Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Daily Mail accepts that David Cameron is ‘brave and principled’ to support equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Paula Thiomas 13 Dec 2012, 3:50am

    There are times when the Mil is beyond irony. They say church and state have been kept separate in a country with a state religion, where the leader of that religion is appointed by the head of state, and where bishops sit in the legislature. Separation there is not.

    1. You don’t expect that repellent rag to work-out basic facts, do you? According to the fantasists that ‘work’ for that paper, all unemployed people are lazy, feckless, good-for-nothing scroungers who have ‘chosen’ to be unemployed. The Daily Mail’s editor is a simpleton along with about 99% of its journalists.

  2. You see why the government is banning the C of E from conducting SSM. They are still on about “Clergy being taken to court” and no matter what safeguards they will always use this approach in their determined battle against equality.The only thing that surprises me is that they don’t run editorials questioning whether the earth orbits the sun and isn’t it really the other way round?

    1. Jock S. Trap 13 Dec 2012, 10:20am

      Yep, they clearly don’t want to use any argument because they just want marriage to be a ‘selective club’ of separation and divide society into haves and have nots.

      It’s wrong, it’s insensitive and it’s completely discriminating!

  3. “And won’t priests risk being taken to court for refusing to marry gay couples?”

    Yes I can see priests being taken to court for not breaking the law. This is the level of argument at the daily mail.

  4. “Which is why state and church have traditionally been kept separate.”

    Like both having the same head of office. Like that sort of seperate?

  5. “There are much more important issues to engage his considerable talents.”

    And presumably if the Mail had any talents the same could be said of them?

  6. The Daily Mail talking about principles is a bit too rich for me.

  7. Dear Daily Mail

    I, for one, am very happy with Cameron’s proposals.

  8. Whoever wrote the editorial was clearly not watching the debate. Many of their questions came up from the various old dinosaurs who sit in parliament and Maria Miller answered all of them.

    But then again, that is the normal kind of sloppy journalism that we have come expect from the Daily Fail

    1. Jock S. Trap 13 Dec 2012, 10:23am

      I reckon they probably did watch it but of course what was said doesn’t suit so the best they can aim at is the very people who didn’t see the legislation announcement.

      That of course, will be many because most people were working so…. they will continue to whip up false accusations to promote their nasty divisive agenda!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Dec 2012, 1:37pm

      ‘Very sloppy ‘yellow’ journalism at best, news that is unfit to print, much of it manufactured to serve it’s ignorant readership, assuming any of them can really read something of factual substance including the editorship.

  9. “There are much more important issues to engage his considerable talents.”

    If he does have such considerable talents, is it really that difficult for him to cope with more than idea at a time.

    I never understand this line of argument which basically says ‘our politicians are too thick to be able to cope with doing more than one political thing at a time’.

    1. Jock S. Trap 13 Dec 2012, 10:29am

      Indeed!

      I think we only have to look at the media circus around the UKIP supporters who had their children removed to see what happens when ‘straight people’ have Their rights taken away.

      Right or wrong it showed that when they have their rights removed they will scream loudly and act hard done by.

      Given that and the way it was done I find it hypocritical for such people to bang on about what are important issues and what aren’t when clearly they fight for their own.

      Can you imagine if someone, an MP for example, had stated publically that the couples rights to those children wasn’t an important issue and more important ones should be targeted?

      They show themselves up and boy will they forever be digging!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Dec 2012, 1:35pm

      Well then, it proves that the Daily Mail’s staff are incapable of multi-tasking. If people can’t multi-task on the job then they shouldn’t be employed, especially the leader of our government who seems extremely capable and qualified. Even if the economy were booming and jobs plentiful, equal marriage would still be unnecessary and unimportant to them. Why don’t they just have the honesty to just say they don’t like gay people and support discrimination wholeheartedly. I’d have more respect for them if they did. Even in that, they lie.

  10. Awww, how cute, the Daily Mail is pretending it doesn’t hate gay people again. It’s adorable how it thinks we’re dumb enough to fall for that…

    1. It isn’t. It holds us in such low regard that it doesn’t care what we think, still less how what is written in it affects us. It simply seeks to reinforce the bigotry of its readers with superficial reasonableness.

  11. These anti-gay writers are like people who complain continually about their exes, while beginning every sentence with “I’m not going to talk about him any more, but…”

    The antis tell us that there isn’t time to deal with this, but there is apparently time for them to spend endless column inches telling us there isn’t time.

    If you think this doesn’t matter, talk about something else! Otherwise, accept that it is important to you.

  12. Paul from Brighton 13 Dec 2012, 9:21am

    What’s unacceptable in the Daily Mail article, is the repeated use of the word ‘Homosexual’.

    We should really work at getting it banned from acceptable language.

    It references a time when being ‘homosexual’ was classified as either a mental illness, or criminal behaviour or deviant behaviour.

    It’s similar to the N word for black people or P work for Pakistani people or calling Irish people Paddys… and so on.

    The Daily Mail have chosen this word carefully for this article so as to whip up support from their many anti-gay readers.

    Who could forget Jan Moir’s piece about ‘homosexual’ Stephen Gaitley when she described his ‘life’ as being as ‘unnatural’ as his death.

    1. Jock S. Trap 13 Dec 2012, 10:32am

      Indeed and when you know they use the word ‘homosexual’ as a negative to stir up hatred you have to wonder why the press/media are constantly allowed to get away with it.

      1. Paul in Brighton 13 Dec 2012, 10:37am

        Quite.

        I recall some years ago working with (or maybe I should say ‘on’) the Metropolitan police to get the phrase ‘frequents gay haunts’ removed from their press releases/witness appeals. I’m sure you’ll remember that this phrase was always used by police officers when investigating murders of gay men. They Investigating Officer would invariably say that they knew that the victim was known to ‘frequent gay haunts’.

        The Daily Mail in particular used to love to this phrase using it as a the intro paragraph to ever story relating to the death of gay men.

        Thankfully, that phrase/term is no longer used by police or media. What’s needed now is a campaign to get rid of the word ‘homosexual’ and make it as unacceptable as ‘coloured’ and similar words.

    2. I don’t really like the word either but I wouldn’t support banning it. It’s not really offensive. It’s more like the word negro than the N word. Lets not give people another stick to beat us with. I don’t like the word queer either but it has lost its taboo by being embraced by the Gay community. Sticks and stones….

  13. What makes me really despair is the significant circulation of the Daily Malice. We should be under no illusion about its readership. They uncritically accept what they’re told and genuinely believe that they’re living under seige from anyone who dares to be different from them and who they wouldn’t hesitate to silence if they could or destroy if they dared.

    1. That’s precisely it. Just read the comments section to see how hypocritical they are, they claim that we’re living under a “PC dictatorship” and that “we can’t say what we think anymore” but you can be sure that if these people ever were to get their way they’d deny rights to anybody who disagreed with them. I’m sick of the Mail readers complaining about “Political correctness gone mad”, that phrase is just a frustrated outburst by people who are upset that they can’t verbally abuse or discriminate against groups they don’t like in 21st century Britain.

  14. But the editor is aGAY man!!

    Surelyy he must decide what goes in the paper?

    1. There seems to be no shortage of gay men who will say what they think bigots want to hear in order to gain a bit of approval and offset their internalised homophobia. Every now and then we’ll get one trotted out saying “all gay men are promiscuous/hedonistic/etc”, “I don’t want gay marriage, no one gay wants gay marriage” and the list goes on. They are more to be pitied in their unhappy self loathing.

    2. I don’t know whether Paul Dacre is gay or not. But certainly, the level of homophobia in “The Daily Frail” would indicate it as a distinct possibility. I’ve always believed, “Show me a homophobe and I’ll show you someone gay, in denial”. Even Shakespear understood the psychology behind projection: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” (Hamlet, Act III, scene II). I think, John, you may have hot the nail on the head. Puts a WHOLE new perspective on why the paper is so vile towards gay people.

  15. The old “clergy being taken to court” argument – when no CoE vicar has been taken to court for refusing to marry a Jew, Muslim, divorcee. Why would refusing to marry a same sex couple be any different? CoE don’t perform same sex weddings, therefore it is not the responsibility of a CoE clergyman (and I use the male form on purpose because of their misogyny) to marry same sex couples. The idea that marriage is being redefined in a way that CoE might find hard to accept somewhat overlooks the reason the CoE exists in the first place.

  16. “He genuinely believes homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.”

    There’s something about that sentence that enrages me. The implication is that poor Cameron genuinely believes this but is, of course, misguided. So offensive.

    Perhaps the Daily Fail could try changing the word “homosexual” for the word “black” and see if that makes them understand just how insulting their language is?

    “But the really bitter irony is that Mr Cameron’s compromise has succeeded in exasperating supporters of gay marriage.”

    No, it hasn’t! But what they’re trying to say really is ‘Look, we’ve already told you that hardly any gay people want to get married anyway and even those few think Cameron’s proposals are silly, see?’

    Disgusting journalism.

    1. I stopped reading that rag when I was prescribed blood pressure piils.

      The fake outrage at everything is simply unbelievable, and the comments section is in many cases actionable if not libellous.

      1. Paul from Brighton 13 Dec 2012, 10:52am

        Dave,

        Whatever you do don’t look now!!

        Online at the Daily Mail Baroness Walsi has waded in announcing the world will essentially end if ‘gay marriage’ goes ahead – priests will be sued, school children taught to how to be gay….blah, blah, blah. This coming from a woman whose standing in the freezing cold outside Downing Street wearing something similar to a bathrobe with a red dot placed in the centre of her forehead feigning this is normal behaviour.

        And of course, the Daily Mail armchair fascists are lapping it up with cheers of ‘good for her’ and so on – all the while ignoring that she represents everything they usually hate.

        1. Oh dear. The power of religious conditionging again. She stands against equality then? People have such short memories. It’s not that long ago that women couldn’t even vote let alone stand for parliament. And, being of Asian decent, you would have thought she, more than most, would understand what it is to face discrimination. As this country has provided her with such great opportunities, it’s very sad she should ingore the concessions she’s achieved and use her bigotry to persecute another minority.

  17. Jock S. Trap 13 Dec 2012, 10:17am

    Well you can always rely on the Daily Mail to use lies and deliberate false propaganda to promote their hateful agenda.

    All these questions were answered by in Parliament on Tuesday so I really do get what they don’t get.

    They clearly wish to continue to whip up hysteria on false claims and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so.

    They should be reporting facts not make up false assumptions… but then of course, this is the Daily Mail the newspaper of hate.

  18. “Will faith schools have to teach that gay and heterosexual marriage are the same? And won’t priests risk being taken to court for refusing to marry gay couples?”

    I hope that one day the answer to both the above questions will be yes. All schools should be compelled to teach that straight and gay marriages are equal – they will be. And priests should not have dispensation from equalities laws. I resent that the Government is effectively handing out licenses for discrimination to followers of certain outdated superstitions.

  19. Earlier in the day they had been nice as pie, explaining it wouldn’t affect anyone, no terms would be changed, i.e. husband and wife, saying it would all be for the good of society to have equality, ….. then the other personalities start to take over, the nasty and vile and unspeakably cruel and vicious and ultra right-wing religious wingnut. That paper is so incredibly conflicted – God forbid I should ever bump in to STAFF WRITER, whoever the coward is.

  20. Don’t worry. The Mail, with it’s out-dated, backward-looking, aged ideas and readership, will all soon shuffle off the mortal coil and go to meet its maker and take it’s vile homophobia with it.

  21. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Dec 2012, 1:29pm

    I’d like the Mail to provide the evidence that gay people are against ‘redefining’ marriage. Who are they exactly or are the majority of them straight people who pretend to be gay and who signed the C4M petition? Just how many of them are there supposed to be I wonder? Whoever they are, I’m not convinced that they’re a considerable majority now that we know the consultation yielded a different result than they’d predicted.

    I find it a bit rich that this Daily Rag mentions bewilderment by some that only the Anglican church has been singled out. This same rag that supported protection and guarantees for the state cult now feigning the ‘victim’ card on its behalf because the catholic and islamic cults were left alone. What a duplicitous piece of crap that is.

    Priests being taken to court? Really? What do they think the exclusion means?

  22. If I ever make my millions, which is looking unlikely, my first purchase will be the Daily Mail, which I would promptly shut down :)

  23. The Daily Mail readership makes me laugh. Anybody who is anti-racist, pro-women’s rights, supports the NHS and pro-gay rights is a Stalinist, at least in the eyes of the Mail readers. I’ve seen responses to anti-racist comments that have said “I see the loony left are on here, socialism killed more than N@zism”. Mail reader mentality: if you’re not barkingly right-wing like they are you’re a Bolshevik, there’s no such thing as moderate politics in Mailand. Funny that because I’ve never seem anti-racists of pro gay posters singing the praises of Mao or Kim Jong-Un but I’ve seen plenty of Mail readers defending Nick Griffin or the Golden Dawn in Greece…..

  24. The Daily Mail readership makes me laugh. Anybody who is anti-racist, pro-women’s rights, supports the NHS and pro-gay rights is a Stalinist, at least in the eyes of the Mail readers. I’ve seen responses to anti-racist comments that have said “I see the loony left are on here, socialism killed more than N@zism”. Mail reader mentality: if you’re not barkingly right-wing like they are you’re a Bolshevik, there’s no such thing as moderate politics in Mailand. Funny that because I’ve never seen anti-racists or pro gay posters singing the praises of Mao or Kim Jong-Un but I’ve seen plenty of Mail readers defending Nick Griffin or the Golden Dawn in Greece…..

  25. The Daily Mail readership makes me laugh. Anybody who is anti-racist, pro-women’s rights, supports the NHS and pro-gay rights is a Stalinist, at least in the eyes of the Mail readers. I’ve seen responses to anti-racist comments that have said “I see the loony left are on here, socialism killed more than N@zism”. Mail reader mentality: if you’re not barkingly right-wing like they are you’re a Bolshevik, there’s no such thing as moderate politics in Mailand. Funny that because I’ve never seen anti-racists of pro gay posters singing the praises of Mao or Kim Jong-Un but I’ve seen plenty of Mail readers defending Nick Griffin or the Golden Dawn in Greece…..

  26. Bill (Scotland) 13 Dec 2012, 2:05pm

    The Mail is ‘behind the curve’ again as it has been for decades. The people who buy it are bigoted morons in general and this article is classic stuff designed to play up to their prejudices – the veneer of ‘reasonableness’ is soon worn away to reveal the usual hateful spite.

  27. ““Indeed, many are bewildered by the idea of allowing it in some churches, while banning it in the Church of England and the (disestablished) Church in Wales.”

    Suckers – this is the best bit of the whole proposal: the CofE can’t decide whether to whinge about the (imagined) ‘risk’ of being forced somehow to hold gay weddings despite the wording of the legislation, or about being forced not to…quite hilarious…

  28. Are any of us interested in getting married in a Roman Catholic or Church of England Church, or for that matter any Homophobic religious institution?

    The Act that brought in Civil Partnership was a great advance however by its very nature it was discriminatory.ie. a gay couple and a straight couple attend the same premises registered to carry out Civil marriage, the straight couple come out married the gay couple come out in a civil partnership. This simply underpinned the idea / attitude we are not the same in attitude and intention regarding life partnerships; and once again kept gay people out of mainstream acceptance in society.

    The change in the law which is required is to abolish Civil Partnership and replace it with an all-encompassing Civil Marriage, or to have both, for gay folk and straight folk, so they can choose. Gay people have the right to be MARRIED.. Let the Churches wither on the vine, hell will freeze over before they change and accept gay people in every respect.

  29. “He genuinely believes homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.” Shocking, isn’t it?
    Of course Daily “abortion hope for homosexuality” Mail believes that there are much more important issues because they genuinely believe that homosexuals shouldn’t have the same rights as heterosexuals.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all