Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Nadine Dorries: Same-sex marriage could cost the Tories 4 million votes

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “being linked to the ECHR increases the risk of faith organisations facing potential legal action” Because, of course, religion and human rights are mutually exclusive.

    1. It’s the likes of the Christian Institute that are always running to the ECHR. They’re constantly refusing to accept national laws and court decisions at home. I don’t think Christians would be too happy to if the UK withdrew from the ECHR. It’s there to protect them not only LGBT people. Ake Green (swedish christian preacher) lost in the Swedish courts for hate crime against gays but won on article 9 in the European courts. The only religious orgs that will be able to use the ECHR with regards to SSM are those who want to perform SSM ie the Quakers etc. The CofE consultation response even admitted this. Nadine is either truly daft or acting daft simply. She doesn’t care about gay people or christians , her only interest is in having another dig at Cameron.

  2. How did this woman get selected as a Tory MP? She’s like Anne Widdecombe in female drag!

    1. She was parachuted into the constituency over the objections of the local party, by Tory Central Office. None of us wanted her but we got her anyway.

      Bet Central Office wish they had actually listened to the local party now.

    2. Maybe she is Ann Widdecombe in a younger disguise. Scary thought !!

  3. Nadine Dorries is a loose canon…she’s going to cost the conservative party more tory votes than SSM. She a right trouble maker.

    1. Nadine Dorries is a fascist

      FTFY

      1. Nadine Dorries is not a fascist. Let’s get a sense of proportion.

        If you want to find out what Fascists do to LGBT people, read this absolutely horrific article published by the Jewish Virtual Library:

        http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Homosexuals_and_the_Third_Reich.html

        1. Midnighter 31 Oct 2012, 1:28am

          Horrific though your example is, this is using the “fallacy of vividness” to attempt to justify your claim that Nadine is not a facist, and thus invalid.

          If she exhibits principles compatible with facism, such as surpressing civil liberties in favour of centralised authorities, then it seems safe to conclude that she is at least at the head of a slippery slope.

          1. Sheer hyperbole. Comments like yours are the counterpart to the worst unjust allegations made by the homophobic religious Right. The kind of people who call David Cameron and Barack Obama “Marxists” for supporting LGBT rights.

          2. Midnighter 31 Oct 2012, 9:16am

            Gazza, you don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘hyperbole’ clearly. Hyperbole is closer to what you have said, namely “the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device”

            I have actually applied some logical thought to your previous comment, and made no exaggerations or extraneous comments.

            If you disagree with my logic, explain how. Until you do so and actually support your accusations it is only so much hot air on your part

          3. Midnighter

            Your argumentation, if it can even be called that, is sloppy.

            “Exhibiting principles compatible with something” is not the same as exhibiting principles that entail something.

            Banning vivisection, as Hitler did, is obviously compatible with fascism. Does that mean that banning vivisection is a fascist policy?

            Some people believe one should have the civil liberty to carry a gun. The UK Government prohibits this. Is the UK therefore “at the head of a slippery slope” towards fascism because it “suppresses civil liberties in favour of centralised authorities”?

            Nadine Dorries supports equal marriage in principle, but will vote against the legislation as she (incorrectly, in my view) fears it will lead eventually to an undermining of religious freedom.

            Anyone who calls her a fascist because of that is being silly. Comments like that make the LGBT community seem like a bunch of hysterical ignoramuses.

          4. Gazza, starting your own response with a piece of theatre attempting to belittle doesn’t lend you credibility, just makes you sound desperate.


            “Exhibiting principles compatible with something” is not the same as exhibiting principles that entail something

            Nor did I say it was. You are misattributing and strawmanning.
            The fact that you can demonstrate that a preposition (which you have concocted yourself) is illogical does not make it mine, and certainly does not make me illogical by inference as you attempt to claim.

          5. Midnighter

            I see you have reached logic saturation point already. It didn’t take long.

          6. Midnighter 31 Oct 2012, 1:23pm

            Gazza, what exactly is this “logical saturation point” you speak of?

            Is it some effect I can expect to experience when swamped by sophistry, perhaps?

        2. Nadine Dorries is more right wing than any other conservative MP and I would consider a vote for her to be a vote for a far right, nut job. Her politics have more in common with the extremists in the Tea Party than they do with anyone in the UK. Her opinion on “gay marriage” is the tip of the iceberg and actually she’s a disgrace to British politics and humanity.

          RE the your above link: Do you think Hitler would have risen to power if he had told everyone he wanted to burn Jews in ovens?

          Regardless fascism pre-dates N@zism and exists separately from Hitler, the holocaust and genocide. I called her a fascist and not a N@zi please note the difference

          1. I do not agree with Nadine Dorries on issues relating to sex and sexuality. But there is a colossal difference between her and anyone who could legitimately be described as a fascist. Did you not read that she supports equal marrriage in principle? How many fascists do that? Your comment is no less false and unjust than those of the homophobic religious Right.

  4. There is no way the court would ever force religious organisations to perform gay weddings.

    1. No, and if Christian bigots actually viewed us a real people with feelings they would realise that having a priest who basically disagrees with our right to exist is the last person we would want to carry out a wedding ceremony for us. But sadly, they just think this is all about them, as if the whole purpose of gay rights was to oppress religion. They don’t actually view us as human beings.

      1. Exactly. And this is also about religious freedom — there are religious organizations that *want* to be allowed to marry gays.

    2. Divorced people can marry in a register office but the Roman Catholic church will not marry divorced people and the courts cannot force it to do so. In the same way, the courts cannot force religious organisations to perform gay weddings if they don’t agree with it. So Gay Marriage in a Register Office is not a threat to any religious organisation in reality. The sooner we have Gay Marriage in the UK the better and I would happily provide a religious blessing to those who want.

  5. Equal marriage is an inevitability. Although the votes of religious opponents will be lost, votes from people who are pleased at the departure of these religionists, and people who are pleased about Conservative support for LGBT rights, will be gained.

    The Conservative Party needs to detach itself from association with outmoded religious views in order to command majority support in our modern secular world.

  6. Delighted to hear

  7. Paul Kirwan 30 Oct 2012, 7:32pm

    Another good reason for equal marriage. Thanks Nadine!

  8. ...Paddyswurds 30 Oct 2012, 7:39pm

    Does that mean they won’t vote atall then or will they vote for Labour who have guaranteed they will enact Marriage Equality if re elected. Same for UKIP. This airhead numbskull needs to stfu and get back to the kitchen where her buybul says she belongs…..

    1. I think UKIP are opposed to equal marriage, though they say they support civil partnerships.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 31 Oct 2012, 11:56am

      Even if Labour wins the next election, pushing through equal marriage with the help of the Liberal Democrats wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient without some votes from the Tories, surely?

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Oct 2012, 7:42pm

    A bit rich coming from an adulteress, those heterosexuals who are actually the real threat to marriage. Damned hypocrite.She needs to provide detailed information as to how religious freedom will be compromised by equal civil marriage. Where is it written? Someone needs to demand that this woman steps forward with the evidence.

  10. Techiechick 30 Oct 2012, 7:46pm

    I’m gay but will not vote for the tories because of the way they are treating the disabled AKA ATOS,I will probably get thumbed down but we have civil partnerships and gay marriage is Inevitable,right now I think the way the disabled are being treated is digusting and a more important issue,what is more important a gay person who has cancer and is forced to work and refused benefits or the right to get married?

    1. Ben Foster 30 Oct 2012, 8:09pm

      both are important, of course. ATOS is a disgrace.

    2. Atos are a curse on our country. They should be sacked as soon as possible, and the people responsible for what is being inflicted on the disabled and unwell should be prosecuted.

    3. I totally agree with you – but let’s not forget it was actually the last Labour government that employed ATOS and wrote the appalling contracts that ATOS now work to.
      I’m left wing – but the last Labour government don’t have clean hands on this issue.

      1. vversatile

        You are absolutely right. Labour gave Atos the contract. Let’s hope that the Coalition Govt undo this damage and show some moral backbone on this issue.

  11. “Nadine Dorries”

    And on that I stopped reading. I have no love for the Tories – in fact, I loathe the Tories – but I pity them to have to put up with Nadine Dorries in the party.

    Frankly I’ll add “guaranteed to piss off Nadine Dorries” as another excellent reason to bring Marriage Equality

    1. Exactly as soon as you see Nadine Dorries name you know you are in for a load of evidence free fabricated old cobblers.

  12. Why are people still protecting religious freedoms?

    How is something chosen equated to something you can’t help?

    1. Ben Foster 30 Oct 2012, 8:15pm

      I suppose because the right to choose a relgion is an important freedom denied in a lot of countries. Try being anything but Muslim in Muslim countries, or a Christian in China for example. Relgiious freedom is something this country should be proud of. But many other rights also have to be protected. A woman’s rights to choose whether or not to have children, to say no to an abusive husband (even one armed with a bible or koran full of his ‘rights’ as her husband) and of course, equal marriage rights, are also important and religious people of any sort can’t be allowed to stand in the way of those rights.

  13. She does not even listen to her own party who have already said that same sex marriage will not be allowed in religious institutions. Not that I know any gay people who would want a religious service anyway

  14. Jesus Mohammed 30 Oct 2012, 8:05pm

    Subtitle of this article should read:

    “Tory MP Nadine Dorries says the issue of marriage equality could drain the Conservative Party of four million votes from homophobic bigots.”

    1. Ben Foster 30 Oct 2012, 8:16pm

      just make sure they close the door on the way out.

  15. They don’t call her ‘mad nad’ for nothing.

  16. So is she claiming there are 4 million bigots out there or one very clever cheating bigot who can fake so many votes?

  17. You are still linking marriage with religion. The two can not and need not be linked. Why should religion have any jurisdiction over marriage in the 21st Century? if I want to marry my boyfriend I will do so without any say so from some nutcase who listens to voices in their head. YOU will NOT have a say in whom I marry and where I marry, should I and my boyfriend agree.

    if you don’t like my decision, then please, do us all a favour and find a very short pier to take a very long jump off of.

  18. Paul in Brighton 30 Oct 2012, 8:36pm

    No surprises here,

    Isn’t this the same dear Nandine Dorries that campaigned for an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill, which would have stopped abortion providers giving NHS-funded counselling to women?

    Or the same Nandine Dorries that said of David Cameron and George Obsborne (her two party colleauges) that they have “no passion to want to understand the lives of others”?

    And here she is most definitely not wanting to understand the lives of LGBT people and their familes, but yet levies the same critism against David Cameron, who so far does?

    I’ve always thought the Tory party is full of loons. She confirms this.

    One thing is for sure, in a Tory stronghold you put up anyone for election, and the Tory faithful will deliver the vote.

    1. I doubt that the good people of Cheltenham would agree with you.

      They rejected the candidate that Tory HQ foisted on them in 1992, and he ended up in jail !

  19. Did she seriously argue out loud that Torries should oppose civil rights so they can pander to conservative voters? Does she not know to keep such sentiments private?

  20. I wonder how many votes the conservative party would lose if they do another U-turn.

  21. Oh Nadine…

    Sing a song to the Christian Legal Centre, Anglican Mainstream and the Christian Institute. The words go something like this…

    I may win on the roundabout
    Then I’ll lose on the swings
    In or out, there is never a doubt
    Just who’s pulling the strings
    I’m all tied up to you
    But where’s it leading me to?

    With many thanks to Sandie Shaw
    [from Puppet on a String]

  22. How about adultery Nadine? Is that a vote winner?

  23. GingerlyColors 30 Oct 2012, 9:24pm

    “Same-sex marriage could cost the Tories 4 million votes” which would mean a Labour victory and Labour are certain to bring in same-sex marriage (if the Tories haven’t done so by 2015). Are people really prepared to throw away the economic recovery, see pension funds plundered, see the door flung wide open to uncontrolled immigration and this country bankrupted under another Labour government just because they do not agree with giving a 4% minority the right to marry?
    My message to David Cameron is that the more he dithers over marriage equality the more votes he will lose. If he brings in marriage equality NOW then in 2.5 years from now when there has to be an election then marriage equality will be a non-issue in the same was as the scrapping of Section 28, same age of consent and Civil Partnerships were at the previous elections. Furthermore by getting the marriage equality debate out of the way then the government can get on with other business such as EU membership.

    1. GingerlyColors 30 Oct 2012, 9:33pm

      I feel that the Tories should let us have a referendum on Europe, especially as most of us want out. Why not especially as they are happy to grant Scotland a referendum on whether or not to leave the UK even though the vast majority of Scots wish to remain part of the Union. By giving the voters a referendum on EU membership, the Tories will in one fell stroke put UKIP out of business and will secure several more terms in office. UKIP are currently becoming the ‘Third Party’ in British politics but they are opposed to marriage equality. Granting a referendum on EU membership will also take some of the vote from the more rabidly homophobic BNP. David Cameron may lose some of the ‘traditional Conservative vote’ by bringing in marriage equality but he can still play the EU trump card. People of all persuations in this country are fed up of seeing money poured down the drain propping up the moribund Euro as well as seeing businesses being strangulated by petty regulations.

      1. I find it absurd and repellent that the people of Scotland are allowed to vote on whether they remain a part of the United Kingdom yet the British people as a whole are denied the right of self-determination when it comes to the issue of our EU governance. If the Tories did allow a simple in or out EU referendum then UKIP should shut up shop being as they are basically anti-EU Tories. As a BNP supporter the Tories may gain a few votes from us too if they were to allow this as the BNP is an explicitly anti-EU party like UKIP is.

  24. Baring in mind, vile people like that are making people turn away from religion. That number is declining on a daily basis so not really a problem.

    1. the sooner the better. I have an article that says that in the USA, the second largest religion is ex catholics.

      As for the extremist xtians, they are simply the western worlds version of maniacal Islam.

  25. So you lose (up to) 4 million votes from Christians ..? But how many do you gain from LGBT people and those who support equal marriage ? Or is she saying that her party is largely supported by the kind of person who don’t support equal rights, therefore there will be a net loss ? Doesn’t say much for the calibre of tory voters if she’s right ….

  26. The Tories will lose MANY more votes because of their cuts than from SSM. Many of those votes will be from LGBT voters.

    As for the canard about churches being forced to perform same sex marriages. The day a church is forced to wed a divorcee (when that is against the denomination’s beliefs), or to wed a man and woman who’ve never been to the church before, is the day I’ll start believing that a church might – possibly – have its opinions overridden by being forced to marry a same sex couple.

  27. I doubt very much that Christians have anywhere near ‘4 million voters’. Even I’m counted as a ‘Christian’ because I was Christened as a baby, but what choice did I have in that? I don’t have a religious bone in my body. I’m sure many of us are counted as such in the same way.

  28. Patrick Mc Crossan 31 Oct 2012, 1:33am

    One main reason why gay marriage is causing so much concern is that thanks to Stonewalls involvement in drafting the bill the words Husband & wife will be removed and replaced by partner in all weddings.

    I am gay and want equality but I do not understand why my getting equality should deny the hetrosexual community from retaining the long established right to call each other husband and wife.

    Just because two men or two men can’t use these terms does not mean for equality we should remove Husband & Wife terms for the hetrosexual community.

    I see no reason at all for this change.

    I can understand why this issue alone is upsetting many people and will be divisive.

    Let us gain rights without upsetting others just for the sake of it.

    1. That is probably one of the main reasons why many straights oppose this. It isn’t because they want to oppress or be ‘nasty’ to gays but because they want the definition of their own relationships to remain defined as they have been for many years.

  29. Pavlos Prince of Greece 31 Oct 2012, 2:14am

    Very good indeed, I think. By this scenario all Christians of Britain will have own political party and own seat in the House of Commons. Only one seat, of course.

  30. Dave North 31 Oct 2012, 2:34am

    Lose 4 million votes.

    I think you have already done that love.

    1) You are an adulterer.
    2) You are allowing labour back in just by opening your mouth.
    3) Are the tories not about minimal govt allowing your rich buddies to get richer.
    4) Self serving hypocritical bitch pissed off when told to put her god bothering out of her politics.

    Clearly she never listened.

    Just when you think that humanity has grown up a bit, silly idiots like her poison it.

  31. Paul Alberstat 31 Oct 2012, 3:40am

    That moron simply needs to look at Canada where no religious freedoms have been trampled. In fact it is HER who is trying to impose her religious faith on everyone else. Once more religion is used in an attempt to justify bigotry and racism, just swap black with gay.

  32. sounds like more fear tactics to me. Who knows. But its time that the English people do the worst possible thing they can do to the pope who in 2009 UNexcommunicated Bishop Williamson, a holocaust denier.

    Time for marriage. France will ahve it soon, some think germany will follow. With England etc on the verge and Ireland – giving its cum-upance to the RATZInger pope, we can hopefully do what should have been done long ago.

    Gays win, nut case bigots to the lions.

    lots of goodies on the molester church etc in the following link

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church_sex_abuse_cases/index.html?offset=15&s=newest

    about 1800 articles from NYTIMES re sex abuse.

    1. It has since gone up to 1944 articles!

  33. Once marriage is extended I expect it will be clergymen themselves, probably former vicars/priests, who take the matter of the ECHR. And I hope they do.

  34. Nadine may be right that there are some 4 million Christian voters but she is very very wrong in thinking these 4 million voters share her backward, ignorant and unchristian views – of course there is a hardcore of haters in most faiths who try and mask their individual bigotry behind a smokescreen of religious faith but all the Christians I know are very much in favour of marriage equality and see it as a natural extension of God’s love.

    So please get on with this measure Mr Cameron, you will be seen as doing the right thing and history will judge you favourably.

  35. Where did she pluck the four million figure from? It almost seems like she calculated 7% (number of regular churchgoers) of the total population (approx 60 million)… in which case she’s being (i) presumptuous, and (ii) offensive to the proportion of practicing Christians who are not against gay marriage.

    1. That There Other David 31 Oct 2012, 9:58am

      My guess is she’s been given that figure from elsewhere, perhaps Cardinal O’Brien’s office. The top of the churches love to make out that the views of the bishops are the views of the followers, but in my experience that isn’t usually the case. The followers will act all pious in the setting where they encounter the bishop, but then they leave and get on with their lives.

      1. Yeah, that sounds about right.

        I’ve come across the 4 million figure before in relation to gay marriage, and although I can’t find the article, it was being floated by a scaremongerer speaking out on behalf of the church. The equation is dumb for so many reasons. Only 65% of the population are eligible to vote (so dividing 100% by 7% is fundamentally wrong), most eligible voters don’t vote anyway (low turnouts are a huge problem), only around 30-35% of voters vote Tory and most aren’t going to defect because of the party’s stance on gay marriage.

  36. This woman is an expert on marriage. She has helped break at least one of them up through an adulterous affair.

  37. Saying ‘You can’t get married because your undermining my religious freedom’ is the same as saying ‘You can’t eat that doughnut because I’m on a diet’. Ridiculous!

  38. Keep talking, Nadine. I admit my partisan approval of the damage your toxic ranting is doing to the Tories.

  39. Robert in S. Kensington 31 Oct 2012, 12:02pm

    Why doesn’t a supporter of equal marriage in the Tory party target Dorries’ own adultery to really emphasise just how hypocritical and stupid she is? It’s time to forego political correctness and nail the silly bigoted cow once and for all.

  40. Women like this should definitely be herd (sic) but not seen.

  41. I like her. It think it does the gay rights ’cause’ a great deal of good having figures like Dorries out there. It’s best to have a bogeyman (or woman) to sober opinions as to the reality of prejudice than a bunch of politicians who are secretly just as homophobic but secret about it.

    1. Yeah…you’re right actually.

  42. Hmmm. Since only a couple of million Christians even bother to go to Church, and that 3 in 5 people of faith support SSM (recent Stonewall poll), I don’t think she’s done her homework…

  43. Nadine Dorries (Mad Nad) is threatening to mobilise her Christianist fundamentalist cronies against the Tory’s and presumably also against the Lib Dem’s and the Labour party over the issue of marriage equality.(lol)

  44. “Same-sex marriage could cost the Tories 4 million votes”

    Like everything else this dingbat says, that’s entirely made up.

  45. And being against racism costs the votes of thousands of racist people, but I’d still be against it.

  46. And being against racism costs the votes of thousands of racist people.

  47. i hope it does cost them 4 million votes! lets throw out a party that scraps public sector jobs and pensions, refuses to fund social care for the elderly and sick, negates the achievements of o and a level students and their teachers, screws the nhs by reoganising it and then ignoreing local nhs services cuts, destroys libraries, scraps the allowance for those who wish to do higher education, condemns garuates to lng term unemployment

  48. Midnighter 6 Nov 2012, 6:25pm

    Oh well, she’s suspended now :-D

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20217901

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