Reader comments · Boris Johnson: “Why on earth would we deny marriage to anyone?” · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Boris Johnson: “Why on earth would we deny marriage to anyone?”

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Midnighter 10 Oct 2012, 2:31pm

    Excellent Boris, thank you!

    At a time where his profile is extremely high in the media, this is a very welcome contribution.

  2. Finally, a politician who has stated that marriage does not any religious institution.

    If he carries on like this I may start to like the man.

    1. *belong to any religious institution*

  3. Good stuff, well done Boris. And puts to bed all those complaints that you didn’t use the words ‘gay marriage’ in your Out4Marriage video.

    And as others have said, about time we started to publicly confront the idea that religion somehow ‘owns’ marriage, which it never has done.

  4. He might come across as a bumbling moron, but I actually think he’s bloody smart. And he’s quite correct, marriage predates all ‘modern’ religions.

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Oct 2012, 2:47pm

    Well done, Boris Johnson and thank you! I’ve no doubt this comes after that odious anti equal marriage hate rally this past monday.

    To digress, I hope Ed Miliband, as a Jew, would take Lord Carey to task over that insidious remark about the holocaust.

  6. Boris should have asked why the Tories CONTINUE to deny marriage equality.

    There is no further debate to be had on this issue.

    If we are equal citizens why are we STILL 2nd class citizens in a legal sense? Ad why does David Cameron regard our civil rights as a free vote issue?

    We need a specific timetable for equality.

    Will there be an equal marriage bill before parliament within the coming weks.

    If not then why not?

    Enough with the discussions.

    Legislation is needed IMMEDIATELY.

  7. Quoth Wikipedia….In Friends, Voters, Countrymen (2001), Johnson wrote that “if gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.”….THAT Boris???

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Oct 2012, 3:23pm

      Yes, but people can change and evolve Toni. Wouldn’t you rather them do that than remain opposed? We have to be pragmatic in this debate and welcome all of our supporters, no matter their past history.

      1. Indeed people can change and evolve.

        Politicians should however be judged on their actions and not their words.

        The Tory Party has not specified when marriage equality will come to a vote in parliament.

        Why not?

    2. And in 2001, most people would have said Jimmy Savile was a bit odd but essentially harmless.

      I frankly don’t give a flying feck why he’s changed his mind. He’s done so, it’s in our favour, cool!

      1. When will be get the specific timetable for equality I wonder.

        I mean they’ve been in power for 2.5 years already.

        There is no discussion to be had any more.

        They need to get their finger out and take action.

    3. That There Other David 10 Oct 2012, 6:15pm

      He’s now 11 years older and has moved in far wider circles than the Eton Bullingdon Club Boris of yesteryear. I recall how my elder brother used to have extremely insular ideas on a number of subjects, until he went to do a degree as a mature student. People’s eyes can very much be opened by experience.

    4. Boris evolved when he decided he wanted power more than his “integrity”.

    5. That quote could be construed to be the absolute argument of libertarianism. That the state should not dictate any concept of morality to the masses. It does not therefore necessarily translate that he thought in his opinion that such relationships where equal, but that what opinion he held on their validity should be irrelevant to the state.

  8. I think it is great that both Conservatives and Liberals agree on the LGBT issues, and not fighting about them. Which allows the gay voters to focus on other issues like the economy.

    1. Aren’t you jumping the gun somewhat?

      We are still 2nd class citizens in the eyes of the law?

      Why are we STILL waiting for marriage equality?

      Where is the timetable

  9. I love Boris – it’s just that whenever he says something I’m looking elsewhere to see what new disasters the government wish to hide (by using Boris to detract us from such things)

    1. Post negatives all you like – but it’s a fact.

      Yes I am gay but I’m also disabled and as you know this government is hounding people like me at the moment. No wonder there is a petition to the Hague (in Netherlands) to prosecute this government. Sit up and see the whole thing instead of one single issue.

      1. de Villiers 10 Oct 2012, 6:04pm

        There is a petition to prosecute the government? Could you post a link to the grounds? I’d be interested to read them.

  10. Well done, Boris! There IS no reason why marriage should be denied to us – proven by the total lack of a single reason to oppose it given by the anti-equality campaigners. They don’t have ONE argument against it – just lies and farcical cr*p that a child wouldn’t believe.

    1. yet we are still waiting.

      There is no progress being made.

      Just speeches.

      Where is the legislative agenda?

      1. I don’t know, dAVID – it winds me up too. But I never got a sense of haste from the gov even when they first announced this. They faffed about with a consultation (unnecessary, in my opinion) and talked about 2015. I didn’t understand why it would take so long then, and I still don’t now.

  11. I’m starting to like Boris again… How odd.
    “There is no call for gay marriage to be politically imposed on churches or mosques or any other religious institutions —”
    But the big religions still wants to impose their politics on everyone else in the country that isn’t themselves.

  12. turrrrrd burglarrsss 10 Oct 2012, 5:20pm

    Yes. Why shouldn’t a consensual adult father and son not marryeach other and bugger till kingdom come?

    1. aww, how cute… a troll ;)

      Don’t reply peeps ;)

    2. de Villiers 10 Oct 2012, 6:05pm

      Would that not also apply to an adult father and daughter?

  13. I take some comfort in Boris having an eye for the popular cause: he’s more barometer than opinion former. Either way this is good news

  14. Ok so whys this guy not Prime Minister ? Hes doing really good things in London with public transport etc

    Hes funny, quite charming in a bumbling drunken relative at Christmas sort of way and is very clever too even if you dont see it.

  15. Thanks, Boris. That statement is a big point in your favour. I have been very critical of your past ignorance but this shows a little maturity – however politically motivated it might be.

  16. Brilliant Boris ! A bit late in the day and presumably to counteract the Neo Nasties that hijacked the Tory party conference, and no doubt with one eye on the Tory leadership.

    Nonetheless, it’s bang on target; Boris knows which way the wind is blowing.

    The Tories will never win a majority if they can’t shake off Ann Widdecombe and the other dinosaurs that still haunt them. It’s a wake up call for Cameron – JUST DO IT.

  17. Thanks for the support Boris! If only there were more like you out there.

    The only reason marriage has been denied for everyone, is because… for far too long… some people have listened to inane ramblings by the church and other religious groups/individuals. Its about time this was changed. And changed it will be!!

  18. floridahank 11 Oct 2012, 12:57am

    Boris stated, “Marriage is an ancient human institution that is far older than any of the religions that are practised today..”
    I’d like to know what constituted marriage in ancient times.

    He also stated that marriage should not be denied to anybody. How about changing the laws so brother and sister can marry? Or how about 2 women and one man, or three man?

    There’s much that can be involved in marriage once things start being redefined. Things can happen very fast and we have to look to the consequences
    of changes in our society.

    I’m asking these questions because they are sererious questions and would appreciate serious answers and not just snide comments.

    1. Marriage predates religion & gay marriage predates Christianity, these are established facts.

      Why not make incest & polygamy legal (so long as no biological children are produced)? What difference does it make to any of us personally?

      You’re not asking serious questions, you’re fear mongering & using the “slippery slope” argument which is a formal logical fallacy.

      1. floridahank 11 Oct 2012, 11:10pm

        Gedio, you said, “marriage predates religion & gay marriage predates Christianity, these are established facts.” WOW, I never read that. Where did you get your proven, expert facts Gedio?

        With you attitude towards incest and polygamy, why indeed have marriage at all? Why not just let anybody live with anybody and forget any sort of requirement or legal document? Even in uncivilized societies there were certain rules about marriage and fornication with different women. It goes to say that the family was the basis of civilization progressing as shown in ancient history. I would like to see your books regarding “anything goes, anytime” Sounds like it could lead to social revolution.

        1. …there were certain rules about marriage and fornication with different women…

          Were there? There’s much in the OT that condemns women who “fornicate”, there’s little I know of that condemns men who do the same (the Patriarch Jacob, among others, would have been in a pretty tough position, if so!).

    2. Marriage was a social and/or legal contract that largely (but not always) considered women as men’s property: it is still the case in many parts of the world, among poorly-educated people in Pakistan, for example. Why not look up the story of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar in the book of Genesis?

      One of the biggest redefinitions of marriage was making it into a Christian sacrament, which did not happen until well into the second millennium AD.

      1. floridahank 11 Oct 2012, 11:30pm

        Your historical facts don’t go back far enough. Lookat Hammurabi’s Code on Women, Marriage and Divorce in Babylonia dated in 1750 B.C. He talks about when a man wishes to divorce his wife who did not bear him children,he shall give her money to the full amount of her marriage price and he shall also make good her the dowry which she brought from her father’s house and then he may divovce her. She can also be divorced if she wants to engage in a business.
        Also if a woman so hated her husband that she has declared, “you may not have me,” that woman may take her dowry and go off to her father’s house.

        Even in Genesis 2, it states that “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.”

        So this happened much before Christianity became any sort of religious following. It came along much like the Ten Commandments many years later. The relationship of man and woman was the natural pairing to create a family.

        1. Fine – I’m not sure exactly what your point is, as you appear to have answered your own question (“I’d like to know what constituted marriage in ancient times”). You will note your Babylonian example confirms the view that it was a business contract. I am, however, at a loss to understand how your example from Genesis could apply to men who could (and reportedly often did) marry more than one woman – does he become ‘one flesh’ repeatedly then? How is that possible?


          1. If you study the Scriptures, you’ll see that God never approved of divorce or polygamy but because men and women were lustful and broke the laws and commandments as they did many other sinful acts. But always the Bible stated marriage was between man and woman only. Nowhere does it offer any type of homosexual relationship was acceptable or even hinted that it was a part of social behavior.

  19. Thank you Boris..very well said. As you said marriage belongs to know one, not the Christians, Catholics, Muslims etc marriage is about love, not sexuality or religion!

  20. The same reason labour did for 13 years – popular opinion = votes. We’re not stupid enough to think all of these epiphanies have our interest at heart but we’re willing to skim the fat off all of this political pandering.

  21. I thought I’d never say it, but I can see myself voting for this man.

  22. Should the question be “What is the the status quo?”

    With the introduction of the Equality Act means equal treatment for all, not just though who feel its right?

    1. turrrrrd burglarrsss 11 Oct 2012, 2:46pm

      Since the law on marriage applies to all regardless of gender , where is the inequality. Do you not know that heterosexuals are also barred from marrying those of the same sex, regardless of whether they wish to or not.?
      It is no different thn the smoking ban which applies to all yet only impacts smokers. The law on marriage (one man one woman) applies to ALL yes that’s ALL yet only impacts the deviant brigade.
      Where does your equal marriage argument end? If any consenting adults should be allowed to marry, this would accomodate say a father and his .dult son,
      Let’s keep it as it is avoid disgusting perverted unions,

      1. Hey turrrr…” Your comment has good points. Also I believe most homosexuals are atheists or follow some weird sort of god if they believe in one. One of their foremost attacks is to get the Holy Bible out of society. They want to create their own set of laws, mores, standards, etc. which are focused on self-pleasure. They have no spiritual goals, the UK’s churches are nothing more that museums, very empty these days, and they’re happy with that.
        In fact, I believe that most homosexuals are not the least bit interested in marriage, all they want to have their lifestyle be accepted openly so they can persue sex and not have it condemed by society at large. They are going for getting the same benefits as heterosexual marriage offers, but without any semblence of marriage being part of it. They truly are hypocrites in that respect.

  23. Pavlos Prince of Greece 11 Oct 2012, 2:46pm

    I wish, it will be first words from his congratulation speech to new elected Archbishop of Canterbury.

  24. I like him. Thank you very much, Boris please keep on keeping on :-)

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.