed from CP’s.

      However, it is all just more clutching at straws to try and find a loophole to get out of it.

      1. Loop holes aren’t going to succeed for him

        What else is he going to try – his allies tried politicizing children … they have tried manipulation, deception and lies … they are running out of options …

        I still think my sex life is likely to be more fulfilling, complete and enjoyable that Leighs ever is. ;-)

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 4:41pm

          I wonder how Leigh would view a hetero married couple who have consummated their marriage and in some cases produced offspring but the husband later in life develops erectile dysfunction that not even viagra can be of much use? What next, annul all those marriages? This proves just how these religious nutters have become, desperate.

      2. No such thing as lesbian intercourse? My girlfriend and I beg to disagree!

        1. legally speaking it has no definition so doesnt exist lol equaly though it also means however its legal by ommision look at when they were thinking about extending the ban on gay sex acts to woman the only reason they didnt was that the government at the time thought that making it illegal would make its existence known and encourage more woman to participate in it, rather silly of course but then so were the buggery laws in general :D

        2. Spanner1960 28 May 2012, 4:44pm

          Not without artificial aids there isn’t.
          Sorry sweetheart, but women are not equipped for penetration. As Adrella, the famous drag queen put it, “You can’t get a fanny up a bum.” :)

          1. Spanner1960 28 May 2012, 9:01pm

            What’s the bets all those red arrows are herds of diesels with disapproving grunts of derision when they are told they don’t come with an inbuilt tool.

            Sorry ladies, don’t shoot the messenger.

          2. Ummm and fingers don’t count as penetration…?

          3. theotherone 28 May 2012, 10:54pm

            well spanner I gave you a red and:

            1. I’m not a diesel and

            2. I used to have a cock but had it refashioned into something far more wonderful.

        3. theotherone 28 May 2012, 10:55pm

          technically it has no legal definition therefore can not exist (legally that is.)

          silly isn’t it?

          1. penetration of any orifice is not the be all and end all of sex.

      3. The idea to consummate is ridiculous anyway – an age old clause meant to encourage population growth. WE DON’T NEED IT ANYMORE!

        What about people who can’t have sex? What about people who just don’t /want/ to have sex?

        This really is clutching at straws. None of their arguments are strong enough and they have to keep thinking of new ones. This is just as silly as any ‘tradition’ argument. Humans invented marriage legislation, humans have changed marriage legislation in the past, humans can change it again.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 6:19pm

      Yes, he is. In his narrow world, only penis in the vagina is acceptable because it leads to procreation but he obviously hasn’t heard of IVF or surrogacy for some people who can’t procreate the traditional way. This latest screed of his is proof he’s a bigot.

  3. The Catholic church have no right to interfere with or dictate what can be in civil law.

    How they choose to consider marriage in their churches is their business.

    How civil law determines marriage is nothing to do with them.

  4. May he take his buy-bull, his corrupt and putrid faith, and cram the whole lot of magical superstitious facile ignorant lack-witted moronic simple-minded cr@p where the sun doesn’t shine.

    There is NO god. There is nothing but the psychotic and brutal ramblings of primitive goat sh@ggers and ridiculous tales of Mary – the local bike – and Joseph, the cretin who was too thick to realise everyone had been for a ride.

    Organised religion is junk – to comfort the frightened, control the weak and extort the gullible. Fairy tales have no place in the modern world.

    1. Lynda Yilmaz 28 May 2012, 12:55pm

      Sensing a little ‘end of tether’ anger there Valksy!

      1. Paddyswurds 28 May 2012, 2:34pm

        @Lynda Yilmaz….
        … so your only comment on the article is to have a dig at another poster, Linda?
        Where or when will we be awed by your contribution to the debate, one wonders. Everything Valksy said is true and more; one suspects he was being a little controlled in his comment when one considers the awful fraud that the Abrahamic cults are.

        Re; the article, i have just one question for this idiot MP… in the many places where Marriage Equality has been legal for some time, Massachusetts for instance since 2004 and the first in the world, how has Marriage fared and has it been mangled…I think not and the fair minded people of Massachusetts are getting on with their lives. The sky has not fallen in and the sky fairy has not smote anyone ….yet.

        1. Lynda Yilmaz 28 May 2012, 3:06pm

          Sorry you feel that way Paddy and I’m sorry it was construed this way. I am normally an active supporter on here and regularly reply and support Valksy’s posts and comments. I usually actively look for his posts because he pretty much says everything I feel too. I made a mistake because I forgot that this wasn’t a social networking site which enabled me to comment only to Valksy. I hold my hands up and apologise.

          1. Relax. It’s fine.

            I admit I am at the end of my tether – I am so tired of my life being played with. Religion is the worst imaginable argument to deny us rights – given that its own adherents cannot even decide amongst themselves what it all means.

            Injuring real people – Us – and excusing it with the assumed desires of a fictional entity is abhorrent to me. I would rather they just told the truth – they just plain old fashioned don’t bloody like us because we aren’t like them.

            Oh. And I’m a woman. Not that it matters in this case, and I know people assume because I’m aggressive. But I’ve never backed down from a fight in my life and certainly don’t let my gender stop me.

    2. I totally agree, although Mary was probably raped by a roman soldier rather than being the local bike…

      1. Well seeing as she’s a fictional character, I suppose the story of Mary being the local bike is just as valid as the theory that she was raped.

        The interpretation of fiction takes many forms.

        1. There is some evidence to suggest that Jesus, and therefore his parents, did actually exist. But I agree the bulk of the reported events in his life are fictitious.

      2. Perhaps.

        But there is the clear point – If a friend of yours came up to you and said that she was a virgin, but was pregnant would you assume:

        1) She was nuts

        2) She was lying

        1. or c) she needs some education in language or biology!

  5. Why do religious fundamentalist have to turn everything into a conversation about bum sex?

    1. I want sex in my marriage (when I get married) – and believe me there will be!

      However, my relationship with my boyfriends is about much more than sexual activities (of a wide and varied type!) – its about love, honour, commitment, dedication, and support. Its about giving ourselves to each other. Its about making a difference together.

      Why do those who seek to deny equality to others have such a problem with love?

      1. Quite right!

        It’s not healthy to obsess about the consensual, private sex lives of other people.

      2. Spanner1960 28 May 2012, 4:44pm

        Because all these people see is homoSEXual.

        1. Along similar lines to Valksy below.

          Why, though?

          I don’t think heteroSEXual. Does anyone?

    2. Consider it this way – When you think of heterosexual people, or meet a hetero person, do you immediately start thinking about what they do in bed?

      I know that I don’t. And yet when they think about us, they are fascinated by it and cannot stop talking about it. It’s a “fetish of the forbidden” to them.

      1. Lol

        Sex is an important aspect of life, but there is so much more to life than sex.

        Sex predominantly should be a matter between the people who share that experience – rarely is it something that needs to then be shared with others, although there should be no shame in doing so given that it is a natural act of love or lust.

        When I meet people I find interesting its usually many, many other things that I like to discuss and learn about. If sex is a matter of interest it is way, way, way down the list.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 6:21pm

      Because perhaps it’s something they crave or that they’re not getting much sex for themselves. Looking at some of their faces, it makes you wonder.

  6. Sean Martin 28 May 2012, 12:55pm

    I gather this good gentleman wants to return to the days of flying the bloody sheets the morning after the wedding night to prove the bride’s virginity?

    Honestly: sex, sex, sex — is that *all* straight people think about?

    1. Locus Solus 28 May 2012, 12:58pm

      “Honestly: sex, sex, sex — is that *all* straight people think about?”

      Gay sex at that…

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 2:28pm

        It’s because they’re obviously not getting much of it in their own lives to worry about what gay couples do in the privacy of their homes. It’s always a religious nutter ranting on about it lately.

  7. The only thing mangled is this gentleman’s mind.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 28 May 2012, 6:38pm

      And his face.

  8. I find the consumation/adultery rules out of the arc anyway and think the dissolution rules in CPs much better ..

    Non consumation/adultery rules sound like something dreamt up by Henry VIII..

    What a petty problem anyway. We’re supposed to have the finest QCs in the HoL and parliament and this guy thinks a solution/agreement around this can’t be found.

    Who gives a toss anyway what the Catholic church thinks about divorce as opposed to annulment and who gives a toss what constitues proper sex between consenting adults in a mariage.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 2:34pm

      Annulment is a fancy word for divorce. Proof yet again that the roman cult is a mendacious, evil institution. If it weren’t divorce, why would they charge an exorbitant fee to void a hetero marriage?Grounds for annulment are: marriage when one spouse is under aged, marriage under duress, due to non-disclosure of previously existing marriage by one spouse, mental or physical incapability (permanent or temporary) or fraud. Obviously this idiot thinks that the lack of sexual intercourse is the only factor.

      1. Yes and no, if you have to annul your marriage then you are declaring it means nothing, it meant nothing and it’s wrong. What about couples who partners are trans and want to stay married; they have to publicly say no our marriage and commitment is wrong and it meant nothing if they want to be legally who they are by having to get a GRC.

      2. Tim Hopkins 28 May 2012, 3:24pm

        Annulment and divorce are different things. In fact there are two different versions of annulment also. A marriage is void (was never valid) if one person is under age, was already in a CP or married, there was duress etc. A marriage is voidable (not void from the start but can be annulled) if there was no consummation and on a few other grounds, while a divorce can be obtained if there is non-cohabitation for the specified period, unreasonable behaviour or adultery.

        The rules are rather different in Scotland. Non-consummation is not a ground for annulment, although permanent and incurable impotency throughout the marriage is. The non-cohabitation periods for divorce in Scotland are much shorter. And in Scotland an interim gender recognition certificate is a ground for divorce, whereas in England and Wales it’s a ground for annulment.


        1. I better Cardinal O’Brien doesnt point out the lack of non-consummation in the annullment laws in Scotland!

        2. Lord Denning (deceased) 28 May 2012, 5:05pm

          Surly he’s only concerned with what it is in Vatican dogma, as a way of getting around marriage being for life

  9. In 2007 there were 127,998 dissolutions of marriages and 141 annulments. There are other reasons for annulment other than non-consummation, the ONS doesn’t publish the reasons.

    1. Like when one partner transitions and wishes to hold a full Gender Recognition Certificate, for instance.

      1. Or when one of the partner deceives the other into marrying them

        Most Catholic people who wish to end their marriage do divorce, in my experience

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 2:41pm

          And many catholic couples who have consummated their marriages divorce quite frequently via the civil courts. Of course, they’re banned from remarrying in their church and are confined to a civil marriage. The roman cult still doesn’t recognise them as a divorced couple though.

          1. Although the RC church has no objection to recognising the civil marriage of a person to their second husband/wife following divorce when they are regular worshippers in an RC church. Double standards at their recognition of civil marriage – you bet!

      2. It is my understanding that they divorce, the marriage is not annulled.

        1. Tim Hopkins 29 May 2012, 7:57am

          Steven, if you were replying to Ali, what you wrote is correct for Scotland – an interim gender recognition certificate is grounds for divorce in Scotland, and you can’t get a full certificate (one that is legally effective) unless and until you divorce. In England and Wales it’s similar, but it’s an annulment not a divorce.

  10. Darren Taggart 28 May 2012, 1:11pm

    This is like justifying segregation on the basis that the racists won’t have be supreme any more.

    Yes, you arsehole, we’re going to change the definition of marriage because equality is more important than your paedo-apologist church.

  11. It does make me laugh that these people think that by allowing same sex equal marriage will, in this man’s words ‘mangle’ marriage.

    Is he too blinkered to see that straight couples are doing that all by themselves? Let’s name a few celebs for starters, Katie Price, Michael Doulgas, Liz Taylor all have been married more than once.

    Let’s make divorce illegal then see how this lot start moaning about how their human rights are being violated!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 2:38pm

      Not to mention, Kim Kardashian, Britney Spears, married just days then split and of course our own serial adulterer, Sir Roger Gale.

      1. Yes off course!

  12. Edward Leigh is a disgusting neo-fascist bigot.

    He is an utter disgrace to the Tory Party and he belongs in the BNP.

    Has Pink News forgotten to publish the LGBTory Group’s condemnation of Leigh and its call for him to be expelled from the Tories.)

    (That last bit was just my little joke, of COURSE the self-hating quisling Uncle Tom’s of LGBTory have not issued any condemnation of their neo-fascist colleague Edward Leigh).

    1. David, I think we have to be a bit careful about who we call “neo-fascists”. I don’t like Edward Leigh’s politics at all (or religion for that matter), but I wouldn’t describe him as a “neo-fascist.” Neo-fascists would advocate causing serious harm (such as death) to LGBT people and racial minority groups. I can think of one or two fundamentalist Islamic theocracies I would be happy to describe as “neo-fascist.” I haven’t for instance ever heard of Leigh advocating that gay people should be hanged: something Ahmadinejad’s appalling regime supports and implements. The problem with calling people like Leigh a “neo-fascist” is that we then dilute the impact and meaning of the term, because, as deeply misguided as he is, he clearly isn’t one. That means there is then no longer any word bad enough to describe someone like Ahmadinejad. I think we should save that term for people who *really* deserve it. And unfortunately, there are plenty of them around.

      1. Gazza

        Didn’t you make some mention yesterday of concerns about freedom of speech …

        1. Yes, Vince, I did. But since when does freedom of speech mean freedom to say anything you like, without anyone else being free to criticise or comment on it?

          David is perfectly free to say what he said. And I am perfectly free to say I don’t agree with him, and to say why.

          David has freedom of speech. I have freedom of speech. Everyone’s happy … except, presumably, the odious Edward Leigh, who doesn’t like being called names on the Internet.

      2. Edward Leigh believes that gay people are deserving of less civil and human rights, simply because they are gay.

        As far as I am concerned, that makes him a neo-fascist pig.

        1. Pigs are delightful & highly intelligent creatures (especially compared to Catholic Tories) – please don’t drag them into this…

  13. Where do they think this trash up. It’s like when racists look for anything and everything to attack a black person, mostly careful not to mention black, just attack them any other way possible. ‘It’s not because they’re black’, ‘It’s not because they’re gay that I don’t like them’, ‘It’s this, that, the other and everything else’, ‘but no, I’m not racist or homophobic, I have no problem with that at all’.

    Heard it all before. Gay marriage will become law and the ignorance of these dinosaurs will die a little bit more with them. Anyone who tries to bend human equality to make gay people second or third class citizens is a bigot, plain and simple.

    As for consummation, well, looking at him, I doubt his wife consummated the marriage without duress. Perhaps another family arranged Tory money marriage?

  14. ye gods, what can they possibly dredge up next. The CONSUMMATION LAWS?! This relic is hardly even relevent!

  15. For Pete’s sake! This is my MP! I knew he was going to come up with some silly b-s argument that defended his indecent homophobia and the silly little religion that he belongs to. He has been a prominent person in the Cornerstone Group, so this story isn’t really surprising. There is no way in hell that this amazing marriage equality bill is going to be stopped by this petty MP and other homophobic, bigoted MPs.

    1. Lobby him!!

      1. I’m going to, if it takes all my strength!

        1. Tim Chapman 28 May 2012, 8:23pm

          Please do, Andrew. Every MP has LBGT constituents and we should all lobby our own MP if they haven’t declared their position on marriage equality. Where they are against, as is yours, we should continually take them to task. My MP is Theresa May, so not much point in me lobbying her. I learnt long ago to stop arguing once you’ve won!

  16. He’s got a very big nose. I could just see him as one of the people in a game of ‘Guess Who?’.

  17. Talk about a pathetic argument. Is this the best he can come up with? I suppose where does one go when one needs to bully schoolchildren to fill space on their petition.

    What a joke.

  18. I’d be quite happy if they just dropped the law about consummation, but if the government wish to keep the concept of consummation, there’s no need to change the current law in the slightest. It’s not defined in statute what constitutes “ordinary and complete”, and for very good reason. If they tried to define it, the act would rapidly turn into a lawyer’s Kama Sutra, and we’d have a whole raft of secondary legislation with names like the “Anal Intercourse (Premature Ejaculation) Amendment Regulations”. Instead, the government very sensibly left it to the courts to decide what constitutes “ordinary and complete” consummation. That definition is evolved over time, and when marriage equality becomes a reality, it will no doubt continue to evolve.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 2:57pm

      Nicely put!

  19. Paddyswurds 28 May 2012, 2:35pm

    I have just one question for this idiot MP… in the many places where Marriage Equality has been legal for some time, Massachusetts for instance, since 2004 and the first in the world, how has Marriage fared and has it been mangled…I think not and the fair minded people of Massachusetts are getting on with their lives. The sky has not fallen in over Boston and the sky fairy has not smote anyone there ….yet.

  20. Pagan Roman marriage law, if memory serves, was based on competent assent to a contract (as per any contract), and the sex was neither here nor there. The Christianization of the late- and post-Roman world made consummation an issue.
    I think the old Romans were onto something – and that, in any case, Catholic anxieties about sex should have nothing to do with Civil Marriage.

    1. LOL – Actually, the opposite is true. Marriage (Lat: Matrimonium – ‘to make into a mother’) in ancient Rome was not considered properly consummated until the birth of the first child (no just physical vaginal sex). Infertile marriages were eventually annulled.

      There is no such thing as ‘civil’ marriage. There is just marriage, and marriage – as the Romans knew all to well – is about procreation of children. This is why consummation is and should be an important aspect of it. As one Roman author said, ‘if it weren’t for the need to procreate, no one would bother getting married.’

      1. I will check up on this, but it is certainly a fact that noble Romans often adopted children to spare the wife the great dangers of childbirth. Such wives were still clearly considered married.
        You are clearly another apologist of the view that marriage can never change in meaning. It is about as sensible a view as saying that ‘salaries’ are only really such if paid in salt.

  21. Jock S. Trap 28 May 2012, 3:07pm

    Another some what desperate attempt to hijack the issue of marriage with complete irrelevance

    This is ridiculous, totally pathetic. Shows they’ll try anything they can grasp to try and get their own way.

    Why even in Mr Leigh’s constituency marriage Equality would be stability and a better outlook both for the community and the economy.

    Why do these people fear stability?

    Is it prehaps because they are failing to rule over the population? Why do we have to be forced into religious ideals when I want nothing to do with it. Just like religion that is My choice.

    Again if Mr Leigh has not wish to marriage someone of the same sex why does he see fit to interfere and why does he constant have to think about sex to come up with these pathetic attempts at damaging peace and equality?

    The mans an idiot who tell others they are immoral because how we are born and who we love yet himself cannot focus on anything but who people do in bed!

    Hypocrite… Bigot… shameful.

  22. Doñald Duck 28 May 2012, 3:16pm

    He tried to introduce incestuous civil partnerships? And he’s worried about a slippery slope to polygamy?!

  23. Staircase2 28 May 2012, 3:17pm

    What a load of bollocks!

    Who cares if the marriage is ‘consummated’ or not other than the two people involved?!

    Surely if people seek an annulment on issues of consummation then that should be possible shouldn’t it? I mean its hardly bloody rocket-science to figure out that people have therefore discovered something at the outset of a marriage which means they cannot go thru with it for the rest of their life…

    How did people get to be such idiots whenever they talk about gay people?

    1. I agree annullment is not a difficult issue to deal with!

      How is it that the “icky” factor of gay sex leads to such blatant bigotry and lack of ability to either analyse issues to determine genuine facts (as oppose to rhetoric and lies) or to articulate them in an honest way?

      Leigh just sounds as though he belongs in the 1700s with his comments!

  24. Garry Cassell 28 May 2012, 3:21pm

    Another stupid Fu**Fac*….they keep crawling out of the slime..

    1. Short. Succinct. I like it.

  25. Doñald Duck 28 May 2012, 3:21pm

    He’s wrong about Catholics not being allowed to divorce. Divorce is carried out by the State, as is marriage. There is no ban on the state divorcing Catholics.

    However if full religious ‘liberty’ is enforced then it may become illegal for Catholics to divorce.

    1. Well noted!

  26. Edward Leigh is, as usual, quite wrong. The government is not planning to remove the consummation requirement.

    Removing the consummation requirement as part of marriage equality would have been a bad idea. Any change would be an issue for straight and gay people alike, and if people want it, that should be a separate discussion.

    Making separate rules for same-sex couples would have introduced unwelcome different treatment.

    The govt’s decision to let the courts sort it out is quite right. The rest of society knows that gay people, even us lesbians, can and do have sex. I have faith that the courts can get their heads around this!

    Incidentally, the case law on consummation is absurdly unreflective of society, and offensive to intersex and disabled people. Marriage equality should enable the definition of consummation to evolve gently into the 20th, and perhaps even the 21st century.

  27. Lord Denning (deceased) 28 May 2012, 3:35pm

    He raises interesting points that may, in future, engage the the minds of the judiciary in the unlikely event that a parting gay couple put them in their Petition for divorce. I see no reason why these issues should not be specific to straight couples. However, as there are many countries now that have equal marriage, perhaps they can provide precedents as to how they deal with such matters.

    But I have every confidence in the ability of our judiciary and legislature to deal with the matter equably.

  28. Kimiko Kotani 28 May 2012, 3:44pm

    Is it me, or does a lot of the opposition seem to have an unhealthy fascination for the precise nature of how others have sex?

    1. The interest itself is very healthy. What is unhealthy is that their pathological sexual religious guilt distorts it into vindictive bigotry.

  29. I wonder if he would be so quick to condemn the marriages of people who have been seriously hurt in an accident or are otherwise differently-abled and not capable of “consummating” their marriage in a manner that he considers acceptable….

    …I’m going to guess not. After all, his asinine rambling drivel is just a smokescreen for “I don’t like gay people.”

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 4:44pm

      Indeed, and I wonder if he’s ever consdered that many older men suffer from erectile dysfunction, would he then recommend an annulment or divorce.

      1. Of course not, hun. We all see right through him and know that he is engaging in code talk for anti-gay animus.

  30. Are priests and lawyers expected to inspect every post-coital bed for signs of consummation?

    Mind you, given the religious infatuation with peoples sex lives, it would not surprise me if they wanted to.

    They get off on it no doubt.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 6:30pm

      Apparently they do in orthodox Judaism. The hypocrisy in religious marriage is that the majority of brides who wear a white wedding dress, a symbol of virginity I might add, aren’t exactly virgins in this day and age. Some are even pregnant walking up the aisle.

  31. GulliverUK 28 May 2012, 4:36pm

    I’m not in the slightest bit interested in anything Edward Leigh has to say. He’s made similarly stupid and extremist remarks before, and is one of the most homophobic of Tory MPs. He, alone, would be enough to put me off the entire party. He’s not only an embarrassment to his party, but to the human race.

    Why his local constituency keeps voting him in is unfathomable. You can only hope that the boundary changes remove him. Cameron must be so proud to have him in the party ! :)

    1. It’s because my constituency is full of incredibly right-wing farmers and that the conservatives have been in power here for nearly 80 years, so it’s traditional that my constituency votes for this homophobic MP. Seriously, I have the same view-point, why vote for this idiotic man!

  32. One by one the swivel-eyed wing of the Tory party are coming out of the ‘nasty’ closet.

  33. Another religious crackpot, hasn’t affected any country that has implemented Same-Sex Marriage and those countries are mainly catholic!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 6:27pm

      And if you ask them to provide the factual evidence, they can’t.

  34. GulliverUK 28 May 2012, 5:51pm

    It’s interesting that Iain Duncan Smith is Catholic and he supports marriage equality, and Tim Montgomerie is a Tory (not an MP, but highly influential), and a Christian (Catholic I think), and he’s just done a video to back up his position for marriage equality.

    So one type of Christian is for it, another can be against, but they’re both Tories.

    Leigh is 61, and I think Tim is about 41. We know this is a generational thing. It will come regardless of whatever happens, because more and more young people support it, but I wonder just how marked the disparity is.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 6:27pm

      Yes, even David Cameron said it’s a generational thing. They’re going to die off as we’re now seeing more countries introduce equal marriage. Denmark next month, ironically the day after the consultation ends. Probably a good omen.

  35. Inspector General 28 May 2012, 5:53pm

    Afternoon gay types. Inspector saw the headline, and could hear the wailing from this part of Dante’s Inferno (…aka Comments section…). Beaten on a technicality eh. Well there you go, gay marriage can’t be done because you can’t consummate it. Chin up, there’s always CP, which is a first rate product for you. Tailor made to ‘satisfy’, so they say, apart from gay ingrates.

    Toodle pip !

    1. Oh, I think you’ll find we can have sex just fine thank you. Far better than all you tepid hetero types at any rate. I feel truly sorry for the lacklustre erotic second-best you have to put up with. And though your jealousy towards us is understandable it is not an excuse for rancid discriminatory bigotry of this sort.

      In the spirit of the thing, go consummate yourself…

    2. Inspector General 28 May 2012, 6:10pm

      VP, it is not hateful to oppose gay marriage. You can’t always get what you want, you know, the Inspector is here to see to that…

      1. Oh, we will. We most certainly will. Lets see how the vote in the Commons goes, shall we? Do come back and visit after that, and we can compare notes and predictions.

        I do think we’ll all enjoy that, don’t you?

        LOL! I most certainly will…..

      2. It is hateful to oppose gay marriage. You are just too indoctrinated to be able to see it.

        I do agree that you can not always get what you want. In this instance, YOU will not get what YOU want – Inspector. Your desire to deny equality to LGBT people will not be sustained. Equal marriage will happen – the arithmetic of the Commons vote and the mood of the nation is in favour of the dignified and family friendly support of equal civil marriage.

        1. “the arithmetic of the Commons vote and the mood of the nation is in favour of the dignified and family friendly support of equal civil marriage.”

          Despite his attempts at peremptory language, its fairly obvious the good general has neither the erudition or state of mind to understand what you are quite rightly saying, Stu.

          Rather like a dinosaur blinking stupidly at the new bright light in the sky and the inevitability of the future for his kind….

      3. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 May 2012, 7:56pm

        And in the process we will show your religious snake oil for what it is.

        PS. Speaking as a fictitious character is VERY telling.

        Same thing with that evil Cranmer idiot.

      4. Yawn! Bored. Off to watch some paint dry.

      5. Spanner1960 28 May 2012, 9:03pm

        So if , or more *when*, we do get it, will that mean you will shut the fck up and leave us alone?

        You can’t always get what you want, you know.

    3. Boring little tw@t.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2012, 6:24pm

      Keith, so what about hetero married men with erectile dysfunction for whom viagra doesn’t work? Imbecile! Hopefully it happens to you later in life.

    5. “Afternoon gay types.”

      And good afternoon to you, schizophrenic pre-medicated types.

      (I got bored and phased out on the rest of your dribble, its quite, quite tedious. Sorry. Better luck next time, eh?)

    6. @Inspector General

      No, you’ll have to do better than this, you’re starting to repeat yourself !

      I’m giving you a 7 for effort, but achievement is going down to a 4.

      Better luck next time, eh ?

  36. Why on earth should “consummation” be something the law has any say on? Why is the sex life of two married people, of any gender combination, at all relevant in law?

    The laws on this are as obsolete and archaic as the ones about shooting Welshmen after midnight with a crossbow. There’s absolutely no reason to have consummation laws at all. It is manifestly irrelevant to what marriage is – a legal and cultural union for two people who love each other and wish to formalise that bond in society. Sex doesn’t come into that.

  37. “Once we have departed from the universally understood framework of marriage, there is no logical reason why the new alternative institution should be limited to two people. Why not three? Or thirty-three?”

    In the Bible in 1 Kings 11 it says that King Solomon had 700 wives so why not?!

  38. Nobody said that the law would remove consummation infact the consultation document makes it clear that the court will develop their own interpretation of “consummation” which is likely to simply mean the same as for heterosexuals – ie having sex to complete the ceremony.

    Some people are so stupid.

  39. Dear Mr Leigh
    Do NOT even think of bringing up the matter of annulment … your Church’s stand on this issue is utterly and completely disgraceful and apparently it’s one law for the rich and famous and another for the less well off and unknown ……. The Princess of Monaco can easily obtain an annulment [even though she has had children] and Mrs Murphy’s daughter in Dublin hasn’t a cat in hell’s chance!!! The UK is NOT a theocracy, and very difinitely NOT a Catholic theocracy, and the Catholic Church should keep its nose out of matters of CIVIL LAW which will have no bearing whatsoever on religions or religious matters!! Clean up your paedophile mess FIRST, and then you may be better placed to preach morals to others!!!

  40. If the right to divorce for non-consummation were removed it would be less of a change to civil marriage than the removal of legal immunity for a husband who rapes his wife, and which the unequal marriage brigade forget about when they claim civil marriage has been unchanged since the Middle Ages. The change to give protection to raped wives only happened after a great deal of campaigning over many decades, and much of the opposition was – unsurprisingly – from the same religious quarters as now.

    As to how important consummation is in the long run, it usually happens fairly rapidly after marriage, when the marriage is still healthy. If the couple eventually cease having sex, that is not valid grounds for divorce.

  41. Well he clearly is not very bright now is he? Given how much time anti-gay people like him generally spend obsessing over gay sexual acts, one would think that the legal definition of “consummation” would be fairly easy to grasp. It is sex. Pregnancy is not required, as plenty of straight people schtup for years without successfully doing so, but would still be denied an annullment by the Catholic Church based on the fact that they were having sex within the marriage. Likewise, the (modern) definition of adultery does change either. Granted, in Biblical times a husband could bang a slave girl without being considered an “adulterer”, but nowadays it generally means any spouse stepping out. Plus, why would Church definitions matter anyway? A Church annullment still does not automatically translate into a common law divorce, which would have to be filed for civilly. The way he talks just makes him sound rather moronic.

  42. Dirty minded old git.

  43. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 May 2012, 7:52pm

    His comments coming from his parents burdening him with a Catholic perspective.

    Would that be the perspective whereby the Vatican is refusing to release information on the raping and murder of children

    The Financial misdealings of this cult all to be released by his Butler.

    The POPE has a Butler.

    Im sure his Jesus would be very p!ssed off.

    1. Had a Butler …

      I dooubt many more will be willing to apply to replace him given how this one has been treated by the corrupt Vatican

  44. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 May 2012, 8:04pm

    I bang on again.

    From the footer of the Christian Institutes web site, as follows.

    “The Christian Institute is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England as a charity. Company No. 263 4440 Charity No. 100 4774
    A charity registered in Scotland. Charity No. SC039220”

    One would have thought that a Limited Company, that anyone can setup, indeed I have had 2 myself, should NOT be allowed charitable status when it influences public policy by commissioning polls that influence the goons in the newspapers.

    Been here before. It aint gonna happen. I AM NOT EQUAL.

    1. Tim Hopkins 29 May 2012, 8:03am

      Robin, charities are allowed to campaign in this kind of way (commissioning and releasing opinion polls – Stonewall do it for example), so long as it will further their charitable objects. I believe that the CI have got into trouble in the past because their charitable objects are something like to promote Christianity, and their political campaigning strayed too far from that.

  45. Gerard Swan 28 May 2012, 8:53pm

    This misinformed Catholic’s comment is in fact an excellent argument for the separation of civil and religious functions in marriage. Whilst the catholic church can annul the sacramental marriage, annulled couples still need civil divorce.


    More smoke form I’ll informed catholic. Or perhaps more smoke from a homophobe disguising their homophobia in religious lies. Something to add to his confessional list.

  46. If there is a problem with the laws then change the damn things…. they are not set in stone!!!

  47. Grasping at straws! What cr*p will they come up with next? No doubt equal marriage will be destroying the ozone layer, tripling the interest rate and turning the grass purple soon!

    And what IS this bl@@dy obsession they’ve got with gay sex?? Can they think of nothing else?

  48. I say that ridiculous “you can’t marry if you don’t have sex” law has got go go anyway, as it practically condones rape, or at least coerced/dubious consent (meaning that a partner/s might be pressured into sex they might not want for the sake of one reason or another, not on their own terms or for their own enjoyment as it should be). There are lots of people who are married and content without sex. I know an asexual couple in their thirties who haven’t ever done the dirty and they have been happily married for 7 years now. It’s more proof that the Catholics are more out of touch than ever with their now-archaic rules which frankly should have been left back in the 16th century. Everybody should be free to marry whoever they like no matter what they choose to do (or not do) in their own private homes, and that’s that.

  49. How can we have his appointment as an MP annulled? He clearly can’t tell the difference between Christian dogma and UK law. He is, without doubt, incompetent to act as an MP: in the 19 years he’s been in the House of Commons he has yet to understand its purpose.

    His intellect is certainly “partial and imperfect”.

  50. How desperate are they?? Who cares what they think? they are just making their sad demise all the more likely as they drift toward the fast approaching day when they realise just what a total irrelevance they have become .. through lack of tolerance.. for shame. Jesus would be appalled by many of those who claim him as their own.

  51. ” there is no logical reason why the new alternative institution should be limited to two people. Why not three? Or thirty-three?””
    Because extending marriage to same sex couples might mean they are really polygamous couples of three or thirty-three I suppose, it’s totally logical if you are Edward Leigh.

  52. This man seeks, it seems, intentionally to confuse the issue: a legal annulment is quite different from a religious annulment, with neither recognising the other.

  53. Is this man completely bonkers? Gay people won’t be able to marry in a Catholic church and so won’t want or need to ask the Pope for an annulment. And so won’t need to demonstrate non-consummation in order to get a catholic annulment. So why even raise this pointless line of thinking? Every time I look at this man’s picture I simply think of someone who it seems has ‘had a good lunch’.

  54. There is such hatred of LGBT people in British society, still. I fear it will continue long after we have acquired same-sex marriage, just as antisemitism continues to exist despite the law supporting every Jewish person as much as it does every non-Jewish person.

    I’m all for gay marriage, but what will we have to do next to keep chipping away at the homophobia that exists here in the UK?

  55. Why are these people so obsessed with sex? Surely marriage is about a great deal more than that? Love, trust, partnership, respect, tolerance, sharing – these all must be more fundamental?? Anyone can have sex – building a true marriage takes a lot more than that, and it has nothing to do with the gender of the people involved!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.