Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian anti-equal marriage MSP cautiously welcomes assurances from Scottish government

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. He’s a christian of course.

    I hope his mental illness (his religious belief) does not mean he votes against equality.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Sep 2012, 6:17pm

      I believe it will mean he’ll vote against it if his religious beliefs are paramount in this debate. After all, it’s not going to be a whipped vote.

  2. God makes me want to interfere in the private consensual sex life of others?

  3. Oh, please go away. This is an amendment to CIVIL marriage. Get it? Nobody is going to break down your church doors to force you to marry people who fully reciprocate your lack of regard.
    Your vast egotistical paranoia is getting very, very, tedious.

    1. I think that in Scotland it’s not just about civil same-sex marriage but religious same-sex marriage too for those religions who want it. But I agree with everything else you say!

      1. Thanks for the info. x R.

    2. Tim Hopkins 6 Sep 2012, 7:30pm

      Bennie is right – the Scottish Govt’s proposals are for same-sex marriage to be available in civil, humanist and religious (but only those religions that want to) ceremonies.

  4. Cardinal Capone 6 Sep 2012, 5:01pm

    Well I’m opposed to John Mason having a sexual relationship. Particularly if it carries the risk of reproduction. Can MSPs have a free vote on that too?

    1. perhaps he should visit a christian doctor and get himself sterilised.

  5. Keith Farrell 6 Sep 2012, 5:08pm

    What I don’t understand, if the presumption is that 10% of the population is gay, that means that in the UK some 6 Million people are expected to beg for the same rights as everyone else enjoys.
    It is time that people realize the numbers, If 6 Million are gay and we each have at least 4 accepting friends and one parent that really loves us, then we have the numbers in our favor, and lets be realistic we each know and are accepted by more than 5 straight people,so if the question was put “do you think everyone in the UK is entitled to equal rights” the answer would be a resounding “YES”

  6. While I think the SNP leadership is committed to introducing equal marriage in Scotland, I have concerns about Alex Neil replacing Nicola Sturgeon as Health Secretary. Wasn’t he rumoured to have threatened to resign his previous cabinet post 2 months ago over it? And now he’ll be the one handling it.

    1. Maybe, maybe he does support equal marriage? dont know rumors and rumors i guess, but i agree i dont feel 100% comfortable with Neil being health secretary either. But we need to hear what his views are first.

      1. You’re right that we don’t know his views, in fact all we do have to go on IS the rumour that he threatened to resign. I was actually surprised when his name was mentioned purely because I don’t know his views on same-sex marriage. If the rumour is true, then what might it mean for the legislation? One minister (Roseanna Cunningham) is said to have already refused to deal with it even though it was her responsibility – surely Alex Neil can’t do the same?

        1. Lets hope he does deal with the issue and push for marriage equality not act backwards like Cunningham :)

        2. Apparently Fergus Ewing, Roseanna Cunningham and Micheal Mathison oppose marriage equality due to religious grounds.

          Whats positively interesting though is that Fergus Ewing’s sister Annabelle Ewing supports marriage equality.

          1. It is interesting and proves that it’s not about religious belief when it comes down to it. I assume he and Annabelle had the same upbringing and were taught the same values & beliefs – yet one is pro equal marriage and one against. If she is also a catholic then it shows that it’s not really about religion but homophobia.

          2. And it’s disappointing that there are several members of the SG who oppose equal marriage. I assume they aren’t even going to vote for their own government’s legislation which is ludicrous. Whatever happened to collective cabinet responsibility? My own local MSP has just been made a junior minister too and she’s already backtracked from fully supporting marriage equality to being undecided “due to various issues raised” during the consultation.

          3. I think a lot of SG members will come round when they relise there freedom is not under threat. I just noticed if you look on the Equality Network website with the list of MSP’s stances, many of the undecideds, have notes on there column stating there stance.

            Interestingly Roseanna Cunningham states “As your MSP i intend to consider the analysis carefully and look forward to reading the governments response” that was in May 2012 i personally think she is staling

            But on a positive not i find that key ministers support marriage equality or have not officially stated there opinion yet a lot have choose to wait in under the consultation which has passed they have probably forgotten to right back declaring there stance. (its a pity it would be good to see how much support a marriage bill would get.)

  7. He is being as unreasonable as I would be if I said that because of my religion I am opposed to ginger people having sexual relationships.

    1. You’re spot on, Ray! I doubt if anyone at all would be shouting about religious freedom if religious beliefs were racist, yet when they’re homophobic it’s fine.

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Sep 2012, 5:41pm

    Why is it these idiots keep asking about freedom of speech and religion knowing full well equal civil marriage has no bearing on either? It doesn’t change anything but the lives of gay people everywhere in Scotland and the UK. Straights aren’t affected one iota by any of it. Marriage will continue to take place, religious or otherwise, the planet will continue turning. What more do they want?

    1. Tim Hopkins 6 Sep 2012, 7:35pm

      For clarity, the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill in Scotland will allow same-sex marriage in civil, humanist and religious ceremonies – that is, equality with all the ways mixed-sex marriages can be done. But only those religions that want to do them will do them. That arrangement seems to have wide support amongst the public and MSPs – people recognise I think that religious freedom means letting religious groups choose for themselves whether or not to do same-sex marriages, and neither banning them nor obliging them.

      You’re right of course that no-one else will be affected at all!

  9. There is no difference between a heterosexual or homosexual sex act.
    What’s he on about? Sex is sex full stop.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Sep 2012, 8:48pm

      There is in his distopian world. Penis in the vagina = procreation and even if it doesn’t where one is infertile, as long as it’s hetero sex, they don’t have any issue with it. Makes you wonder why people of his ilk are the only ones who obsess it so much as if that has any bearing on a civil marriage between two older beyond child-bearing heteros and a young same-sex couple.

  10. Tim Hopkins 6 Sep 2012, 7:46pm

    It’s the “and others” in his “Will the churches and others be allowed to opt out” that is the potential killer bit slipped in of course. It implies that people working as employers, businesses or public officials (for example civil marriage registrars employed by the council) should be able to turn away same-sex couples on grounds of their personal religious beliefs. That of course would be completely uacceptable.

    The existing Equality Act religious convictions exception applies to religious bodies like churches only, not to commercial or public bodies. If it did it would completely undermine the law – people could use a religious belief claim to opt out of any part of equality law.

    1. I do agree that it would be unnacceptable for people who work as civil registrars, for example, to be able to opt out of equality law due to their personal religious beliefs, but it does show up the absurdity of allowing religions an opt out – why is it acceptable for one person to opt out due to their religious beliefs but not another? The only difference is one is religious clergy and one isn’t. Over the last year or so I have become increasingly intolerant of so called religious freedom when it comes to gay equality – and it’s all due to religious opposition to equal marriage and the fact that the SG is only going ahead with it once religions get extra opt outs first. Equality should have no opt outs for anyone – race equality doesn’t, so why should gay equality have opt outs?

  11. GingerlyColors 7 Sep 2012, 7:32am

    You got to be tolerant of other peoples’ views and lifestyles, even if you don’t agree with them yourself.

    1. But it’s becoming more & more difficult to be tolerant of religions who hate us, who want to deny us equality and who then get an opt out from that equality. They are the only group of people who do get an opt out on equality laws. I can’t respect or even tolerate that any longer. Religious privilege must come to an end.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all