“There have actually been threats of legal challenges made against churches (and other religious venues) who choose not to perform gay marriages.”
Legal opinions on ECJ and ECHR are great but evidence rather speculation would be preferred.
I know this is exactly what I said on the last UKIP press release from David Coburn but I’m just going to keep saying until someone from UKIP engages with the issue on an intellectual level rather than just keep saying things without providing proof.
Pink News, I beg of you to start challenging their views and asking for evidence. Even if their views are correct, we need the evidence!
I could not agree more! I’m getting tired of this anti-EU dogma. I’m not saying the EU doesn’t have its faults and I may even vote in favour of leaving the EU if there was a referendum but I am tired of spurious assertions and assumptions about the EU.
For every bad decision the EU court of justice makes there is a good one too: remember it cast down DADT in the UK…
The EU court of justice hasn’t made catholic churches marry the divorced so why should this be any different?
Moreover, I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, sexuality will always trump religion. Religion is a choice, sexuality isn’t. If you wish to believe in the dogmas and superstitions of religion, that is fine by me but you CANNOT use that to subjugate those of us who subscribe only to logic, reason and scientific evidence.
I really wish people would stop making this assumption.
The European Union and The European Court of Human Rights are two entirely different and unrelated entities.
There is no such thing as the “EU court of justice”.
And there is no reason leaving the EU would stop us being covered by the ECHR. Just wish the original article’s writer understood this.
Russia is under the jurisdiction of the ECHR too. And they’re turning into a Putin-centered theocracy. So much for the image of an invasive, all-powerful ECHR.
Unless the main religious institutions of Britain are admitting to their own impotence, they can quite easily not follow any demands to act against their faith. Not that such a demand would ever be made on them.
In Fact there is an ECJ it has nothing to do with the ECHR as you point out. The ECJ is there to enforce treaties etc within the EU.
Spanner, I couldn’t be bothered to look into what exact court I should be talking about. Regardless of which court it is, whether or not it applies to only EU countries or beyond, my argument still stands.
If you do not distinguish between a court upholding human rights, and a court merely enforcing treaty obligations, I pity you!
I realise I was damned ignorant about the difference between the ECJ (an EU institution) and the ECHR (completely unrelated to EU). My apologies.
@ Jae …
Give it time and you will see.
@ Andykins …
“sexuality will always trump religion… If you wish to believe in the dogmas and superstitions of religion, that is fine by me” … Obviously not if you and others then speak and act to overturn those religions tenets. I don’t agree or believe with everything many religions state. I just don’t feel the need to proscribe against them. It doesn’t affect me because I decide I won’t let it. And I don’t wish to have a church wedding anyway. Not a big deal to me and I respect the fact that other people think differently from me. Gay Rights groups everywhere take note, you have become seriosuly extreme and unpleasant. I do not support this any longer.
There are already several countries with same-sex marriage under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland). Why have there been no decisions forcing churches to perform same-sex marriage in those countries? Why would LGBT rights groups prioritise fictional discrimination against anti-LGBT religious groups over real, current discrimination against LGBT people?
I’m ‘extreme and unpleasant’ for demanding the right to marry? No, I just have a backbone and refuse to pander to bigots. Why should religion’s right to discriminate trump my right to marry? What about the religions that DO want to marry gay couples? What about their right to religious freedom? People always forget that…
It’s all a lot of hot air anyway. Gay marriage is coming and no church is going to be sued because of it.
According to Sid, you can have a civil marriage any time you like, Andykins. He called me “silly” further down this thread because I apparently didn’t know that!! :D
I liked this comment in yesterday’s evening standard about UKIP
“Ukip is a state of mind, not a party. It is like a political Tardis, lurching back in time — with the twist that it is smaller on the inside than it looks on the outside”
Time is not linear. Just saying.
“wibbly wobbly timey wimey” sorry, I’m a Dr Who geek!
I’m sure if dinosaurs could go back in time and change the future they woulld.
Our country is on the same path as they are and UKIP are offering us a different future.
I hope there’s enough room in the Tardis for me too
ah, the mythical “golden age that we have lost”, so beloved of both fundamentalists and fascists.
So UKIP is essentially a fear-based party then?
You are absolutely correct I think about the ‘state of mind’ bit. It seems many gay people have become a danger to democracy, dictatorial and unpleasant. I no longer support what you are doing. Has to be done I’m afraid. I know where this could lead and believe me you don’t want to go there!
Let’s not have equality because it’s not really equality unless we allow an equal right to discriminate as well?
It’s called freedom of speech. There are of course limits and rightly so. The gay people on here almost exclusively however seem to want to exterminate all dissent and impose their views on everyone else. I do not support this.
Howe bizarre and how wretchedly sad yet inevitable that a minority group once proscribed against now proscribes against anyone with whom it disagrees. It’s dangerous and I no longer support it. You need a good lesson in democratic principles.
Democracy is by nature imperfect. Beware anyone who promises Utopia ‘if only…’ “But we’re not saying that”. Yes you are.
Freedom of speech is not the same thing as the freedom to sell services to the public and ban certain groups of people from taking advantage. As I understand it, religious groups are already banned from refusing to marry couples on the basis of their race, so why aren’t you campaigning for their freedom to do that?
They aren’t full of fruit-cakes and loonies. Apart from the ones writing PR pieces for websites, that is…
1) Pick random issue
2) Find UKIP member who supports random issue
3) State issue would be resolved if UK left EU
Same old, same old. Do they think we’re stupid?
no, they hope we’re stupid.
Ha-ha, brilliant and true!
Britain cannot afford to leave the EU and even if we did, how exactly would that help in marriage equality, the ECHR have already said that they will not intervene on a country by country basis on this issue.
Unless I have misread the article, I cannot see anywhere where the write states whether he is in favour of equal marriage or not?
The simple fact of this matter is that while Civil Partnership off a lot of the same benefits as marriage, they are not 100% equal in the eyes of the law. It is for this fact that the ‘militant gays’ as the write puts it, are pushing hard for equality
He would also do well to remember that if it were not for ‘militant gays’ then he would not be enjoying many of the freedoms that we as the LGBT community of the UK enjoy today.
Yes, opinions have change but there is still a very, very long way to go until full equality is achieved.
‘He would also do well to remember that if it were not for ‘militant gays’ then he would not be enjoying many of the freedoms that we as the LGBT community of the UK enjoy today.’
If our equality was left to people like the author of this article, Britain would still be like Uganda is today…
From what I understand, homosexuality was first legalised in England after a report called the Wolfendon report – who himself was personally anti-gay.
There has been no real risk of Britain being like Uganda.
Beware all militants. Beware all extremists. They do not accept the majority view and seek to overturn it, some by any means, fair or foul. Majorities have rights too.
Personally I have no wish to have a church marriage. Views may change over time but I do not wish to impose mine on people who hold the tenets of their faith close to heart.
How many gay people do attend such churches? Some certainly, but I suspect many of those screaming for same-sex marriages don’t go near churches & wouldn’t anyway.
Have you heard the term ‘the abused becomes the abuser’? Read all the comments and replies on this page and note what is happening. It’s now dangerous.
Gay people are not down-trodden in Britain any more, far from it but many now seek actively to proscribe against those they disagree with. Be warned: you are becoming very unpleasant and I no longer support this. There are other greater issues at play: world hunger, cancer… Don’t be ‘gay’ first and last. Just be ‘human’.
This has nothing to do with churches. The government is only planning to legalise same-sex CIVIL marriage. By the way, I am 100% certain that you have never supported LGBT rights.
Your post is utter nonsense from beginning to end. Sorry.
I don’t want a church wedding but I do want the right to marry the man I love in a civil wedding ceremony (which is what we are actually fighting for). I want equality, I certainly don’t want to abuse anyone else.
I thought LGBT Tories were the most self hating political group in the UK (Log Cabin Republicans take the biscuit internationally).
But here comes LGBT UKIP, taking self loathing to the next level! Nicholas, UKIP are a party full of racists, homophobes, xenophobes and bigots. They are anti-equal marriage, and happily put up homophobic scumbags like Winston McKenzie as Parliamentary candidates.
Your party uses you, just like the BNP use their single digits Asian membership, to point at and say: “Look, we’ve got a gay! We can’t be homphobic if we’ve got a gay! Gays shouldn’t be able to adopt because they’re disgusting! We can say that because we’ve got a gay!”
By staying a member of UKIP you are actively betraying the remainder of the LGBT community, and perpetuating hatred, so thanks for that.
“Log Cabin Republicans take the biscuit internationally”
No, that would be GOProud, who split off from the Log Cabin Republicans because they are too “centrist”.
He’s betraying nobody, and you have no right to assume you can demand whatever you want from anyone at any time. He is being true to himself. What a shame you cannot respect that. That sort of approach is so common today. Everybody outraged all the time and disrespecting others’ intellectual positions. Not good.
He is writing on a gay news website, about a homophobic party which he is trying to get us to vote for if he doesn’t want us to criticize his views he shouldn’t make them public.
It’s the way gay people seem to be thinking now which is so unpleasant and anti-democratic. It’s now become very dangerous, but you’ll be most welcome in today’s New Age ‘Labour’ Party.
I have posted myself on this page and written many replies to others. I suggest you read those before we reach a very unpleasant tipping point!
I didn’t witness much intellect in this article.
Then pay more attention next time.
The fact that UKIP is made up of so many ‘diverse’ people is what makes it dangerous. There is no common theme apart from leaving Europe. This opens the door to any number of fascist and right wing policies being brought in via the back door when no one is looking.
They cannot be trusted, and the more liberal members are deluding themselves if they think otherwise. They are being used to get votes.
Private Eye has claimed in an article that many ex-BNP members have infiltrated UKIP, so at leadership level. I do not know how true that is, but it is true that Farage had to publicly renounce the links UKIP had with the BNP as a fledgling Party……..
*some at leadership level
Quote: ‘The fact that UKIP is made up of so many ‘diverse’ people is what makes it dangerous. There is no common theme apart from leaving Europe. This opens the door to any number of fascist and right wing policies being brought in via the back door when no one is looking. They cannot be trusted’.
I warn you all, turn such ‘fascist’ thinking back on yourselves. Listen to yourselves – you now think, write and speak just like those who proscribed against minorities in WW2. I’ll have no truck with it. You’ve become unpleasant & dangerous!
How incredible & sad that you now warn against ‘diversity’. Later on this page a Belgian, BE-Ma, tells us – accurately – that Europe is integrating more and more each day & later adds ‘I warn all of you that populism never brought anything good’.
Lord Saruman: “A New Age is upon us, a new power is rising. It’s victory is at hand…We must join with Him, Gandalf…”
Gandalf: “Tell me, ‘friend’, when did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?
Well, you have to laugh don’t you. Another UKIP loony telling you in a reasonable voice that what should be your basic human rights are in conflict with the churches freedom to discriminate. The article is thoughtful but incredibly stupid. Another Uncle Tom.
The usual Leftie response, rude and arrogant and dismissive.
You don’t understand the fundamentals upon which the liberty and freedom afforded you are based. Life is diverse and imperfect. We are not all the same. I like it that way. You expect everyone to agree with you or if not to be forced to accept your ideals and to bend to your will. That is not always pro-liberty.
Anyone of another view seeems commonly to automatically be labelled and attract vitroeol. I don’t like that and of all groups you’d think gay people would know better! The Left has become extremely intolerant, even whilst preaching tolerance. Ease up and go and enjoy yourself. Your happiness is not dependent on everyone else thinking and doing exactly what you demand of them. Majorities have rights too you know.
If you don’t want your party to be called a group of fruit cakes and loonies, then tell your membership to stop ACTING like fruit cakes and loonies.
Until that point, the tiniest violin in the land plays a sad sad lament for the author of this absurd article.
No it doesn’t you arrogant pratt. That is just your view, nothing else. I disagree.
It is about fundamental principles of liberty, freedom of speech, democracy itself indeed. What a pity you and many gay people lack the honesty and intellectual rigour to be able to understand that and see past the end of your own…..
If it was about LIBERTY – you utterly mendacious be11end – why is your nasty little party so intent on preventing LGBT citizens from having a mechanism of civil law apply to them equally? ONE single example. Refute that, swine.
UKIP is the BNP for people who can pass a criminal records check.
“I wholeheartedly disagree with what he said but if Winston wouldn’t want his children to go to a gay couple in the event of adoption or fostering, then I think he has every right.”
A two year old could pick apart the faulty logic in this argument.
However, to point out the bleeding obvious when it comes to a discrepancy in Mr Dancer’s logic, if a child is put up for fostering or adoption then it is because the parent is inadequate. Someone who is incapable of looking after a child’s best interest should be in charge of that child’s future… ?
What’s faulty about it? Ultimately this transcends gay rights, adoption or anything else. It’s about one group of people having the right to think and speak according to their conscience and another group of people disagreeing with them and having the right to think and speak according to their conscience too.
That is called freedom of speech. It’s a cornerstone of democracy and our way of life.
What deeply troubles me about the gay lobby and the Left in Britain (and Europe) in general is they’re so self-righteous and proscriptive. Many are no longer interested in upholding such fundamental principles of freedom, odd when it is exactly those principles which they have used in their arguments for their own case and which have indeed proved useful to them. Roll on ‘thought crimes’ and 1984.
That I call foul. Indeed it’s treacherous. You and Labour may want to be part of a socialist EU Utopia where minorities hold sway over majorities but I don’t. It’ll end horribly and freedom will die.
Why would someone use gay marriage as a reason to justify leaving the EU, when the party they are a member of doesn’t support gay marriage? Doesn’t make sense. I guess he’s a fruitcake loony.
And why would any gay guy be a member of UKIP?
I am not a member, yet anyway, but perhaps because not everybody wants to spend their life allowing what others think to determine their own happiness. Life is full of diversity. I like that. That means gay people are a fact, and so is the fact that some people think it’s wrong. Get over it and move on. You don’t speak for everyone. There are many other issues of far greater import.
He sounds like a gay republican to me, i.e. a black KKK member.
Don’t be so stupid. The KKK was a violent, dangerous organisation.
This article is simply incorrect, and appears to be a rather opportunistic attempt to persuade people who support equal marriage that they should also support UKIP’s main policy of leaving the EU.
The two issues are independent. No reputable lawyer agrees that the European courts would rule that churches that oppose same-sex marriage have to do them. Article 9 of the European Convention protects them against this. Eight other European countries have equal marriage, all of them signatories to the European Convention, and in none of them are churches that oppose same-sex marriage required to do it.
The false claim that churches will be forced to do same-sex marriages is a campaign tactic by our opponents, just like when the same organisations falsely claimed a decade ago that repealing section 28 would lead to inappropriate material about gay sex being taught in schools.
I agree totally, it is a tactic by people that know better, though they are undoubtedly scaring some people in the shires.
Also, as pointed out below, the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights ( aka Churchill’s Legacy in the aftermath of WW2), are totally separate things. If we left the EU we would still be a signatory to the ECHR. Which we drafted in the first place.
At last, a well argued and thoughtful reply. Thank you Tim.
Most of the other posts are typical of the ‘poor me I’m a victim you’re wrong and evil and I should get my way and you’re all rascists and bigots’ school of thought. I find it pathetic and neither want, nor indeed have anything to do with people who think and act in such a way.
Thank you Tim for proving the exception to the rule.
If that is true then it’s a very sad state of affairs. Religious organisations should not be exempt from equality law. It should force them to offer their services equally to all just as if forces all the other service providers to do so.
We should not be trying to play their game. We should not be denying that we want to force the religious to treat us in the same way as straight people – we should embrace it. It would be nice if they came round to the sensible and morally justified position of treating us equally on their own, but if they don’t then they must be compelled. Their irrational bigotry is no reason to exempt them from equality law – equality is important, irrational bigotry is not.
@ VP …..
Churches would perhaps argue that their authority comes from a higher source than a bunch of shyster lawyers.
And there it is again – ‘they should be forced to’… ‘they must be compelled’. Why don’t we just bring back those good ol’ dictators from the last century and do it all again, eh? It’s been a while. The EU is certainly keen and minority groups like gay rights seem terribly keen too. Terribly being the operative word!
“There have actually been threats of legal challenges made against churches (and other religious venues) who choose not to perform gay marriages”
No there haven’t
“They could seriously lose their licences to perform a marriage if we’re not careful”
No they wouldn’t
“I cannot see any way that any such legal challenge to theses courts would be rejected”
Of course it would be rejected.
Same sex marriage is legal in 6 EU member states, as well as Iceland and Norway which are part of the ECHR. Can you find a single example of any of those things happening in any of those countries? No, because they haven’t.
The simple fact is that churches are able to marry or not marry whoever they like. A christian church would never be brought to the courts for refusing to marry a muslim couple in an islamic ceremony. The same goes for divorcees etc.
Ridiculous to suggest otherwise, and that’s completely ignoring the fact religious premises won’t even be allowed to perform SSM
“The simple fact is that churches are able to marry or not marry whoever they like.”
This isn’t 100% correct – currently you have a right to get married in your CofE parish church, provided your marriage is otherwise legal of course. You also have a right to get married in other CofE churches that you have certain (even fairly tenuous) connections with. All providing you’re not divorced, of course, in which case it’s up to the vicar to decide.
I agree, though, that the threat of legal action to force churches into conducting same-sex marriages against their will is probably overblown.
One thing to also bear in mind, when comparing the UK to other European countries that have legalised same-sex marriage, is that their marriage laws may not be directly comparable. In many places a religious marriage has no legal significance – one has to have a civil marriage as well, which is the only legally-binding part.
Denmark and Iceland also have State churches, and equal marriage, with no problems. Iceland’s law simply says no priest will be obliged to perform or prohibited from performing any marriage. Similarly in Denmark, any priest who objects to performing one, isn’t obliged to. Denmark’s church situation re getting married is on a par with England, though there over 70% of priests support equal marriage rights.
Wrong, Chris. My sister (we are Methodists, though we went to a C of E School) was asked if she was an Anglican, and did she attend a C of E church? Vicars can refuse to marry anyone, and require them to attend the Reading of the Banns at Sunday Service.
Chris, 6 of the 8 European countries that have equal marriage do have legally effective religious marriage – churches can perform marriages. But no religious body is required to do same- sex marriage if they don’t want to, in any of those countries.
The EU has been, and remains to be a beacon of hope for minorities, including gay people, throughout its existence. I, for one, am a proud British European.
I understand the importance of ‘opinion pieces’, but it is really dangerous for PinkNews to allow blatant lies like this to be presented as fact. PinkNews surely has some responsibility to challenge wildly inaccurate nonsense like this before allowing it to be published. It is simply not enough to say that the “views expressed are not of PinkNews.co.uk”.
What, so exterminate all alternative views that stray from the official, gay, pro-Euro, I’m a minority and so more important than any majority school of thinking.
Many on here (and in the Labour ranks) need to take a good, hard look at where they are going with this mode of thinking as I can see it getting very nasty indeed soon and that itself will inevitabely trigger a counter-reaction.
I’m gay, but I’ll be damned if I have anything to do with people who think and act in this way. I’m proudly pro-liberty and democracy and understand that by definition that means that I can’t have my way all the time and that if I find myself in a minority over somethin I am still very much entitled to argue my case but NOT to lazily slur the other side with all kind of unpleasant labels just because they think differently from me. That is what I see throughout the Labour ranks and widely on these pages. I will not vote Labour again. I’ll also choose my friends very carefully indeed from now on.
Umm… haven’t you just slurred all Labour supporters in your comment?
I’m not a general Labour supporter, but I did want to point out the logical inconsistency in your statement.
“if Winston wouldn’t want his children to go to a gay couple in the event of adoption or fostering, then I think he has every right” No he doesn’t. In what situation would this happen anyway? Does he have the same right to stop his children being adopted or fostered by people of different race or religion? Whether a couple is straight or gay does not determine whether they can proved a good home for a child that needs one.
Rico, try to engage your brain instead of judging all the time. What he means is that this chap Winston has the right to hold his own view. His view.
You can by all means disagree with that view, but to say he doesn’t have the right to even hold a view with which you disagree is positively Orwellian, but mirrored on many other comments on this page. Frankly it lacks intellectual rigour but is also scary and dangerous. You think it OK to march and demand ‘gay rights’, because in your opinion they are ethically correct. If that chap disagrees with gay couples adopting kids then that is because he believes that to be right.
Do not start with the thought police stuff. This is a test. Do you know what of? Probably not, so I will tell you: it is a test of democratic credentialls. The way things are going the gay rights movement is moving swiftly towards the same sort of proscriptive authoritarianism against which it fought to free itself in its nascent stage.
The small problem with gay marriage in this country at the moment is that because we have an established church, it is enshrined in law that if your marriage is legal in British law (at present, between 1 man and 1 woman), then you have the right to marry in a Church of England church. Legalising gay marriage would create problems because it would mean that Church of England churches would have to follow the law and marry gay couples that arrested it. If gay marriage were to be legalised, we’d have to disestablish the church. I support gay marriage, so long as the church was disestablished, thus giving it the right to refuse gay marriages at its own discretion, in the same that any other religious institution could. That’d be a good thing. And please note, I am a UKIP member, this is my personal opinion.
“Enshrined in law”. A law that is control of Parliament that can, ergo, be amended by an Act of Parliament and I’m pretty sure would be taken into account in the proposed legislation when it comes around (if it affects churches which it is not currently planned to do, although I understand that the Government’s talk of “civil marriage” is legally iffy).
So this is not really a problem is it?
Some Scandinavian countries also have an established church, and this has not been a problem. Was it Denmark (?) that recently introduced full marriage rights? This was welcomed by the state church, and gay people then had the right also to get married in their local church, however, the pastor has a right of conscience not to perform the ceremony, and a substitute pastor will be provided. This sounds like a good compromise where there is a state church, which maintains the religious liberty of the pastor. Religious liberty is the right of an individual.
The other one with a State church is Iceland. Iceland’s now gender-neutral marriage law simply says no priest will be obliged to perform or prohibited from performing any marriage.
50% of European countries with established churches have equal marriage. The one that do not are England and Greece. Do we want to align ourselves with tolerant countries like Denmark and Iceland, or with the increasingly fascist Greece?
Fascist Greece? Good grief.
I think we sould align ourselves with nobody but ourselves. What is this fixation with becoming sheep, blindly following the trend?
Civil marriage, yes, and it is available to those who want it. You shouldn’t be trying to force religiouis structures to do what they do not feel comfortable with. But it may change in time, who knows.
You shouldn’t be trying to force religiouis structures to do what they do not feel comfortable with.
But who is doing that?
“Legalising gay marriage would create problems because it would mean that Church of England churches would have to follow the law….”
Why? Divorce is legal and allowing that amended the marriage laws, yet we didn’t have to disestablish the church just because they choose not to marry divorcees. I don’t believe that allowing equal marriage will cause the churches any problems. They already refuse to marry people – people who are entitled by law to be married – and they haven’t been sued or prosecuted.
This implies that you could walk into any C of E church and demand to be married. That, of course, is nonsense. You may find in the next parish someone to marry you, but your own parish priest cannot be compelled to marry you, baptise you or bury you. It is not a public service, like a supermarket or library.
1) I know of divorced couples who had to marry in a non-conformist chapel, because the C of E refused to conduct their ceremony.
2) Can Ross tell us how many couples have successfully forced C of E clergy to marry them after being refused? (my guess is between -1 and 0)
But it IS a public service. Just like a supermarket or a library, and it SHOULD be run along the same lines. There is no pertinent difference between these things that justifies giving the one special rights to discriminate and forcing the other to abide by equality law. BOTH should be subject to the full force of equality legislation. BOTH should be forced to offer their services to anyone who can use them.
Actually I don’t agree, it doesn’t claim to provide a service to all people – Muslims can’t marry each other in a church, after all. I think it’s better to see religious institutions as clubs, able to make whatever rules they want to make provided no-one is forced to follow them.
However, I do think it’d be best if only civil marriages would be recognised legally, as in France.
Well said Ross. You are of course entitled to your view and you have put it across calmly and cogently.
People are free to disagree but not to start slandering.
I smell beyrayal wrapped in rosetinted glasses.
May be you should take a shower son
I wish I could give you a big hug Nicholas. Thank you.
I wish I could sit him down and ask him some pertinent questions.
I wish that I could enroll him in an extensive course on political theory, the history of Gay Liberation, and “How to write English good.”
Yeah and wouldn’t that be a barrel of laughs. Snorrrrrrre…..
Well said Chris.
Equal marriage does NOT take away anyone’s rights. Churches frequently turn away straight couples who want to marry and none of those have sued. Churches can also ignore gender equality legislation.
And by asserting that the C of E’s rights will be breached (when they won’t) you also ignore the rights of those churches who DO want to marry same sex couples.
You’ve said nothing that persuades me that UKIP isn’t anti-gay – nothing at all. Ignoring the individual homophobes in UKIP, your policies themselves leave a lot to be desired regarding equal rights. I don’t want to sit at the back of the bus, thanks.
“Churches can also ignore gender equality legislation.” viz. the refusal to allow women to become bishops.
Feel free to sit where you like but stop insisting you should have your way and that the world should bend to your will all the time. From there it’s a short hop to something very much nastier and altogether more proscriptive.
I’m very worried about the way gay people have launched themselves into this extremist victim mode of thinking. Definitely not for me.
I am gay and have never voted for UKIP thus far, but reading all the comments on here I think I it’s a serious possibility in future.
It’s not extremist to want equal rights, Sid. Any venom in this quest has been due to the ‘other side’. I’m quite happy to discuss things with people who disagree but are courteous and make pertinent points (and I have done many times on PN). But when anti-equality people spread misinformation and lies, I feel I’m banging my head against a brick wall trying to discuss anything with them. This article merely repeated similar objections that many religious people have raised – objections without foundation.
And I don’t “want my way”. I support equality full stop. I’d support equal marriage even if I was straight & I support other equality issues too even when they don’t personally affect me.
With respect, I’m finding it hard to understand your attitude. You said above that people here had been rude but I think you’re seeing what you want to as there are plenty of polite comments here; you agree with the author but haven’t explained why he’s right about equal marriage affecting churches
And then you say that the comments here have somehow persuaded you to vote for UKIP – why? Are you against equal marriage?
And, for your information, I can’t ‘sit where I want’ on the bus while the law treats me unequally. I don’t want special treatment. I want the same treatment as anyone else – nothing more. Getting that need NOT infringe anyone else’s rights. Churches can continue to be free to choose who they marry, and civil marriage can be open to all who wish to have it.
The law doesn’t treat you unequally any more.
Quote: ‘Churches can continue to be free to choose who they marry, and civil marriage can be open to all who wish to have it.’
Well if the law is changed to force all churches against their will to carry out same-sex marriages then of course churches would NOT ‘be free to choose who they marry’ would they. It’s their choice, and there are plenty of alternatives.
‘Civil marriagecan be open to all who wish to have it’ – Err, civil marriage IS open to all.
Stop moaning please. Compared with world hunger, and diseases like cancer this is small potatoes yet many gay people are well and truly stuck. They cannot see past their own navels and have convinced themselves they can only be free when something is done by someone else. That is nonsense. Your personal freedom depends on You and you clearly have no idea just how lucky you are in comparison to most people on earth. It’s a kind of inner poverty. Choose otherwise.
Compared with world hunger, and diseases like cancer this is small potatoes
If these potatoes are so small, why are people wasting their time objecting to something so apparently trivial? As someone recently pointed out elsewhere, you don’t ignore theft just because rape and murder are worse.
‘Civil marriagecan be open to all who wish to have it’ – Err, civil marriage IS open to all.
No, it’s not – and that’s the whole point, Sid! Civil marriage is only open to straight people. A CP is NOT a civil marriage nor does it have exactly the same rights. There’s no reason why LGBT people should have to have something different. A civil marriage is just a legal thing not religious, so it should be open to all regardless of sexuality.
“Well if the law is changed to force all churches against their will to carry out same-sex marriage…”
But no-one’s suggesting that, Sid. The proposal is for equal civil marriage mainly, and for churches who CHOOSE to marry same sex couples to be able to. Churches who didn’t want to would NOT have to (and I support their right not to).
What’s the problem with that? It’s fair to both LGBT people and churches who don’t want to marry same sex couples. It allows us equal rights but doesn’t impinge on anyone else’s rights. Win-win.
“Your personal freedom depends on You and you clearly have no idea just how lucky you are in comparison to most people on earth. It’s a kind of inner poverty. Choose otherwise.”
Don’t be patronising. You don’t know anything about me so don’t make assumptions, please. My inner life is very rich, thank you.
” I personally have a serious moral problem with advocating something that gives rights to one group at the expense of taking rights away from another, especially for my own benefit.”
Please cite the rights that will be removed from heterosexual married couples!!!
Or are you referring to the religious perceived “right” to discriminate.
What a poorly written piece; I do hope that the author isn’t at university studying English language, or else I fear that they’d struggle to even attain a 2:2.
Furthermore, they seem like quite a politically confused human being. By their own admission, in 2010 they voted for the centre-left/centrist Liberal Democrats, yet by 2012, they have jumped ship and joined the centre-right/right UKIP. Of course, people change their political views, but either this young man has experienced a whole ideological shift, or he simply fails to understand the basics of political theory (another subject that I hope he isn’t studying). I admit to suspecting the latter.
While many people, of all ideological persuasions, support the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, UKIP are not a one-policy party, and have a wider slate of socially conservative and in some cases reactionary views. it is very, very hard — some may say impossible — to reconcile this stance with one that promotes LGBT rights.
What a conceited git.
Get off your high horse you silly Moo!
Probably got a Phd in media studies with knobs on.
When I was reading I kept hearing the words in a bit of a southern drawl, with a soundtrack of dueling banjos.
Poor spelling, poor grammar, and very poor arguments.
Nicholas Dancer, ‘sexual preference’ means exactly what?. Nobody prefers to be straight or gay, it’s who we are, the way we are born. We do NOT choose our sexual orientation, rather it chooses us.
Which churches have had lawsuits brought against them by gay couples? Religious CPs are legal now for those who denominations who wish to participate, but they are NOT marriages if that’s what you are inferring. There is no law in the UK where that is written according to the Marriage Causes Act of 1973.
Blair’s government and now the Cameron government have made it quite clear that CPs are NOT marriages and is the reason why equal marriage is going to be legislated into law to put an end once and for all to the separate but equal nonsense conveyed by CPs which have not become the universal standard for gay couples and never will as more countries discard them for equal civil marriage.
Explain how leaving the EU will make equal marriage a non-issue? Delusional at best.
Really, UKIP? That’s your best effort?
1. Objecting to Mr McKenzie’s bigoted and ignorant comments about gay parenting = “being overly sensitive”.
2. Britain being in the EU = a reason not to have equal marriage. Seriously? I’ve explained why the “ECHR bogeyman” is nonsense too many times to repeat here.
But ECHR ratification is a separate issue from EU membership. The UK signed up to the ECHR in 1950 – long before we joined the EEC (in 1973). The EU expects members to sign the ECHR, but does not administer it. The Convention is enforced (or rather, not enforced) by a quite separate body: the Council of Europe. In short, the UK is as free to ignore the ECHR today as it will be the day it leaves the EU. The only enforcement mechanism for the ECHR is Labour’s HRA 1998, which is administered by the British courts, and if you want that repealed, go right ahead and argue for that – the EU isn’t stopping you.
How can you oppose EU membership when you know so little about it?
Now, now. You know it’s not fair to use facts when all that they have is rhetoric.
Excellent point! :)
Thanks for clarifying that, Atlanta, I found the article confusing as I too had understood the ECHR had nothing to do with the EU.
PN has a duty of care not to publish misinformation, and I’m quite shocked they let this by without fact checking.
The writer of the article, particularly if writing on behalf of a political party, should do his research properly. He seems to have joined the party under a complete misunderstanding of the mechanisms of human rights law, and the result is a totally nonsensical article which misinforms rather than illuminates.
Intelligent, thoughtful article & young man. I too am fed up with the shrill, self-righteous hypocrisy of so many ‘rights’ groups demanding what they want even at the expense of what others want or believe, and playing the outraged victim all the time.
As for the Labour Party, I will never vote for them again. Nasty bullies. All its supporters do is call anyone who has genuine concerns about how we can as a country in decline manage to look after everyone in future with an exploding population and an open-door immigration policy a rascist, as if it is not possible to have such concerns despite these facts.
And Labour is non-libertarian, despite appearances. Forget the grand pronouncements, they lie and cheat. See what they do and say when someone disagrees with them. Disgusting. I will never vote Labour again.
So how can gay rights be defended? I think equality before the law is now enshrined & generally accepted. Those who demand respect from others should ensure they reciprocate!
I demand no respect nor tolerance. Those are not libertarian ideals. I demand my freedom and to be left alone. The churches can do what they want (and some want to marry same sex couples, sadly other churches aren’t “respecting” their rights).
Of course a real libertarian party would be looking to “privatise” marriage. This UKIP obsession on maintaining the status quo proves to me they wouldn’t know a libertarian policy if it fell into their laps.
And an open-door immigration policy IS libertarian. UKIP oppose that too….
UKIP is the “I can’t believe they are not a libertarian” party. But sadly I can.
Iris, you can sit where you want. Why suggest otherwise.
You say: ‘Churches can continue to be free to choose who they marry, and civil marriage can be open to all who wish to have it.’
Civil marriage is already open to anyone who so desires it. But if gay marriage is forced on churches then quite clearly Churches will not be free to choose who they marry. Will they? Not if they don’t wish to afford same-sex couples a full church marriage ceremony. I don’t mind if that’s the case. I don’t mind if you don’t like it, but I’m fed up with gay people wasting their entire lives being permanently ‘outraged’. Move on can’t you.
Civil marriage is not open to anyone who wants it. The Government consultation this year was about legalising same-sex civil marriage.
Currently there are no proposals to allow religious same sex marriage, more the shame,.
How much of your life do you waste in being outraged, Sid? Quite a lot, by the looks of it.
“Civil marriage is already open to anyone who so desires it”
No, it’s not – and that’s the whole point! Civil marriage SHOULD be open to all, but it’s currently not. Thus, using the bus analogy, I can NOT ‘sit where I want’ because the law dictates I must be separate because of my sexuality. Separate isn’t equal – and there’s no need for such laws. Civil marriage should be gender neutral – and it’s currently not. I don’t want ‘separate’ things just because I’m gay. There’s no need and many people (NOT just LGBT people) see it as unnecessary and demeaning.
Equality is enshrined into law? For gays? You’re delusional. CPs aren’t about equality. They have more to do with keeping us separate with similar rights, appeasing religious nutters who believe that civil marriage is an religious issue which it isn’t. Seems the shoe is on the other foot, pal, religious nutters demanding what they want and imposing a religious belief on the rest of society. CPs are NOT identical to civil marriage in any way shape or form. Eleven countries have already debunked that right wing myth and more of them will continue to do just that. If they are that equal, why aren’t they the universal standard for both straights and gays? How do you think the average straight would react if marriage in the UK were abolished altogether and replaced with CPs?
I respect the churches and others right to dislike homosexuality, but that does NOT mean they’re entitled to deprive me of civil rights – ie the right to a civil marriage.
Asking to be treated equally and fairly isn’t having a go at anyone else – it’s simply what it says. The suffragettes didn’t hate men nor did they want to deprive them of rights – they just wanted the same rights to vote as them. It’s the same with equal marriage. I’m getting fed up with asking for eqaulity being seen as some kind of attack on others – it is NOT.
Don’t be silly Iris, you can have a civil marriage any time you like. Marriage in church relates to millenia-old tenets that people hold dear. Most of you only want it because you can’t have it. There are plenty of other religions and branches where you will find a home. I’m fed up with you all bleating like babies. Compared to world hunger, war and disease it really is not as important as you all make it out to be. I’m now sick and tired of hearing about it, It’s become an excuse to moan and feel victimised. Get over yourselves.
“Don’t be silly Iris, you can have a civil marriage any time you like. ”
No, I can’t!!! Please feel free to accompany me to the local registry office and watch what happens when my girlfriend and I request a civil marriage.
Why do you think Cameron is proposing equal civil marriage if gay people are already allowed to marry??
I do not “demand” respect or special treatment. We do not need special consideration, like wheelchair users need ramps, or elderly people need stairlifts.
We only want, need and demand to be treated as men and women, not as “gays” to be the objects of scorn and bigotry.
UKIP and many Tories see us as a “problem”, in the same way as Black Americans were regarded in the 50′s. That is unacceptable, and led to Section 28 and other injustices.
“I too am fed up with the shrill, self-righteous hypocrisy of so many ‘rights’ groups demanding what they want even at the expense of what others want or believe, and playing the outraged victim all the time.”
To me, that applies more to some fundamentalist Christians than any LGBT people. Indeed, it’s becoming very much their MO.
Of all the things to be irritated about in this article, I am most annoyed by UKIP’s continued attempts to smear the European Court of Human Rights. As people have tried to explain to UKIP over and over again, the ECtHR is part of the Council of Europe, a completely separate institution to their hated EU. In contrast to the EU, the UK has played a central role in the CoE since it was created in the 1949 Treaty of London, which was strongly pushed by Churchill.
The ECtHR has brought about vast improvements to people’s lives in the UK and across Europe, especially for LGBT people. Dudgeon v UK and Norris v Ireland led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout Europe. Other cases ended unequal age of consent laws and bans on LGB people joining the military, and required countries to officially recognise the gender of trans people.
The ECtHR has also taken on many cases relating to extremely serious violations of human rights in Eastern Europe, including lots of cases involving Russia’s appalling treatment of its population during its wars in Chechnya. Russia would love nothing more than for a major Western country to leave the Council of Europe, providing it with cover to follow suit and bring an end to the embarrassment the ECtHR has caused it.
It is inconceivable that the ECHR could somehow be used to force religious groups to marry same-gender couples. Where are the cases requiring them to marry trans people, divorcees, and those who don’t meet religious requirements? Where are the cases forcing them to offer civil partnership ceremonies to same-gender couples, and allow LGBT people to become priests?
Regardless, it is astonishing to me that any LGBT person would consider that protecting a person’s “right” to discriminate against gay, bi, and trans people to be more important than our legal equality.
I personall believe that the historically accepted natural way for a child to be brough up; If possible, is in the historically accepted union of a male and female/mother and father of the child. In order that the child can be able to grow up and advance in a sexually mixed environment, in order that the child might use It’s own discretion in deciding what may be a normality rather than perhaps being persuaded either way through familiarity.
So explain why almost every gay man and woman grew up in a “sexually-mixed environment”. Nobody decides their sexual orientation, it is not a choice, it is predetermined in the womb. Ask any heterosexual when he or she discovered they were heterosexual and you’ll find the answer is no different than a gay man or woman responding. Nobody chooses to be straight or gay. Natural selection takes care of that either way. Same in the animal kingdom.
That may well be your personal opinion but what relevance your opinion has is minimal. Scientific data currently errs on the side of little to no difference between same sex and opposite sex couples bringing up children (take a look here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100191612/ukips-winston-mckenzie-is-factually-wrong-to-say-that-adoption-by-homosexual-couples-is-child-abuse/)
Let us stick to the facts. I know, I’m an annoying stickler for this sort of thing.
What is a homophobic bigot doing posting here anyway? try getting you facts right before spouting off your rubbish!
Well said Neville, and never mind some of the intolerant extremist bigots on these pages. The Left and minority groups are full of them these days and they mean to impose their views on the majority come what may and by any means. We may be witnessing the slow death of democracy.
You are entitled to your view. Never let them silence you, or threaten or bully you into changing that which you believe in!
Best to you,
The failure of Nigel Farage to sack a party spokesperson for those remarks tells me all I need to know about UKIP. Needless to say, I won’t be voting UKIP any time soon.
Leaving the EU would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. 57% of our exports go to the EU. If we left the EU then UK goods would become far more expensive to our EU customers as they would attract large import tariffs. UKIP is a one policy party, they will never have any power in this country.
Despite what the writer has said I find it objectionable that they won’t support equal marriage. How on Earth does giving me the right to marry take away anyone else’s right?
A number of Churches and religious organisations would like to perform marriages but this is forbidden in the proposed legislation. As for forcing various religious organisations to perform same sex marriages. That is covered within the primary legislation and any challenge to the ECHR is unlikely to succeed. Why on earth would anyone want to marry in a place where they are not welcome?
UKIP will never get my vote. I remember friends who foolishly and blindly supported that bigot Thatcher.
You’re figures are wrong. It’s less than 50% now and the rate of increase of trade with the rest of the world is growing much faster. Thank goodness. It is elsewhere in the emerging markets where the real potential lies and that is where we should be focused, not on an undemocratic single state which seems dead set on committing hari kiri.
I find your finding it objectionable objectionable, but youor welcome to think that so knock yourself out.
Nobody from the Left in this country has a right to call anybody else a bigot any longer. Such is the level of extremism and intolerance on the Left I fear for this country now. I don’t trust people who seek to impose their views on others come what may and regardless of being in a minority. I may consider voting UKIP in future but one thing is for sure: I will never vote Labour again.
You are correct that latterly there has been a decline in trade with the EU. This is of course because of the eurozone crises. However as a trading block they still remain by far the largest. Also you forget that a large number of foreign owned company’s here in the UK are ONLY here because we are in the EU. They need to produce the goods within the EU to enable them to sell their products to EU country s without paying large import duties.
If you don’t understand this then I suggest you stop sniffing UKIP glue and come down to earth and learn about how the world economy works. The isolationism proposed by UKIP would finish this country on the global stage. We would become an unimportant little Island with no relevance at any negotiating table. UKIP’s hidden right wing agenda should be of concern to anyone with half a brain.
Britain IMPORTS much more from the EU than it exports to it thanks to incompetent Tory and Labour governments. If we left, it wouldn’t be in Germany’s interest to start a trade war with us.
If we left our goods would automatically attract EU import duties. It has little to do with what Germany want. And if they did start a trade war with us WHO do you think would loose! You may not have noticed but we don’t make very much any more. Thatcher closed us down!
Thinking leaving the EU would not have a huge negative impact on the UK economy and jobs is living in cloud cuckoo land. The same land of faerie story’s UKIP is headquartered in!
To call someone a bigot does not make me right wing, I am just stating a fact again I would wonder what a bigot is doing posting here trying to defend the indefensible.
A lot of EU countries have any laws of same-sex unions. But no reaction from Brussels – not now and no in the near future. Why must the possible same-sex marriage in the UK to be subject of European law? I see no sens in this very formal argumentation from ‘chambre de travail’.
I wish I was a little clearer about the point you are making, but if I surmise correctly then I think you may be questionning why it should be necessary to formalise same-sex marriage. Anyway, I definitely believe in equal civil rights. That is obvious. But I feel uneasy about the idea of gay marriage. Marriage to me I think should be for a man and a woman and for the purpose of procreation. I would have no problem in informal blessings. Either way I am definitely opposed to forcing churched to carry out same-sex marriages as many on this page demand. That would be very wrong and upset the majority of church goers. I see no reason for that.
My Sid! I suspect, ‘marriage’ for You means only religious ceremony, yes? Well, its understandable (more or less) in the British context, but not so much in the European (even Eastern European), where institution of civil marriage have very long traditions indeed (in France since 1804). Of course, Churches have right not to bless (or bless, if so wish) gay couples – but its not the point. The point is, that Churches, and specially Catholic Church, still seeing marriage until now as his own ‘property’, yes, even civil ceremony too – as not avoidable, simple formality alongside of true and only ‘holy matrimony’. And exactly here we have answer, why Church is so nervous with idea of same-sex marriage. And, yes, why gay couples have right to marry: its not just about equality or ‘simple word’ – its about clericalism, secularism, separation between Church and State, and continuity of ‘Age de Lumiere’ 250 years after Didrot. Significant game!
I got as far as this bit and then gave up:
“I personally have a serious moral problem with advocating something that gives rights to one group at the expense of taking rights away from another, especially for my own benefit. Like I say, I’m a libertarian, I don’t want to impose my will upon anyone. Some, will be thinking what on earth is this idiot talking about?”
Got it in one: he doesn’t know what a libertarian is, and has no idea what human rights actually means. Why are you publishing such nonsense?
@ barriejohn …..
Oh I don’t know, in the interests of allowing people who don’t all think the same a voice occasionally? What are you afraid of? He speaks good sense in my view, that’s a fine, thoughtful paragraph and I’m sorry you do not have the intellect to see through the prism of your own narrow jaundiced view of how you and your friends think things ‘should’ be. You are in fact a bunch of bossy, bullying authoritarian pitbulls straining at the leash, that much is clear. And all behind the false banner of liberty. What a sick joke.
I don’t think UKiP is full of “fruit-cakes and loonies” I think they are cold and calculating. Their policies change with wind and they make sweeping statements without any sign of proof. They are just the BNP for millionaires!!! Political parties like UKIP are particularly dangerous in the current climate as they will say what the electorate want to hear not what is good for the country.
Funny, I would say it is pretty much the opposite, though I am not a UKIP member and have not (yet anyway) voted for them. I think it is the main parties who say what people want to hear and then renege once they gain/regain power. They lie and cheat and steal and are happy to accept the status quo because it workis nicely for them. They’re in it for themselves. I’m sick of them all. They don’t even have much power any more as quite clearly the EU decides most things as we have seen. As for Labour, they don’t even respect the democratic process, forever gerrymandering votes and cheating. So I may well vote UKIP in future, at least while they are a minority party in order to try to help them grow and shake up the Westminster bubble and remind politicians that they are paid salaries to speak and act for the people, not the other way round.
Nicholas Dancer says that as a UKIP supporter he disagrees with Equal Marriage. This isn’t evidence based politics but then it we are talking UKIP here. However, he hasn’t applied the litmus test applied on all UKIP policies by his senior party colleague, Roger Helmer, UKIP MEP for the East Midlands who says on his website: ‘My litmus test is the London taxi driver. I find that if he agrees, the policy probably makes sense’. I’m sure Mr Dancer could do likewise. With luck he would find himself the passenger of a gay cab driver.
1. There have actually been threats of legal challenges made against churches — can you provide references? I have heard of no such threats.
2. The ECHR has no connection with the EU and includes lots of non-EU countries. Even if the UK left the EU, it would be unlikely to sever its ties with the ECHR.
3. There is no evidence that the ECHR would impose same-sex marriage on any religious institutions. Indeed it is very unlikely that it would. Religious institutions deny marriages to various groups for various reasons in line with their beliefs. I am not aware of any religious institution ever being forced by a court of law to administer sacraments that are not in line with their beliefs.
If UKIP wants to leave the EU, they should find reasons that actually make sense instead of idle speculations.
They have been made a number of times.
‘…the countries of Europe are integrating more and more each day…’
I wish to protect Britain’s historic independence. We’re an island nation. We have democratic freedoms many in Europe (and here) seek to overturn. Including Belgians?
“…I warn you popularism has never led to anything good”. So if it’s unpopular that’s fine, just ignore ‘No’ votes and tell nations to keep voting again until they get it ‘right’ while controlling their finances? Apparently so, even though the EU’s accounts have not been signed off by auditors as above board and correct for the 18th year in a row!
Funny, didn’t many British people die trying to defend Belgium from the cloak of an extremist ideology, even while ‘some’ Belgians gleefully joined up to support it? Yes! Meanwhile on the supposed polar opposite of the scale millions suffered under an alternative extreme ideology further east.
Europe has nothing to teach Britain about democracy
UKIP’s homosexual supporters are trophy gays.
Purely decorative, in the hopes passers by will think the party look modern. They’ll be put back in the closet when the by-election is over, ready for the next round of voting.
You just can’t – won’t – accept that some gay people have views that differ from yours can you.
I call it Intollerance.
How sad that hose formerly proscribed against are now in the forefront of seeking to proscribe against others and withdraw their democratic freedoms. You and many others need a lesson in democracy and what ‘free speech’ really means. And a lesson in history too.
“Britain should leave the European Union if it wants to legalise equal marriage.”
Can you then explain how it is possible that “gay marriage” is already legal in my country (Belgium) and several other EU countries for a long time?
I love the British people, I really do. An important part of my life is in London and I have many friends there. But this Europe bashing of the English is getting utterly annoying. The Eurozone countries are integrating more and more every day, while the UK goes further and further away. I never really understood how that can benefit the UK in the long run. Do you really want to become the lone country next to a big integrated bloc? It’s not up to me to judge another country’s politics. Just wanted to express how it is perceived over here and warn all of you that populism never brought anything good.
Not all of us are like that! I like in Folkestone, and know just how important our links to Europe are. (And how much I love Belgium!!)
Will send some chocolates and beer to Folkestone then ;)
No thanks… I much prefer to enjoy them in Veurne. Mmmm… proper Belgian beer :)
To demonstrate the ignorance of the UK population regarding Europe, I was asked today if Belgium was a “country”. I said yes, with some incredulity at such a question. The 3 young (but far from stupid) women wanted clarification – “you mean it’s independent?” Yes, I replied, it has a monarch, like Britain.
My grandfathers both went to war to defend Belgium. They would be horrified at the lack of education about our neighbours!.
Let them read the In Flanders Field poem, and then let them visit one of the many war graves. I’m sure they will no longer forget.
Well said, BE-Ma. The UK couldn’t go it alone. The EU is here for good, it’s not dimishing. The economic woes facing the UK would be triple-fold if we pulled out of the union. We would be at a disadvantage trading our goods and probably have to pay higher tariffs on goods imported from the EU bloc. An isolated UK would not be in anyone’s interests, least of all our own. The UKIP had better be careful what it wishes for. Thankfully, it’s not going anywhere and will spend an eternity in isolation along with the BNP where they belong.
Whilst I am not a UKIP supporter and can’t speak for them, this isn’t true. Britain IMPORTS more from other members of the EU than it EXPORTS to them. Basically, we have a negative trade imbalance with them. Does anyone seriously believe Germany will stop selling us BMWs and Mercedes-Benzs if we left? Germany might be annoyed if we left but they won’t stop exporting to us.
Quote: ‘The Eurozone countries are integrating more & more every day, while the UK goes further and further away. I never really understood how that can benefit the UK in the long run.?’
Response: I like Europe & Europeans but wish to remain in my historic, free, independent nation. The big growth opportunities lie further afield. As you accurately state European integration is a runaway train & it will not stop. I respect your right to stay aboard but I wish to get off. I would rather be poorer but free anyway. I see no reason for us not to remain good friends. You know our commitment to Belgium’s freedom through our sacrifice in two world wars! But why did we fight if only to surrender independence?
As for ‘…warn all of you that populism never brought anything good’ – that’s the problem as many see it: often unelected EU plutocrats are undemocratic, crushing dissent, ignoring ‘No’ votes. And 18 years running auditors have refused to pass EU accounts.
This “18 years running” thing is a popular factoid among eurosceptics, but it is basically a myth. The European Court of Auditors carries out an independent audit of the EU budget every year, which is sent to the European Parliament. The Parliament is able to reject the budget if it is unsatisfied – this has happened twice, I believe. In 1994, the procedure was changed so that the ECA has to decide whether or not to provide a “declaration of assurance” that all spending can be accounted for. However, according to the rules, even minor issues prevent them from being able to provide this assurance, so they have never done so. In contrast, as far as I am aware, the UK government’s budget has never been independently audited.
Can any member of UKIP tell us the real facts, not false propaganda?
We were founding signatories of the ECHR 2 decades before we joined the EU. The European Court rose from the spectre of Belsen, Auschwitz and Dachau, not from the mind of a faceless Brussels bureaucrat. Dancer comes close to saying that, but cleverly tries to link the two in the readers’ minds, without blatantly writing an untruth.
UKIP is a party for the simple-minded, the bigoted and, yes, fruit cakes. trust them at your peril.
Quote – ‘The European Court rose from the spectre of Belsen, Auschwitz and Dachau, not from the mind of a faceless Brussels bureaucrat.’
Response – Precisely. Law intended to stop genocide are now being interpreted by judges in ways that never envisaged or intended. The nature of power 9law gives power) is such that it is rare indeed that it ever limits itself but always seeks more. It’s got that way now and must be limited. We have thousands more laws today than in the past and are less free, despite all the ‘rights’ of people (who ever talk of ‘responsibilities’?). Freedom ultimately is a state of mind. Very few people generally realise this. That includes gay people. Tell you what, why don’t you just resort to calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you a fruit cake or a bigot, that’s about the limit of your intelligence. Oh, wait…..
Try reading the Convention. It is quite clear that it was intended to go far further than stopping genocide (it provides rights to privacy, marriage, and freedom from discrimination, for example).
Why does PinkNews print far right propaganda? Anybody know? What did gay UKIPers do to earn a platform?
Hey El Gabal, who are you to make the arrogant assumption that it is far-right? You seem far more extreme than the chap who wrote the article to me. And in any case, who are you to say that all gay people must by definition think like you and share the same views. We don’t! I am living proof and I care not whether you like it or not.
It seems to me that the majority of gay people, at least on these pages, have turned into a bunch of screaming poor-little-me victims who are simply ‘outraged’ by friggin’ everything.
You think your sexuality is really that important when millions of people have cancer and millions of kids starve daily? Get over yoruselves for Christ’s sake and start looking at the bigger picture. I’ll give you a tip: it is not to be found staring into one’s own navel. That’s all the ‘gay community’ seems to do and all it seems interested in doing. Well bully for you, live in a ghetto of your own making if you want to, but count me out. You don’t speak for me!
Troll off Sid, and take all your other fake personas with you.
To know what kind of party UKIP is, you have only to read comments their supporters post on the Mail and Telegraph websites.
You are absolutely right.
It may possibly be the case that the vast majority of UKIP members are decent and open-minded people (if somewhat misguided – especially on the subject of equal marriage). Though I have to say that the fact the members of UKIP Croydon North could have selected a candidate with such stupid and ignorant homophobic beliefs does not inspire confidence.
However, the kind of voters drawn to UKIP can be sampled by looking at the comments under Telegraph and Daily Mail online articles that refer to LGBT rights.
UKIP is now falling over itself to proclaim it is a libertarian party and that it is committed to equality for LGBT people: at the same time, it allows an offensively anti-gay candidate to be selected, and I for one did not hear a word from Farage challenging his candidate’s disgraceful homophobia, which will appeal to the toxic hard right bigots. It cannot have its cake and eat it, and UKIP is going to become unstuck.
I’m very disappointed with many views expressed here. Many are too quick to see themselves as victims & too ready to proscribe against those they complain are proscribing against them. Labour do this all the time & have lost my vote. I’ve not voted UKIP yet, but I might.
This young chap is entitled to his views. You can like or dislike them or simply feel ambivalent, but respect them! They are his own. So are mine. I’ve had little contact with the ‘gay community’, however we define that, for some time. I’m none too keen on renewing it having read many views here. You are of course entitled to them but I do not have to go along with it. I expect responses attacking another ‘closet right wing troll’ or some such, the usual nasty & disrespectful response. I find it deeply unpleasant & dangerous. Where will it lead? Majorities have rights too! You can’t have your own way all the time in life. I choose not to be a victim & refuse to be ghetto-ised by heterosexuals, or gay people! I am free.
If he has the right to publicly present his views, then readers have the right to respond. They too, are (thankfully) ‘free’.
I dislike much of how it is done. Smacks of victimhood to me. Gay people have suffered greatly down the centuries but many others have too, straight or gay. There is a correlation here with the Jewish people – and don’t start please to level accusations of anti-semitism. Precisely because of such immense suffering they have fought back. Fair enough of course. But it is a spiritual fact that unless suffering is understood & transcended the abused can very easily become the abuser. This process has started. It does not negate the suffering that went before.
Where you are going is not the Utopia some seem to think it is. Some may end up getting a very nasty shock whilst inadvertently causing much damage and pain to others. I cannot support that. I am a great deal more than just my sexuality & you are all too but don’t realise it. I will not be pidgeon-holed by anyone, gay or straight. That’s not freedom. It’s a long road though I grant you so I wish you all well but cannot follow you.
OK, that’s your view. For myself I dislike the strident, hectoring tone of many (and the whiney qualities of some others) of your dozens of posts on this thread.
And remind me, Sid: who wrote ‘What a conceited git. Get off your high horse you silly Moo!” above? Wouldn’t you say that’s a ‘nasty and disrespectful response’?
You missed out “No it doesn’t you arrogant pratt” said by Sid to Valksy, and numerous other disrespectful comments… Many of which seemed to arise from Sid’s belief that we already have equal civil marriage. Indeed, he called me “silly” when I said that we didn’t….
I’m not quite sure where Sid’s coming from at all. He says not to be rude and then is rude himself; he says not to make generalisations and then generalises about all commenters here and makes unfounded assumptions; he says we should be tolerant but them exhibits intolerance himself..
But through all that I’ve yet to read a post from Sid that explains why he believes that the writer here is right about equal marriage infringing churches and others rights. And THAT is what most people here are disputing – not differing opinions, untrue statements.
Quite right, Iris.
Tell it to UKIP spokesperson Winston McKenzie
It is a ridiculous idea that all views must be respected. No. They do not particularly if they are poorly evidenced, irrational, superstitious or just plain bollocks.
What is really encouraging is how the recent attacks on LGBT rights by fundamentalist religionists and some representatives of a fringe political party are galvanising the LGBT community to fight back hard.
They like to try to dismiss the validity of our campaign and our compaints by attempting to characterise us as extremists, “the gay lobby,” and selfish people in victim mode.
But we are the ones who have suffered and struggled as a result of homophobia, and they have no idea, and simply don’t care anyway, about the importance of the issues.
One thing is for sure: UKIP is going to try to exploit the defection of stuffy anti-gay voters from the Conservative Party in the 2015 election, and UKIP will repeatedly attack equal marriage, and peddle the nonsense about churches being forced to marry LGBT people, as did their pathetic Croydon North candidate.
When that happens, I am sure we will be ready to challenge them hard, as we did the ignoramus Winston McKenzie.
This is the most incoherent pile of poorly written claptrap I have seen on Pink News for quite a while. If UKIP want to be taken seriously, they should start presenting reasoned policies and arguments instead of presenting themselves as a shambolic mismarriage of disenfranchised lunatics.
I flatly reject this article’s stupid premise – that religious groups should be allowed to discriminate if they want to. They should not. Churches should all be FORCED to offer same-sex marriages if they offer marriages at all. That’s what equality means – the same standards for everyone, no exceptions for inveterate bigotry.
Shopkeepers, employers, educational establishments and businesses are required to offer their services to all, irrespective of how bigoted and hateful the proprietors are. Religious groups are no different, and should be treated no differently. The EU court of human rights is just about the only institution that might actually enforce real equality law like this, and make the churches conform to decent moral and legal standards.
Should…Should…Should. My goodness how judgemental GAY people have become. You threaten democracy. What a stupid argument. Listen up, are you a paid up member of every religion in the world? No? Me neither. If one religion or branch of one doesn’t take your fancy then kindly stop bleating and simply find one that does.
Stop telling everyone in the world they have to dance to your tune. They don’t. Their beliefs are millenia-old and go right to the heart of things. You cannot expect everyone to simply throw out tenets you happen to disagree with simply to suit you. They may change but that is up to them, on THEIR timescale, not yours.
Don’t like it? Fine, knock yourself out. But b*gger off and find something that does suit you and that will accept you instead of bleating like a baby all the time and throwing a tantrem. ‘They must be MADE to do as I say’ comes right out of Hitler and Stalin’s book you great screaming numpty. Geddit? You have free choice. Use it!
VP is an individual Sid, one gay person does not express the opinions of all gay people. Funnily enough I got the impression you claim to understand that concept in many of your posts above.
@ Rehan …
I do and am fully aware of that thank you. What you and most others do not seem to understand is that I am defending the right of someone to have a view that differs from the majority (on here anyway, a minority otherwise) and not get slagged with vitreol for it. You all seem to insist that all gay people think like you. Sorry, they don’t!
Turn you thinking back on yourself and keep reading the comments I have made and the many replies to others’ posts until you understand the concept!
Do you really think so, Sid? I’m afraid from the evidence on this thread you are deluding yourself, and rather than calling someone else an ‘arrogant prat[t]‘, you should follow your own advice, scroll back, and see just how you come across – as it more accurately seems to describe you.
WOOP WOOP – GODWIN’S LAW ALERT – WOOP WOOP
There’s Judaism, which is about 4000 years old (and most progressive Jews are nothing like CofE, from what I’ve seen).
Christianity, although often marked as having started with Christ, is rather more complicated than that, as it only started being an organised religion at about 1600 years ago.
Hinduism is around 3500 years old (and I haven’t heard their views on gay marriage, yet). Buddhism is about 2560 years old, haven’t heard them, either, Islam is approximately 1400 years old.
In fact, the religious groups that appear to be loudest against marrying gay people, were only formed in the last 200 to 1000 years. Not so many millenia.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, has been around as long as mankind. (See e.g. depictions on Greek vases from before Christianity.)
You are not helping.
Religious groups are different. Freedom of religion and thought is important to freedom in general. They are covered by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Your opinion that they should be forced to marry same sex couples against their will flies in the face of human rights laws.
We must protect their right to be utter morons, just as we should protect the rights of other religions to accept same sex couples. Otherwise we are no better than the right-wing loons.
As I understand it, the Equality Act 2010 does place various restrictions on religions – for example, they would not be allowed to refuse employment or provision of services (such as marriage) because of a person’s race or disabilities. Why would it be an infringement of their freedom of religion to extend that to cover gender and sexual orientation?
I’m not suggesting that the courts or future governments are likely to force churches to marry same-sex couples in the foreseeable future, but the way freedom of religion seems to work in this country is that if major religions scream loudly enough that they want to be exempt from a law, the government obliges, while the beliefs of smaller religious groups and non-religious people are ignored. I don’t see why protecting this “right” is important.
U0kIP are all for gay equality – they believe every homosexual is a sex offender who should be imprisoned or ‘cured’ of their ‘disease.’ And why are they still hanging around with the likes of EDL ‘Lidl racists?’
UKIP has repeatedly been shown to be homophobic, you might aswell just vote BNP and atleast be honest about your political views.
As many others have expertly demolished the writer’s arguments above, I’m just going to focus on one particular piece of sloppiness: a surprising number of the disenfranchised that voted Lib Dem in 2010.
To be disenchfranchised means to be deprived of the vote. I’d say disillusioned would be a more accurate choice of word.
Who do you have to shag to get comments posted on PinkNews threads? Anyone regularly finds you contributions don’t appear after getting a message saying ‘Thank you. Your comment has been posted.’ Fibbers!
If you use certain 4-letter words in your comment, or longer words that are considered unacceptable (like the N-word), your comments won’t be posted. It would be much more helpful if you got a message informing you why it wasn’t going to be posted, I must say.
Thanks Rehan. As far as I know I wasn’t guilty on any either of those points. Silent, unaccountable censorship, then.
It’s a little capricious, I will admit – when I wanted to refer to the tedious troll that bedevilled these threads a while ago as a copro phile it wouldn’t allow me to write it as a single word, although it is a perfectly respectable word (even if the action it describes isn’t!).
Rufusred, it seems to happen for some people on some threads. They won’t let you post and then when you try again it tells you that it’s a duplicate comment. It seems to be a technical glitch not anything personal. But it IS frustrating for sure.
This comment piece has more holes in it than a swiss cheese? Sorry, am I allowed to say ‘swiss’ or is that too ‘european’ for UKIP members to understand?
Seems to me he is saying that gay people should accept what they have been given and not upset the apple cart.
My apple cart has had the wheels kicked off it by the straight ‘community’ more times than my back doors’ been bashed in.
I’m not really in any kind of a mood to let it happen again.
“Unfortunately, some supporters of gay marriage have been quite militant in the way they go about things. There have actually been threats of legal challenges made against churches (and other religious venues) who choose not to perform gay marriages.”
Then legislation should be drafted to pre-emptively protect churches instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you are opposed to “something that gives rights to one group at the expense of taking rights away from another,” you should be very worried that committed gay couples are being kept in an odd terminological quarantine when it comes to describing our relationships.
Personally, I am tired of telling friends that my fiancé is applying for a “prospective civil partner visa” instead of—well, a fiancé visa! Words like “marriage” and “fiancé” are the accepted terminology for referring to lifelong partnerships between two people; wherefore this strange legalese to describe ours?
…”I don’t take it personally though, I think people have got to stop being overly sensitive and just accept that not everyone sees the world in the way that you do”
What kind iPod apologist bollocks is that?
The man was an idiot in airing his bigotry out in the wide world as if everyone agreed with him.
That UKIP condemned the interview and the views is praiseworthy but there are far too many similarly strident and uninformed views within the UKIP ranks.
What utter drivel.
You took the words out of my mouth. Exiled and disgruntled Tory Right + disinformation = UKIP.
would any gay person really want to marry in a church anyway? The church has now taken homophobia to new levels. Would be like a vegetarian working in a meat Market. As for UKIP, I take more notice of actions than words and they’ve done nothing to convince me that only the BNP are probably more homophobic than them
Here below is a message an average UKIP supporter has written somewhere:
” I’m an Englishman and
I’m a bigot.
I’m a bigot because I love my country.
I’m a bigot because I love my people, my
culture, my heritage and my people’s incredible history and vast historical achievements.
I’m a bigot because I wish to protect
everything that made England wonderful.
I’m a bigot because I believe that marriage is
between a man and woman.
I’m a bigot because I believe that a small
island nation who conquered half the world and had one of the largest empires ever
known to mankind, is something to be proud of and not ashamed by.
I’m a bigot because I think homosexuals and
lesbians should be happy with civil partnerships and stop pushing a minority
viewpoint to the centre ground to normalise it at the expense the majority. “
” I’m a bigot because I think that liberals and
the ‘proggessive’ left should know their place and stop attempting to shove
socially destructive and subversive libberatti agendas onto the unwilling
majority for the sake of minority vote gathering.
I’m a bigot because I care passionately about
preserving the English ethnic and racial identity, and our roots as a nation of
people who have fought and died together to protect our way of life in hard
I’m a bigot because I care for our once
unified and largely caring country where people knew and looked after their
neighbours in towns and cities up and down the land because we had a shared
ancestry, history and culture which is now in the process of being systematically
” I’m a bigot because when I stand at memorials
to salute those great Britons who gave their lives in two world wars for
something they believed in – they didn’t need asking, they wanted to fight for
something they believed in.
I’m a bigot because I’m appalled how our once
cohesive, strong and homogenous society has become fractured, distrusting, and
I’m a bigot because I can see how our country
is being purposely destroyed from within, slowly, surely, sinisterly – and I
want it stopped.
I’m a bigot because I don’t want other races that
have every intention of colonising our nation, displacing and replacing the indigenous
people – my people, THIS nations indigenous population. “
” I’m a bigot because I don’t want those other
races and ethnic groups to breed the indigenous population of these islands out
of their native home and country, which at the current rate they will do by
I’m a bigot because I am acutely aware that
England, not the UK or anywhere else in Europe, is the main target nation of
choice for ill-suited third world immigrants, who when they arrive seem to have
more rights and protection than those who have contributed to, fought for, paid
into and love their own country.
I’m a bigot because I know our mainstream
parties are knowingly and sinisterly inflicting this damage on their own
country and people.
I’m a bigot because I worry deeply about the
future and safety of our own children and what is being left for them by
cowardly, treacherous politicians. “
” I’m a bigot because none of our politicians
wish to be labelled so and therefore stay silent.
I’m a bigot because the official population
statistics appear to be false, misleading, if not outright lies; we are at 80
million already which is 18 million more than declared, most of whom are either
illegal or one of Danny Boyle’s & Co’s ideal ‘new Britons’.
I’m also an Englishman and proud of it whether
officially a ‘bigot’ a ‘racist’ a ‘homophobe’ a ‘xenophobe’ an ‘extremist’ or
otherwise, and dare anyone to call me out and question my right to hold these
beliefs in protecting my life, my family, my fellow indigenous countrymen and
women, our shared culture, heritage and our once fine country.
Frankly, I think that the country could do
with a lot more bigots, don’t you? “
At least he recognises he is a bigotted, racist, homophobic and xenophobic extremist. Some others are still in denial.
[..]“an eccentric in every group of people”[..]
I’m sorry, but no. An eccentric is someone who is almost laughably harmless in their behaviour outside the social norm. They harm no one. The UKIP cultural spokesman, quoted in articles elsewhere in Pink News, does not qualify as an eccentric under these terms.