Reader comments · Nick Clegg: We won’t force churches to hold same-sex marriages if they don’t want to · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Nick Clegg: We won’t force churches to hold same-sex marriages if they don’t want to

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dave Page 7 Dec 2012, 4:13pm

    Good to see Nick Clegg has managed to get David Cameron to support Lib Dem policy on religious and civil same-sex marriage!

    There’s still more detail to be announced on this, including what happens with mixed-gender civil partnerships, but this is a good result.

  2. Now where is the draft legislation.

    Or are they still just talking about it?

    1. dAVID

      Don’t forget that you have said repeatedly that David Cameron had no intention of introducing a vote for equal marriage. “Never trust a Tory” is what I think you have said time and again.

      Do you think you are any closer to changing your mind?

  3. I would love to know how many times they have had to reiterate that the churches etc won’t be forced to hold same-sex marriages if they don’t want to. It was right there several times in the consultation even but equal marriage opponents are still so conveniently forgetting this important fact.

  4. So a gay couple can marry in a place of worship, but only if the place of worship agrees. Why should we respect religion, it’s all a load of tosh anyway.

    1. because some religions have been incredibly supportive allies in the fight for LGBT rights?

      because some people find comfort in what organized religion can offer?

      stop thinking all religions are christo-fascist fundamentalists.

      some teach the teachings of Christ, completely ignoring the old testament. even going so far as to refer to much of the bible’s teachings as allegorical/symbolic and meant as didactic tools.

      1. “teachings of christ” eh? What, original sin, vicarious forgiveness, eternal injustice, the magical efficacy of pretend cannibal feasts and an apocalyptic disdain for the future?

        No thanks, I think I’ll pass. The new testament is far worse than the old one in terms of unjustifiable moral ghastliness…

        None of which is has the slightest relevance to why we should respect religion of course. Or why it should be given a special exemption from equality law on the grounds of traditional bigotry when nobody else from any other section of society gets such an exemption…

        1. dude, NONE of those things are teachings of Christ. those are all things invented by the Roman cult during the middle ages.

          the new testament is not “far worse” than the old. saying so only demonstrates your complete lack of familiarity with it.. along with you falsely attributing catholic invention to Him.

          1. Given that the christ character is entirely or almost entirely fictional – an invention of antique and early medieval christians, mostly Saul of Tarsus (who wrote the majority of the vile new testament) – these are exactly the things he’s all about. No amount of hippy-dippy revisionist pretense on your part is going to change that fact. The character is written as an apocalyptic preacher in line with very well-worn Hellenistic cultic expectations. The novelties in his creation are all a result of Saul’s narcissistic and dysfunctional sense of extreme sexual repression.

            And if you think that the new testament is not a ghastly moral programme obsessed with ideas of vicarious redemption, eternal punishment and fearful apocalypticism then you clearly haven’t read the damnable thing…

        2. No one is asking you to believe in it, either.
          Nor to support it.

          But to say that all religions are evil/bad/whatever is as bad as when the extreme rightwing nutjobs say that all gay men are pedophiles.

          SOME religions promote hateful beliefs. that’s a sad truth.
          the positive in it is that the majority of followers of, for example the catholic cult, actually disagree with their church leaders on matters such as LGBT rights.

          And again, bathwater/baby and all… SOME religious denominations worked hard to fight for LGBT rights.

          1. No religion has ever done any good without doing it for reasons of self promotion. Most have done plenty of evil.

            There is no reason to support religion of any kind unless you operate a double standard. “I don’t believe in it but it is OK for those poor saps”.

            Let them believe what they like but don’t give it automated respect and deference. It is misplaced and nobody is helped by being humoured and patronised. They would be far better off with a good dose of the truth.

            The church (any church) is in it for the money. Simples

          2. Some religions promote hatred, some don’t. This is true. But all religions, inasmuch as they are religions, promote belief without evidence as a way to approach moral truths. When you believe without evidence you have no mechanism for actual moral consideration – you’re stuck following whatever your cult happens to tell you is good, whether it actually is good or not. Any good that comes from religious belief comes entirely at random.

            This is not a sensible or adult way to approach the running of society. Humanity deserves much better than leaving our ethics up to the blind chance of tradition and superstitious witch-doctory.

  5. This is a fair decision and the correct one to honour the freedom of religion of those religious institutions that wish to marry same-sex couples.

    Today’s Telegraph article has the most biased reader poll I have ever seen. The comments section under the article is also a gallery of shameful bigotry.

    I am sure the DT comments sections attract supporters of fascist ideology. Yesterday the DT had to close its comments under an article exposing appalling racism in Holland. As socially conservative as the DT may be, many posters are definitely not standard DT readers.

  6. Not good enough, Nick.

    We won’t have equality until the churches and mosques and gurdwaras and synagogues are all compelled to offer their services equally.

    Nobody else gets a “conscientious bigotry” exemption from our equality legislation. Religious groups do not deserve one either.

    1. de Villiers 7 Dec 2012, 7:17pm

      Look at your message – that the current proposal is “not good enough”. It’s not enough to have what we want, you want others to OBEY.

      1. There is a pernicious and damaging assumption, quite common in our society, that slapping “religious” on a practice makes it somehow special and important and above criticism. People are devoted to it, so they must be allowed to do it. The devotion is assumed to constitute a legitimate reason for giving it special consideration. It must be treated with kid gloves. We must bend over backwards to accommodate it. We must treat it as having intrinsic worth.

        This assumption is nonsense. Religious bigotry is just the same as any other bigotry, and must be treated in just the same way. We give no special privilege or exemption to non-religious bigotries, and being based in traditional cultures of superstitious nonsense is most emphatically not a good reason to treat religious bigotries any differently.

      2. de Villiers 8 Dec 2012, 9:39am

        You display your own bigotry.

  7. Hmmm…it’s good news about same-sex marriage being allowed to be conducted in religious places of worship, but what’s with the government also allowing religious places of worship to openly discriminate against gay people and refuse service if they so wish? Now if someone opened a cafe and put a notice outside declaring that they do not serve a religious group such as ‘No Christians’ or ‘No Jews’ or ‘No Muslims’ there’d (rightfully) be an outcry, the proprieter would be castigated by all decent minded people as a bigot and as this has definitely been illegal in Europe since 1945 they would be heavily fined or even be sent to jail. So why, exactly, if we’re all supposed to be equal now are ministers in the above religious groups being awarded carte blanche to, by contrast, do exactly the same but only as long as they do it to LGBT people?

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