Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Rupert Everett: Why do ‘queens’ want to go and get married in churches?

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I think that this man just needs to shut the f*** up now. What a complete and utter fool he is now making of himself.

    1. Does he not know that *civil* weddings are being sought? Is he so badly informed?

      1. He is too busy wallowing in his own self loathing to seek out any real facts!

      2. Depends which part of the country you are referring to. In Scotland, both civil and religious marriage is being introduced.

    2. Got a book coming out – needs to get his mug in the papers

  2. He’s becoming a parody of a bit old queen.. nothing he says is shocking, it’s quite pathetic really.

  3. Samuel B. 2 Oct 2012, 1:48pm

    “Another substantial rant”?

    I thought the role of PN was to report the news objectively and let its readers make subjective and snide comments.

    Or is PN now aping the editorial style of The Daily Mail?

    Rupert is spot on regarding the hypocrisy of the equal marriage rights lobby damning religion whilst lobbying for an institution that is bound up in religious symbolism.

    He will no doubt receive more death threats for speaking his mind, but that is the price these day for exercising freedom of thought and expression, it seems.

    George Orwell would be turning in his grave…

    1. Midnighter 2 Oct 2012, 2:18pm

      Criticism of religion is not a concept invented by proponents of equal marriage, and religions are more than used to ‘defending the faith’ by any means necessary. I hardly think there is a case to feel sorry when these bigots are exposed.

      It has been well reported in PN that many religious groups and individuals are quite happy to reconcile their religion with equal marriage, so making generalisations about religion is as silly as you making generalisations about “the equal marriage rights lobby”.

      Those groups who claim they are being oppressed are simply incapable of facing the reality of being disagreed with. They are as convincing and disingenuous as Dennis in Monty Python’s The Holy Grail : “Help! Help! I’m being represssed!”

      1. Spanner1960 2 Oct 2012, 7:05pm

        One could also say too many people make generalisations about LGBT people. I don’t believe in a lot of what of Everett says, but I defend his right to say it. Don’t assume all gay people are pro-marriage, and those that are not are not ‘self-loathing’ whatever the hell that means.

        1. ‘Self-loathing’ isn’t really that hard a term to work out for yourself, is it?

          1. Spanner1960 3 Oct 2012, 3:08pm

            Do you seriously know anybody that doesn’t like themselves?

            The term is a complete anachronistic epithet used by idiots that want to make people look sad just because they don’t happen to follow other people’s ways of thinking.

          2. Clearly you only know people whose impulses and values and attitudes are obvious and straightforward. Luckily for me most people I know are rather more interesting.

    2. But not all marriages are “bound up in religious symbolism”. Marriage is a social and cultural institution that massively predates religion. None of the weddings I have ever been to was even remotely infected by religious nonsense.

      And there is no hypocrisy. We are simply trying to assert the primacy of equality over the prejudices of the bigots – virtually all of whom happen to be religious. Religious people who do not oppose equal marriage come under no fire from the equal marriage lobby, obviously, but the fact remains that the ONLY people who vehemently oppose equality do so under the banner of religious bigotry. If others opposed marriage equality we would come down on them like a tonne of bricks too, but they simply don’t. Religious bigotry is the problem, and one simply cannot address the burning need for equality without overturning that.

    3. PN is the gay mail.Abu Hamza story with a tenuous like to a LGBT story. No blacks no arabs no left wing comments.

      It’s like VAnessa Feltz is the editor.

  4. What a breath of fresh air to hear someone speaking their own mind and not buying into the deceit that all queer people have to think and speak alike.

    He poses a valid question – why should we want to “marry” and why should we want to do it in traditionally homophobic institutions?

    Personally I think we should have the right to do so if we want to. But why should we want to?

    All queer and straight relationships should be regarded with equal respect and value whether registered, blessed or not.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Oct 2012, 2:09pm

      Why would a straight couple want to marry then? You forget, there are several denominations who want to celebrate our unions (marriages), why shouldn’t they have that right in the name of religious freedom? Some gay people are religious, people of faith, why would you want to deny them that right just because you don’t believe in it? I”m an atheist but totally support religious denominations who want to participate and those who don’t as well as those who desire a religious component. It’s called freedom, democracy and equality whether one disagrees with it or not. If those denominations in opposition would understand that, the better off everyone would be. It doesn’t infringe on any one’s right to worship or believe what they want. Their objection goes against religious freedom. Nobody is forcing any religion to recognise or participate, end of. Something that the dimwit Everett just doesn’t get. What he’s doing is playing into the hands of the bigots thereby enabling them.

      1. Ditto and ditto. ONE of these days I am sure to disagree with Robert in S Ken and his sound common sense, but it may be a long wait!

        1. Spanner1960 2 Oct 2012, 7:07pm

          Oh, I don’t know. In general his comments are sensible, but I have seen occasions where he has spouted utter crap, and been knocked down for it.

      2. He does have a point that many of us are overlooking – have we devolved from liberation to assimilation (and not just integration)? He spoke specifically about church/religious-weddings. Course, the laws int he US and the UK are different, so reasoning may differ. Is it faith-based marriages we should be seeking or simply comparable secular marriage/unions that we need?

        As long as there are state-sanctioned or provided benefits to being married, we should all have access to them. At the same time, at least here in the US, we shouldn’t have to depend on a marriage or spouse to have access to health care.

    2. There is no reason why we should want to “marry” anymore than there is a particular reason for heterosexuals to want to marry, but at the risk of stating the obvious how about having the choice?

    3. I agree with your last point, but you have to realise Everett is backpedalling here from what he said before. In that Telegraph interview earlier last month, he said about his mother “She thinks children need a father and a mother and I agree with her … I can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads,”

      That’s a very conservative point of view. Not a dig at the establishment. I’m not so fond of assimilating gays into marriage, nuclear families or Britain’s state religion either, but make no mistake, Everett was looking for this sort of reaction and I think he secretly enjoys it.

  5. Katie Kool-eyes 2 Oct 2012, 1:52pm

    oooooo idk, maybe, just maybe, some people are gay and hold religeous beliefs.

    just a thought……!

    1. Samuel B. 2 Oct 2012, 2:09pm

      Undoubtedly so, but the irony is that it’s a mostly God-less lot who are shrilling the loudest for it!!

      1. But I think it’s fair to say the Godless lot are shrilling, trilling, and willing to speak out for civil marriage. At least this Godless one is – religious marriage is none of my concern.

      2. Samuel B. 2 Oct 2012, 2:29pm

        …which rather begs the question:-

        Are they – gay activists, politicians, etc – on this bulldozer due to a sincere desire to see gay people wed in churches and so on?

        Or is the real agenda to rub the Christian Church’s nose in it and and continue gnawing away at its foundations as is the documented agenda of the Marxist left?

        Politics and religion are the two greatest forces of influential power that exist in the world.

        Bring down one and the other takes all.

        Amid all the hysteria and clamour for equal marriage, we fail to see how we are being used by those who care not a fig about our rights but are in it solely to demoralise the religious institutions in order to make a power grab.

        They’ve done this in other ways too:- the sexualisation of kids, the sleazification of the media, the pornification of the Internet… all the while eroding the influence of faith-based religion.

        And without faith in something we become dehumanised and easier to control.

        1. theotherone 2 Oct 2012, 2:39pm

          oh go away god botherer.

          so wanting equality means we’re unknowing players in a satanic conspiracy?

          j-e-s-u-s!

        2. Samuel B. 2 Oct 2012, 3:04pm

          …That’s not for one minute to suggest you need religion to have faith, not at all.

          But without a faith system of some kind, be it a spiritual faith or one based upon self-belief, humans would be disconnected from each other on an emotional level and a hyper-competitive/survival of the fittest would prevail.

          For all the crimes committed by the Church, it still binds millions together by a faith based on compassion and inclusion:- and it is a fact that most Christians are accepting of all, it’s just the power structure at the top that remains stubborn in the area of gay rights.

          I have no doubt that equal marriage is a natural progression of an enlightened society and will occue naturally when society has evolved to such a point of acceptance.

          But we must question the motives of our political parties, or rather their string pullers who are urgently pushing through equal marriage globally when only 20 years ago they were mandating our oppression.

          What’s really changed in that time?

          1. This is palpable nonsense of the highest order. “Faith” is the absolute enemy of moral progress, because it means believing in things without evidence. Moral progress and an enlightened society are dependent on rational inquiry, and understanding of the world around us well enough to realise what we need. Human beings have an inbuilt drive towards social living, cooperation, kindness and compassion. All social primates do – it’s how we came to be so successful as species. This “it’ll all degenerate into survival of the fittest” crap is demonstrably not the case.

            Churches spread nonsense, lies and a false view of the world. They parasitise existing compassion and take credit for it, they do not generate or encourage it. They have no place in a modern society, save as powerless hobby groups on par with scrabble clubs or sports teams – which also exemplify the human cooperative spirit and our natural desire to work together.

        3. Cardinal Capone 2 Oct 2012, 3:11pm

          No, it’s not some international conspiracy, dear. Take some Valium.

          1. Samuel B. 2 Oct 2012, 4:20pm

            I am not saying it is, your Holiness, but when successive governments have been doing their damnedest to undermine religion and the, ahem, “traditional” family unit in recent years, unless you are fully blinkered it does raise questions as to why politicians should be so supportive of our rights when, only 20 years ago, they were voting in Section 28.

            This is not conspiracy theory:- it is critical thinking based on fact, and there is, after all, an agenda of sorts behind all government policy, be it benign or malevolent.

            We just need to be assured that the agenda thrusting through equal marriage rights is entirely to do with the support of gay people and not the undermIning of the Church:- which is just about the only public institution not yet damaged beyond recognition and being offered to the highest bidder…

          2. No Sam, you sound just like a raving conspiracy nut – blaming everything on some sinister decades-long “agenda”. You sound just like the “gay agenda” bigots whose purulent witterings are spread across the pages of Pink News for our perusal and disgust.

            You might have noticed that the last twenty years have seen significant advances in societal acceptance of LGBT people, which might just explain why we don’t have things like Section 28 any more…

            No thanks to the church, of course, which has opposed equality every step of the way. In its capacity as a self-interest group dedicated to the promulgation of demonstrably false antique nonsense and other moral evils. The sooner all religious power is eradicated from our society the happier everyone will be.

          3. Samuel B. 2 Oct 2012, 6:32pm

            I prefer the term “critical thinker”, VP, something you are clearly not as you shoot from the hip and react to all and sundry before considering the bigger picture.

            Isn’t that the very definition of ignorance?

            Singalong now everybody:- “When fools rush in…”

          4. Midnighter 2 Oct 2012, 7:11pm

            Sam, you seem to be advocating only the less substantiated and more paranoid theories. As a self-proclaimed critical thinker, a balanced view is needed, so you must have considered that one explanation for the change in political wind is that it is driven by a change in the sentiment of the voter. It seems more probable this is routine political sail-trimming rather than some Marxist conspiracy against the Church. What are your reasons for concluding otherwise?

            As an observation you colour equal marriage proponents with “hysteria and clamour” while at the same time making posts that some might consider suffer from the same flaws : your arguments might seem more credible if you toned down the rhetoric and substantiated your views as proposed above.

          5. Samuel B. 2 Oct 2012, 7:47pm

            Midnighter:-

            “you must have considered that one explanation for the change in political wind is that it is driven by a change in the sentiment of the voter…”

            Absolutely, but I also consider the prevailing environment over that time that has driven forward greater social acceptance.

            If you seriously believe humanity suddenly decided to be accepting of us without any conditioning whatsoever, then you ignore the intrinsic role the media, popular culture and the over-intrusion of PC in our lives played over the same period, and those factors whichever way you look at it are agenda-driven.

            The media is to be applauded for portraying positive gay role models, but it also sends out subliminal signals to girls to cop off with one another via pop songs and snogging stunts (i.e. Madge and Britney) to encourage lesbianism.

            Why?

          6. Midnighter 2 Oct 2012, 8:04pm

            I don’t see ‘sudden acceptance’. We are far from full acceptance and this is something that has waxed and waned over thousands of years. It seems highly improbable to me that a cloaked figure with a gay friendly agenda is driving human history by influencing media. The media has been heavily criticised by some for failing the gay community, while you credit it with the opposite. I think the balance of programming is still not representative of the population myself.

            And why substantiate your claims ? Because it might make for a more productive and interesting discussion, and currently you haven’t convinced me why I should discount the proponents of equal marriage for being puppets of a Marxist conspiracy as you appear to suggest.

          7. “The media is to be applauded for portraying positive gay role models, but it also sends out subliminal signals to girls to cop off with one another via pop songs and snogging stunts (i.e. Madge and Britney) to encourage lesbianism.
            Why?”

            Two separate, unconnected things, in my opinion. If I had a £ for every time some lech of a straight guy has made disgusting suggestions to me and my girlfriend when we’re just going about our normal day, I’d be very rich. Some straight men seem to think they own women’s sexuality and that lesbians exist solely for the titillation of straight men. Sickening.

            So, anything with a hint of lesbianism is seen as a) unthreatening (because it’s not men) and b) ‘sexy’ – but only to straight men, of course.

          8. The thing about critical thinking, my dear Sam, is that it involves a careful assessment of the evidence, formulation of hypotheses, testing of these hypotheses against the evidence and a strenuous attempt to avoid jumping to unfounded conclusions at the behest of your prejudices and emotions.

            Your kind of risible conspiracy-theory nuttiness is what results when one does not do that. It is the very definition of half-baked speculation beyond what the evidence can support – riddled with personal prejudice, paranoia, false pattern recognition, conflation of unrelated factors and misattributions of intent. If you’re a critical thinker then so are Stephen Green and Jerry Falwell.

            If you wish to cite evidence and give reasoned arguments for the validity your strange propositions then feel free. But until you do your boast remains entirely unsubstantiated.

          9. @VP
            I couldn’t agree more about your observations regarding Samuel B – so very true! Samuel does not “do” evidence or reasoned argument, preferring to resort to what he often calls “common sense gut reaction, or out of the box thinking”. Seems to me he lives in some fantasy land bubble & is not in touch with real people / world.

            I am pleased that a commentator has so eloquently highlighted the obvious shortcomings in the majority of arguments he puts forward; perhaps he will now realise that debate is very much enriched if one is able to put forward a credible argument that is not based on his personal prejudices & ad – hominem attacks!

            The frustrating thing is that he often hijacks important debates which descend into farce – I am really pleased he has met his match on this particular comments thread!

        4. Why is seeking equality, not special treatment an attempt to undermine society?. You could have said exactly the same thing about every social advance that has taken place through the ages. You could have said the same about Magna Carta. Most LGBT just want the same rights that, for example, a serial adulterous divorcee would have. Is that too radical?

        5. And, actually, yes, I think the most important reason to force churches to marry everyone, irrespective of gender, is to grind over the last vestiges of political power they have in our society. Religion is the font and fountainhead of homophobic bigotry, misogyny, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual thinking. Married to temporal power it has always resulted in oppression and harm.

          I would far rather a secular, democratically elected and accountable government was in charge of our society than self-appointed hierarchs and delusionals dedicated to the fiction of a magic sky-tyrant and the feathering of their own nests. Particularly ones whose only major public pronouncements are in fervent support of outdated homophobic bigotry or attempts to protect and defend child rapists from justice.

      3. Spanner1960 2 Oct 2012, 8:37pm

        You still don’t see it do you?
        It’s not about what you or I want, it’s what you or I are not allowed to have.

        I have no interest whatsoever in religious weddings, but if churches offer them to us, why should the government deny us this? It is simple discrimination and I will fight it purely on principle.

        1. I understand why some gay people might want civil partnerships and I understand why this sort of arrangement should be legally bumped up to “Marriaqge” in the interests of equality or better said minority protection . However I agree with Rupert Everet completely ! I really cannot see why gay people should want to emmulate their hetro cousins and their ghastly institutions ! Marriage or partnership is for people who have children . Whereas the natural duration of a gay relationship is about 2 or 3 years . I’m personally quite happy with that and its accompanying level of passionate love . Marriage leaves me quite cold !

          1. I think Samuel B. is right ! This motion is been pushed largely by straight people with a different agenda to Gay people and one which is fundementally atheist .

          2. Marriage or partnership is for people who have children . Whereas the natural duration of a gay relationship is about 2 or 3 years

            You mean a non-procreative relationship (regardless of sexuality), I think.

            However, I know 2 dozen male couples who’ve been together more than 10 years, 8 of them for over 25. So I shouldn’t be too quick to speak of averages, really.

  6. Ah, its that self-loathing gay man talking rubbish again. We don’t all want to get married in a church, we want inequality to end. And the hate filled bigots to he put in their place!

    Failing that, having his mouth permanently sewn shut would be excellent!

  7. Anything to get a bit of attention these days methinks.
    He’s a queen who doesn’t value marriage, fair enough but others do and while we are at this stage trying to gain equal marriage rights he could just back off and shut his gob for a bit longer.
    So don’t get married Rupert, presently you are helping the bigots block marriage equality for the rest of us who might want that option at some stage .

    1. Paula Harris 17 Feb 2013, 6:42pm

      To call everyone who disagrees with you a bigot proves that you are a bigot.

  8. I have some sympathy for his point of view, personally I find the way weddings have become costumed rituals of the utmost shallowness deeply disturbing. But there’s a lot of negative language there – ‘queens’, ‘slut’ – and I do really think it might be time to strategically shut up now, Roops.

    1. Spanner1960 3 Oct 2012, 3:12pm

      Well
      a) who hasn’t been called a queen, or called themselves that at least once? It’s hardly a malicious term, particularly coming from another gay man.

      b) Given half the chance, most gay men are sluts.

      1. a) ‘Hardly a malicious term’ – what planet are you on?

        b) I can’t say, because I don’t know most gay men but, out of interest, do you refer to heterosexual sexually-[over]active men as ‘sluts’ too?

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Oct 2012, 2:14pm

    Everett isn’t too bright. He shoots his mouth off before thinking about the consequences of his words.

    It’s just the sort of thing that the Daily Hate Mail and Telegraph suck up. He’s an idiot.

    I’ve nothing against people being against equal marriage, they’re entitled to their beliefs, but don’t go throwing bombs at the equal marriage debate just because it’s not for him. He’s irresponsible and doesn’t know what he’s talking about and neither do the rest of the fools in opposition and their similarly spurious, absurd statements founded in bigotry and fear, none of which have any credence or proof.

    1. Hr hasn’t thrown any “bombs” into anything; your hyperbole is shrill & risible. He has simply said, in his own form if language, where he stands.

      This whole reaction to Everett has gone no small way to confirming my feeling that too many of my fellow homosexuals have become hunourless prigs.

      1. I agree ! I’m all for civil rights for “sluts” . . . .I could care less about “life long caring couples” . . . the whole thing stinks of hypocrasy ! Lets remember who we are !

  10. Spiritbody 2 Oct 2012, 2:18pm

    Why is this guy suddenly coming out with such unhelpful tripe?

    Why do some gay people want to get married in a church?

    Erm . . because maybe they are Christian?

    1. Book coming out

  11. Christopher 2 Oct 2012, 2:25pm

    Hello – gays want to marry in churches for the fabulous architecture!

    1. Spanner1960 2 Oct 2012, 8:33pm

      Well it sure as hell ain’t for the music.

      1. That rather depends on taste, don’t you think? For myself I’d rather listen to Handel’s wedding anthem Sing unto God than Kylie any day.

        1. Spanner1960 3 Oct 2012, 3:14pm

          I was referring more to the dreary, dusty old hymns that I was forced to endure every Sunday for years.

          1. Yes, well admittedly they can be tedious in the extreme, though more so nowadays because so many people are embarrassed about singing out loud. (Many years ago I used to sing in a rather good cathedral choir so I come to it from a different angle.)

  12. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he? Bless.

    1. Nor the brightest crayon in the box unfortunately!
      I’d say he’s much better off when he has a script to recite …like most actors.

  13. That Matt 2 Oct 2012, 2:28pm

    The important thing is having the choice to reject the church, rather than having the church literally barricade us out. That’s an important symbol if nothing else. Choosing matters, and if one couple want to embrace their love in this way, it’s enough.

  14. oh god someone put this old queen out his misery. Dear you have such bitter twisted views due to your generation. Now go away quietly and stop writing. Be graceful in your old age.

    1. I’m sorry, but I’m the same age as Rupert, and I have NEVER held the self-loathing, self-destructive, attitudes he does.

      But then, I never sold my body as a common street hustler either.

  15. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Mr Everett holding his own opinions on matters such as Christian marriage (actually we’re mostly talking, of course, about civil marriage, but I’ll let that go for the moment) or LGBT adoption.

    But…

    There’s a danger that some parts of society and/or the media will take a high(ish) profile gay man’s opinions as being those of the majority of lesbians and gays.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Oct 2012, 5:20pm

      The Christian insitute and it’s C4M hate group do exactly that, exploit the few gay voices not in support of full equality. It’s fodder for the Daily Hate Mail and Telegraph. Everett should know better but he’s not too bright in my view. He shoots first, maybe “thinks” later before realising that words have consequences that often result in a backlash, not that I condone killing someone for their beliefs or opinions. Amazing that he feels so surprised at all the negativity he’s getting, all self-imposed by his irresponsible choice of words.

  16. What a pathetic self-loathing and fundamentally a–hole. He obviously loves the attention he is getting. We are just feeding the troll, but his narcissism makes it difficult not to respond.

    As for the alleged “death threats.” Bloody unlikely. More dramatization.

  17. Oh My God!!!!!! STOP DIGGING!!!! You already made a show of yourself with the last crap you spouted. Is there really any need to revisit it!!!!! Be a Dear and go home and make yourself a wee cup of tea and never speak again……….

  18. Sorry am I the only one who is thinking what is he on about or come to that many of the responses to Mr Everetts views.
    The argument at present is not about access to churches to have same sex marriage but about the title of marriage. Civil partnerships are promoted by too many as a lesser recognition of commitment between two people when that commitment can be just as strong and significant as any hetrosexual union.
    The argument about not affording that title is not about church and religion but about granting equal status and recognition of commitment. I respect commitment may not be everyone’s cup of tea but for those of us who want it why should be be denied it?

  19. Every family has an embarrassing maiden aunt with a chequered past and an ability to turn up to family occasions and say all the wrong things. This is clearly ours! Do we need to take him all that seriously?

  20. Poor dear Rupert. He really has made such a little talent go such a very long way.

  21. good old rupert, I like that he stands against what is percieved to be the ‘right’ thing to say. I also think he has a couple of valid points! All the hetro’s I have known who have got married over the past years have ALL divorced!

    1. Ah, but they were considered worthy enough to have had the choice in the first place.

      1. PS. Unlike you Pipkins if you are gay/bi.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Oct 2012, 5:16pm

      It matters not how many straight people divorce. That isn’t the point. Not all CPs last, so there is no difference. The fact of the matter is, everyone should have the right to marry the person they love in a civil or religious ceremony. Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean I have to be against someone wanting a religious service, live and let live and treat others as you wish to be treated, fairly and equally, irrespective of their beliefs or views. That is what an equal society is all about, democracy for all.

    3. I’m racing towards 50. Of all the weddings I attended in my 20s and 30s I believe that only two have ended in divorce, all the others continue, to the best of my knowledge, happily.

      There’s no reason that a relationship (straight or gay) shouldn’t be long lasting if it’s based on mutual love and respect.

      1. Honestly I’m not so sure ! ? I suspect that Gay past 50 natureally morphs into “Single” . And its a process with which I’m quite happy ! Fundementally we are not the same as hetro people and our life stories demonstrate that . Its the hetros that as far as I can see endlessly drag out their sexuality when most gays would have understood that the candle just isn’t worth the wick any more or more simply there simply isn’t any candle or wick available !

  22. Heartfelt request to PN – could we have a holiday from reporting the inconsequential drivel this fool comes out with?

  23. Tom Cotner 2 Oct 2012, 3:41pm

    I have always been a fan of Rupert – I think he is a marvelous actor, as well as a very handsome man. I think he, along with the rest of us, is entitled to his opinions, and that they (the opinions) should be regarded as such. The onslaught of criticism by apparently very bitchy people should be taken also, as their own opinions. None of us should get our knickers twisted by any of the opinions.

    I shall always admire Rupert and his work. I also happen to agree with most of his opinions. My only regret is that his work has been so limited by his coming out as gay. We all have that problem in our lives, and either must or should live our lives accordingly. I grew up in a very bigoted part of the world, which remains, to this day, extremely bigoted. At 76, I still can not be completely open. Perhaps this is why I defend him so much — I’ve lived it myself.

    Keep up the good work, Rupert — you have fans here in backwoods Oklahoma — or at least one great fan!!!

    1. He’s an incredible actor….incredibly awful…! A self-hating little jerk who (he says it himself) shagged his way into the limelight! You don’t need talent for that – just a receptive hole!

  24. Let’s not forget the important thing here – Rupert can’t act to save himself.

    How else is he going to get noticed if not for his lack of movie roles?

    1. He does films too? I thought he was just famous for ill-considered witterings like this one…

  25. Poor Rupert Everett, he sounds so depressed and self loathing. To still be stuck under your Mother’s thumb in your 50s. Very sad indeed.

  26. Is there ANYONE, apart from Rupert Everett, who actually cares what his opinion might be??????????

  27. ‘More medication for Mr Everette please Nursey’. Its like something out of Monty Python!

  28. Finally Rupert people are listening to you.
    You poor poor thing. How much is the book ?

  29. Ian Scott 2 Oct 2012, 4:09pm

    It is not that many of really want to get married in church. The point is that we are currently not allowed to. The whole issue is about being treated equally.

  30. “I don’t want to get married in church so it doesn’t matter if anyone else does, and if they do they’re weird anyway.”

    1. Paddyswurds 2 Oct 2012, 5:06pm

      Hear, Hear!!

  31. The alleged death threats! Ah, I get it….with any luck some nice big, butch men in uniforms might rush around to RE’s bijou des. res. to protect him from evil. BUT….beware of dark spaces and windows that are slightly ajar….unblocked fire-places! The FAIRIES are coming to get you!!!!!!!

    1. My lover and I are getting married next month after having lived together since 2001….a long enough probationary period I would have thought. And where are we getting married? In the Anglican Cathedral? In a nice little Synagogue? In the “Chapel of Love” in the Valley of Happiness? NAH! In Mr Foong’s Asian Delicatessen at the foot of the hill where he serves the most delicious Asian Fusion food. Oh, but we’re in sleepy South Africa and our written Constitution allows to marry anywhere we like!

  32. He is from a different age, I can appreciate some of it, but what is happening nowadays is for the benefit of future generations. He’s had his time. Like a lot of us.

  33. Paddyswurds 2 Oct 2012, 4:31pm

    This dude is clearly an idiot. Where did he get the idea that anyone with even half a brain cell would ever want to get married under the bigoted and homophobic auspices of any religion. He needs to just STFU and go back to his ham acting…

  34. Unfortunately, Everett has become a sel-seeking publicity merchant; he’s just like a child needing all the attention and more besides.
    Due to his being in the public eye, whether the public want him there or not, means that the gay world is judged by ridiculous, camp nellies such as he.
    i feel that D Mc Cabe (number 1) summed up what I feel!

  35. So full of hate for eveyone else and such self loathing. Absolutely tragic.

  36. Jesus i can’t believe the comments against this man…re.his quote about marriage and churches, i couldn’t have said it better myself! Hahahaaa

  37. Every time I see Rupert Everett he makes me feel nauseous.

    He strikes me as being a bit of a mummy’s boy. He’s already told us that his own mother ‘disapproves’ of homosexuality. Why doesn’t he man up and tell his mother that she’s wrong? Instead of adopting her homophobic sentiments and spewing it out to the nation?

  38. Kerry Hollowell 2 Oct 2012, 5:13pm

    He has a book out and is struggling to get on chat shows to push it. Therefore he resorts to the “any publicity is good publicity” method.

    1. SPOT ON Kerry! Thats what this is REALLY all about. Selling a book!

  39. That’s why ur single Rupert,,,,,

    1. maybe his views on relationships are different to yours as well.

      just a thought.

      go rupe.

      quick!

      another bloody dissenter!

      mark me down!

      1. its a publicity stunt….for him….don’t need to minus there’s
        loads on here already ….so says its all….

    2. What exactly is wrong with being single?

  40. Jim Nashville Tn 2 Oct 2012, 5:44pm

    bitter table for one bitter table for one
    lordy .. I guess he does have us talking or at least posting ….. the heteros will turn on him too .. and he will be a bitter old “queen” .. I do hope he is holding on to his money . because he cant bite the hand that feeds him . and it looks like he is doing a damn fine job of that . … I feel that we should be able to parent and get married if we want too ..
    but I dont but its not for me and I am not going to rant and rave about it to sell a book . and not to worry this bio will not be on my fall/winter reading list

  41. the only thing he is interested in is headlines and promoting his new book.

  42. Seems like everyone is constantly receiving death threats nowadays. It’s like a catch-all argument used by anyone wanting to discredit all of their opponents based on the online ranting of a couple of nutters.

    1. Spanner1960 2 Oct 2012, 7:03pm

      I could kill you for saying that… ;)

  43. Alex McKenna 2 Oct 2012, 6:44pm

    Better to burn down a church than get married in one, surely? They are the enemy you know..
    Alex Mckenna, sad old mother of Gay Times/Zipper?Him,etc etc

  44. Scott Amundsen 2 Oct 2012, 6:47pm

    Wow. Just wow. Talk about your stereotypical Bitter Old Queen. And he’s only four years older than I am.

    FYI Mr Everett, whether you approve of my marriage or not (and I could not possibly care less if you do), you should know that I have been married twice; the first time for fifteen years and my present marriage will reach its tenth anniversary on 21 December of this year. True, it’s only been legal in the State of New York for just over a year, and we made it legal last year, but as far as we are concerned we’ve been married ten years no matter what the legal document says.

    As for HIV/AIDS, I’ve had the virus since 1989 and got a diagnosis of full-blown AIDS in 1994. I take a lot of medication, my health could be better than it is, but my life is in no danger.

    No one has said that all LGBTs should want to get married. No one has said that all LGBTs should have children. The only thing that’s been said is that these rights should be OPEN to all LGBTs.

  45. Spanner1960 2 Oct 2012, 7:02pm

    I do see his viewpoint to some degree, but he really isn’t doing himself any favours coming out with stuff like this.

  46. Take a little advice Everett…Shut up…pleeeaaassee!!!

    Love how he labels everyone as ‘queens’!!! We’re not all gay men…some of us are gay women or lesbian, what ever you prefer! And not ALL gay men see themselves as ‘queens’ I am sure!!

    Yes I think now is the time to shut up sir! I’m Pagan and have no desire to marry in a church. But what others wish to do is frankly none of my business and definitely isn’t yours!!!

  47. The gay right want us to be respectable. While the rest of the world shuns marriage and religion the reactionary queens dive head first into these anachronisms.

    1. not everyone is right-wing who is religious or gay
      Rupert is an idiot though
      not every guy thinks of himself as a queen either

    2. Few are diving in, it’s really a matter of having the same choices that a serial adulterous divorcee or a serial killer might have. Nothing more than that.

      1. Nice comparison. My point is CP could have been the modern alternative setting the trend. But the gay right who seem to be setting the agenda want to conform and fit in.

        Dreadful people chasing an organisation that does not want them, just like the tory party

        1. Spanner1960 3 Oct 2012, 3:18pm

          It’s not about conformity, it is about equality.
          If straights were allowed to eat sh|t sandwiches, then gays should be allowed to as well. That’s not to say anyone would want to, but it is simply about having a level playing field.

  48. Paul in Brighton 2 Oct 2012, 7:56pm

    I think he asks a reasonable question, although, I think he asks it badly.

    For example, why do ‘queens’ as he puts it want to get married in churches?

    Fairly valid question in my book. Let’s not forget that even if the mainstream churches, eg, Anglican and Catholic allowed gay men to marry in their churches, they still teach that same-sex sex is a sin. In fact, anything sexual that doesn’t go towards creating children is sinful, so in many ways I see his point.

    I don’t agree with how and where he makes it, but I’d like to know why any gay man would want to get married and have a celebate relationship?

    In my view, most Church teaching is particularly damaging to the health and well-being of LGBT men.

    Why do some seek it these places out and demand to be part of something that sees them as sinners?

    1. commentator 26 Apr 2013, 11:54pm

      Exactly! Everyone is missing the point. He’s not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to get married; merely asking why the urgent desire to given the hostile and oppressive nature of the church institution ?

  49. I totally agree: Why the hell do gay couples feel the need of acceptence by a church who hates them. To me it seems to be a kind of self-destructive maschoismn.

  50. Andrew Smith 2 Oct 2012, 8:19pm

    Of course it’s all very interesting to hear what other people think about stuff, celebrities as well, but just remember that Mr Everett is speaking on behalf of no one but himself. Personally I cannot help myself from jumping up and down with joy because I married my husband in a civil ceremony on Connecticut three and a glad years ago. We would have got married in church if we could have. Now we are just waiting for society in these islands to catch up.

  51. Craig Young 2 Oct 2012, 8:23pm

    Could someone please take him away somewhere and gag him, the sooner the better?

  52. Pavlos Prince of Greece 2 Oct 2012, 9:21pm

    Is his secret fantasy to be separated from all other gay men – and in this way from his own homosexuality too? Its too late, Rupert. Its 53 years too late.

  53. I agree with him totally. why, when nature has given the “gift” of being gay do you want to mimic mesmerized heterosexual breeders? There are too many people in the world already, why, when you have been “let off” producing any, do it ,,except for your own vanity? There are enough beings needing care and support all ready. Why involve yourself with the organizations that have historically sought to damage and even destroy you to appear to be like heterosexuals? I’m a Queer who lives with my man in an equal civil partnership. In my mind this is 10,000 times superior to any weirdy spookyness done in churches.I don’t want equality with something inferior! Queers of both sexes should “Man up” and stop trying to pass as fake straights! We can make our own better institutions.If you feel can’t manage that why not find someone of the opposite sex and try to “pass”, you’ll soon regret it! Those making fools of themselves are those who want what Heteros have been conned into.

    1. Personally I find your apparent contempt for heterosexuals no less sad and disturbing than the dislike that straight homophobes feel for gay people.

      Since I’ve been partnered with another man for more than 25 years it would be a weird person who thought I was pretending to be straight.

      People should follow the path in life and the types of relationships that they believe work best for them and for society.

      If you want to argue for civil partnerships – then fine, but if they continue to exist they should be open to gay and straight alike. I prefer civil marriage, from which religion is excluded, but if people have religious beliefs then they should be entitled to express those in their relationships.

      For me what matters is whether people share my values. Being gay or straight is irrelevant, and I have far more in common with straight people who share my views than with gay people who don’t.

    2. Bill thank God (scuse the expression) there’s another on here who views thi incident with both the humour and the logic it deserves..well said

    3. Why do you assume that the institutions of our society are automatically and by default for straight people alone? We, too, are members of society. We contribute to it and look after it and participate in it just like straight people do. We deserve equality, and participation on equal terms. We deserve access to all the same institutions everyone else can access.

      Being gay doesn’t make us special or superior or even much different from the rest of society. It’s a tiny and negligible difference in itself, with no bearing on our ability and right to participate. We do not need to “mimic” heterosexual people – we’re virtually identical in the first place. We just want society to recognise us as such.

      If you, as an individual, want to be iconoclastic and outrageous and unusual, then fine, go for it. But that’s you talking for you, not for everyone who happens to share your sexual orientation.

      1. And, ironically, your position is a self-defeating one. You seem to take an overweening pride in going your own way, taking a different path, living outside the norm and making your own choices. Yet you would deny others the right to choose whether they want to conform to the very social conventions you take pride in shunning. You would have everyone conform to your way of doing things as a matter of course. You would make dissent compulsory.

        Because clearly the most authentic, meaningful and powerful expression of personal idiosyncrasy is one you are compelled to make, when you don’t have any other option, eh?

  54. God, he is even more stupid than I thought, right to marry is about equality and not need, cps already deal with legal status of ss relationships. religious marriage is a personal matter but then again you wouldn’t expect ‘former’ slut to understand that

    1. But the “sluts” of his generation had few, if any, options, even when they were in a permanent relationship it was usually just referred to as ‘an affair’.

      1. I am his generation Doug, and it hasn’t been the case, Doug. Yoi’re a good 10-20 years out. I’m not letting him off with that.

  55. I personally want to get married in a church due to the fact that I want my wedding to be a beautiful event and I’d like the traditional feeling of being married.
    Rupert is really not being shocking at all. He sounds really pathetic and self-loathing.
    He needs to take a chill pill and go away.

    1. But Tammy, do you think having a ceremony in a church automatically makes it ‘beautiful’ and ‘traditional’? You make no mention of faith, is a church wedding nothing more than a pretty show for you?

      1. my wedding was in a church.
        we had it there because to us it was both a civil ceremony, and a deeply symbolic religious one.

        neither of us would call ourselves “practicing” Christians, more like “lapsed Christians”. But it was still important to us that a Reverend perform the ceremony. In part for us, and in part for our loved ones who shared the event.

        And yes, our wedding WAS beautiful. It was a gorgeous church. The wedding was even open to the public, and we had members of the congregation join us and wish us well. It was one of the most profoundly moving experiences of my life, and I would never trade it for anything.

        As for ‘ol Rupert, well, he IS a bitter old queen.

        And the nerve of him to refer to those of us who want to marry as “queens”. He has some really deeply rooted homophobia going on in there. He seriously needs psychiatric help.

  56. The man is a bitter old queen.

    I want to marry my bf in a church not because im very religious. But i want to celebrate our commitment the same way everyone else does

    1. Adam. I get your point though not all Heterosexuals marry in a church. My Brother got married in a registry office and I know some heterosexuals who would like to have a civil partnership rather than get married. But I believe WE should have that choice too. It isn’t rocket science and I don’t know why Politicians have let the religious extremists dictate policy. Religion is dwindling as anyone can see so exactly what power do they still have that they can swing a vote in their favour?????

    2. Spanner1960 3 Oct 2012, 3:15pm

      How heteronormative of you.
      Not to mention conceited and hypocritical, (just like a lot of straight couples actually)

  57. What an arsehole he is! Talking about bitter queens….Rupert Everett is top of the list.

    Shut up mate you make all of us sound bad!

    1. So one gay person speaks for everyone?

      You have a minority mentality and issues

  58. Foot Mouth

  59. Derogatory language, combined with sweeping generalisations, based on his own very narrow experiences and antiquated views, with an apparent inability to take into account anyone else’s perspective but his own. I’m not entirely sure he knows how to be thoughtful, reasonable or courteous though. A bitter, cynical, washed up, egomaniac and I’m certainly not buying whatever he’s selling. And all this in the Guardian too! What is the world coming to…

    1. He is allowed an opinion even if you don’t like it.

    2. Washed up? Hardly. He has a high profile publishing contract & his highly praised performance as Oscar Wilde is a sell-out at Hamstead Theatre. We should all be so “washed-up”.

      1. Oh, so that’s what he’s advertising. I wondered. Whatever you say, though comparing him to Oscar Wilde is stretching what I can believe. In any case, doesn’t change much, other than perhaps increasing his responsibility to shut up on this and other related issues.

  60. radical53 3 Oct 2012, 6:04am

    Have we had enough of Rupert, now.

    I think so.

    As much as I like the guy. It is time to put this subject to bed.

    STONEWALL has no meaning today.

    Gay rights today is about getting the full rights and conditions of a heterosexual lifestyle.

    Too bad if you just want to be gay. You won’t be allowed to. Be warned, future generations.

    1. No.

      I really loathe this idea that marriage, monogamy, parenting and even religion are the special preserve of heterosexuals. They should be for everyone who wants them. There is nothing about any of these things that gay people cannot participate in. They’re as much part of gay lives as of straight ones.

      Nobody upon nobody is arguing that marriage, monogamy or any particular lifestyle should be compulsory – for gay people, straight people or anyone else. We simply want to be able to CHOOSE whatever lifestyle we want, and not to be told we can’t by a bigoted and discriminatory society.

      Because there are as many different ways of being gay as there are gay people. Currently many of those ways are denied to us by unjust laws. An awful lot of people would really like to be gay in the married way, but are currently not allowed to be. Hopefully future generations will.

      1. Totally agree.

  61. GingerlyColors 3 Oct 2012, 7:09am

    Our Queen got married in a church in 1947.

  62. The right to marry is just about equality.

    There is no more reason to marry than to live together with or without a Civil Partnership.

    It is about the state not treating all people equally

    1. I agree, Colin – and I posted my own comment before reading yours.

  63. Let’s all rush to buy the book, not.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/9570776/Vanished-Years-by-Rupert-Everett-review.html

    If only those vanished years would continue…

  64. Oh, Rupert.

    What so many have said here: Being gay and being religious aren’t mutually exclusive. There are plenty of us who _know_ that our God loves us anyway (Be that Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, transcendental nothingness, or other) and actually want to have a religious ceremony.

    It sounds a lot like he grew up with some religious influence that put a crowbar between religion and sexuality for him, this comes across as the ranting of a man who direly needs to reconcile whatever religious beliefs he has with his sexuality.

    Or, you know, continue sounding like a 14 year old refusing to go to Sunday school. Whatever.

    1. I don’t think this is about his personal religious beliefs. I’m not sure he has any, though I could be wrong.

      What this is about is his lack of liberality.

      I myself find all religions disgusting, risible, anti-human, blinkered and miserable to some degree. I have no time or love for any of them, and think the world would be a better place if they all disappeared tomorrow. But I know that other people don’t think like I do, and I can see, as a matter of observation, that these ideas do hold some place in the hearts of others. I think that a sad fact of existence, but I recognise that it is so.

      The true mark of an enlightened approach to social policy is the recognition that others are not like you, and that our laws and institutions must be based on more than just personal opinion and prejudice. They must serve all who need them, even those who think very differently. That’s the understanding that Everett lacks, and that has nothing to do with religious upbringing.

    2. How many Gods are there? It’s nice there are so many to cater for everyones specific needs and beliefs. Makes no sense to me, however. I’m happy enough with real life without having to invent or believe in a fairy story to embellish it.

  65. He has a book to sell…..miserable diva.

  66. Why would anyone take notice of this old queen? His career can’t be doing too well, so he’s trying to get fame another way, by ranting on. Not a good look.

  67. Cllr Liam Curran 3 Oct 2012, 4:07pm

    He has a book to sell and this is a time-honoured way of raising his profile. A shame it’s doing the work of the homophobes

  68. I have to say and i do not normaly use this language but Rupert Everett is a F….g Wanker and in answer to Rod Evens proberly because they want to just like anyone else.

  69. I can agree with what he says on gay marriage, up to a point – I, too, have no desire to “ape” a heterosexual tradition. But I can empathise with gay couples who want the same legal rights as their married hetero counterparts.

  70. I wonder if Rupert really accepts his homosexuality? He seems to be making some comments recently that come across as someone with internalized homophobia. He seems to have a problem being a gay men which is very sad and he seems to want other gay men to be just as unhappy as he is.

  71. It’s so easy to call someone homophobic but in Rupert’s case I think it is true. The disrespectful way he uses the word “queens” and his deliberately provocative statements seem to suggest deep self-loathing. All the deforming facial surgery he has had done also suggests a less than happy person.

    1. Paula Harris 17 Feb 2013, 6:41pm

      Deforming facial surgery? who are you kidding? Rupert Everett has always been very handsome. He is a well-known heart-throb. You should have gone to spec-savers!

    2. commentator 26 Apr 2013, 11:50pm

      Oh and gay men never call each other queens right?

  72. Look mate, just because you don’t want to get married in a church doesn’t mean your opinion has to apply to everyone. Now bore off.

  73. Paula Harris 17 Feb 2013, 6:39pm

    Why shouldn’t he speak out? Free speech is not only for those who agree with you. Pink News calls what Rupert Everett says a “rant” just to be spiteful and punish him for daring to defy the Gaystapo party line.
    Why should he agree with you? He is successful, famous and rich. Also rather good looking and popular. He doesn’t need to crawl to anyone.

    1. and self loathing to boot, gee so much to be jealous of, I think not.

  74. I resent this idiot (Everett) referring to all gay men as Queens. Everett is the type of gay man I call a FAGGOT. Not all gay men are queenie and he should back off. He should keep his personal views on marriage (gay or straight) to himself. He sounds like a bitter old Queen (Faggot).

  75. commentator 26 Apr 2013, 11:48pm

    I think he poses a perfectly legitimate question, namely, why the desire to be blessed by a man-made institution which is fundamentally opposed to your being; regards you as a sinner, expects to you to be celibate; abhors your “lifestyle” and doesn’t want you in the church? It therefore begs the bigger question of why subscribe to such a religion in the first place when it clearly doesn’t regard you as a first class citizen?

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all