Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

UK: Envoy to the prime minister to vote against same-sex marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What complete and utter crap!

    And again, he bring the siblings comment into his argument.

    I hope then that the PM will chose a suitable replacement for him.

    1. Stephen O’Brien is a fool, he ‘s a genuine April fool born on (born 1 April 1957)
      What a joke!

  2. Heterosexual couples should be entitled to civil partnerships. Peter Tatchell is right about that. Ironically the initial move to allow civil partnerships came from hetrosexual requests to Lord Lester.

  3. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2012, 1:38pm

    So he’s now concerned that straight couples don’t have access to CPs? Oh please, spare the fake concern. What a load of sh_t. What’s with the hysteria over annulments and non-consummation and what’s with the sibling nonsense (code for incest) I wonder? Does he really think that should be a reason to oppose equal marriage?

    We can see right through this moron. He really doesn’t give a damn about straights having access to a CP, he’s just another right wing religious TORY bigot. If he were that concerned about straights not being able to have one, why didn’t he raise it prior to the equal marriage consultation? What a liar.

  4. What a pig’s ear this is proving.

    It just shows that Cameron should have listened those in the gay community who pointed out that civil partnerships were quite adequate and railroading gay marriage would be counterproductive.

    But does Cameron listen to anyone?

    1. Bobbleobble 19 Dec 2012, 1:50pm

      Why exactly should he have listened to those gay people and not those who are asking for the choice to be married should they want to? How dare anyone assume to tell me what is adequate for my relationship, gay or straight.

    2. thank god Cameron didn’t listen to the minority in the gay community who think a separate institution was quite adequate

    3. That There Other David 19 Dec 2012, 2:03pm

      James, what you fail to appreciate is that whenever the law is changed by Parliament on any subject these side issues come out during the process. Would you stick with ALL the laws we have now, regardless of whatever changes in the wider world, or do you believe Parliament should continue to amend laws as necessary to meet ever changing requirements?

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2012, 2:09pm

      Adequate? If that’s the case, why aren’t they the universal standard for gay couples in 11 countries (more to follow) where equal marriage is legal? You clearly have no concept of what full equality means. 60% or more of the British public (overwhelmingly heterosexual) support equal marriage, conceded by the Daily Mail. Governments are supposed to carry out the wishes of the electorate and that’s clearly what David Cameron is doing. That’s how the democratic process works or haven’t you noticed? You’re sounding like a shill for the C4M group of hate-mongers.

  5. Mr. O’Brien, try to see it this way.

    You’re religious and you’re heterosexual and you’re getting married at St. Matthew’s at 2.30, and you’re fuming over the wedding scheduled for 4.30? Shouldn’t you be focussed on the joy and love of your own wedding? Why are you so fixated on the fact that the couple getting married at 4.30 are of the same sex?

    There are only two likely reasons.

    Firstly, your wedding isn’t actually about your love for each other: it’s about you proving to the world that you’ve made it to the altar, that you’re “OK”, that you’re “normal”, when your wedding ought to be about you and your partner focussing on your love and your commitment to each other.

    Or, secondly, you see gay and lesbian people as pollutants and you believe that somehow their wedding is going to pollute yours.

  6. To be fair to him, any legal wranglings such as consummation/divorce laws etc would need to be cleared up and clarified otherwise the whole thing would be torn to shreds but anyone who wanted to contest it.

    He’s actually doing us a favour by highlighting this now.

    1. No he’s not… he’s trying to distract from the fact that he is actually personally against this but doesn’t have the balls to speak up and say so outright.

      He should concentrate on getting th law drafted correctly and putting in any amendments that are required to other laws rather than stating that he will vote against a law that has not even been drafted completely yet.

    2. Maria Miller has already said there would be no change to the adultery and consummation laws, consummation laws will not apply to same sex couples but adultery would if one of the couple had sex outside the marriage with a member of the opposite sex, otherwise unreasonable behaviour will apply for gay couples. It has been sorted.

      No demand has been identified for cp’s for opposite sex couples apparently, I haven’t honestly heard of heterosexuals clamouring to be allowed them myself though for equalities sake they should not be barred from having cp’s.

      I wonder what happens to French mixed sex couples in cp’s when they come to UK, are their civil unions or PAC’s recognised here does anyone know?

      Siblings who live together already have a recognised familial relationship, they don’t require marriage to make them family they already are family. Incestuous marriages are presently illegal and will remain so.

  7. That There Other David 19 Dec 2012, 1:59pm

    There are approximately 130 MPs that have said they will vote against this. We don’t need to know all of their reasons, because so far not one of them has a reason that’s worthy of the name.

    Could we not limit new articles to any MP who actually comes up with a decent reason why marriage should not be open to all? Because that would be worthy of the “news” bit in Pink News.

    In the meantime I’m not going to get flustered about this bunch. 130 x getting flustered is probably detrimental to one’s health ;-)

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2012, 2:17pm

      Strongly agree with that, David. We rarely ever get positive articles from those in support and I suspect it has to do with the opposition having bigger, louder mouths with precious little to offer anyway except irrational rants and reasons why they oppose it? They’re trying to give the impression that they majority are against it. Giving them over the top coverage only enables them. Notice all this is happening because of the free conscience vote nonsense supported by the three parties. The bigoted cowards now know they won’t be censured by their parties.

      This man lies through his teeth, most so called ‘christians’ do. You watch, nobody is going to go after him, they never do.

  8. Nit-picking to conceal his homophobia. Annulment, adultery issues etc need to be cleared up but marriage existed before divorce and people found a way through.
    What’s the baloney about siblings commitment???

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2012, 2:20pm

      As I said in a prior post, the sibling nonsense is a disingenous dig at the incest issue that a lot of these Tory homophobes have been using to foment support for a ban on equal marriage. They don’t like us and want us kept in our place under CPs, but the majority of them really don’t want them either. Even with that, they lie. A vile bigot!

  9. “I remain very concerned at the inconsistency with, say, two siblings deciding to live together under the same roof over a long period of time.”

    Do you, Mr O’Brien? And yet you’ve never mentioned that in regard to OPPOSITE sex couples marrying…

    And why have you written ‘committment’ in those little commas?

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 Dec 2012, 3:14pm

      Yes and I have to say I find those comments remarkably ignorance. I have to ask what goes on in these people’s minds to keep harping on about the same irrelevant arguments.

  10. PantoHorse 19 Dec 2012, 2:48pm

    The siblings living together thing isn’t new, with regards to inheritance tax, tenancy accession and so on and I think that should be addressed. But to conflate that with equal marriage is just disingenuous. I don’t think for a minute siblings will be queuing up to get married in order to access marriage benefits – that hasn’t been the case for opposite sex siblings so why would it change now?

    What I find most insulting about what he says is where he insinuates a same sex relationship means no more than the companionship of siblinghood – that’s annoying.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2012, 4:52pm

      Well, you could read ‘incest’ into it too. I think that’s what this sneaky, vile bigot is trying to imply. He ought to provide us with a list of the number of same-sex siblings in a CP first. , let alone opposite sex demand for them. Incest has been part of the religious right’s fixation since the equal marriage debate began, not to mention polygamy and bestiality. Lord Carey was one of their champions. They should identify the group of people so inclined whom they think support that nonsense. No government would ever sanction either and the majority of straight and gay people wouldn’t either.

      1. PantoHorse 19 Dec 2012, 5:46pm

        Yes, true Robert. I hadn’t thought about that, but then my mind, unlike his and most of his compatriots, *isn’t* fixated on other people’s bedroom antics :) I was thinking quite innocently about the other things that occur when two people have companionably living together for yonks and things being all up in the air when one of them passes away. I hate it that they try and try and try to twist what is for us just another normal facet of our lives into something to be feared, hated and eradicated :/

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2012, 7:28pm

          PantoHorse, the underlying root of all this nonsense is homophobia and religious bigotry. They just don’t like us. They wish we would all disappear. They pretend they support CPs when they really don’t. I was strongly against them because I knew it was government sanctioned segregation under a different name. If they had never been legislated into law, I feel the equal marriage opposition might not have been as vocal or in an easy position to attack it. There would have been fewer reasons to oppose it. We should have gone straight for it as Cameron is now doing. It’s the right time now that eleven countries have already legalised it and another next month. The bigots can rant all they want, it’s coming whether they like it or not.

  11. What a total fathead!

    1. Nice hair, though! ;-)

  12. Jock S. Trap 19 Dec 2012, 3:12pm

    Any excuse and it’s not good enough.

    I agree that CP’s should be opened up to all too but that clearly would be another campaign now. To use CP’s as an excuse to vote against is just another diversion. Nothing more.

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 Dec 2012, 3:16pm

      and too all I do mean loving commited couples, man/man, woman/woman, man/woman.

      His argument (and others) about sibblings is ill-judged and ignorant.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2012, 3:24pm

      Jock, he really doesn’t believe in CPs for straights, yet another desperate attempt to foment opposition. Most of them never wanted CPs in the first place but suddenly its become a useful weapon. It’s so transparent where they’re coming from. Nothing more than a bunch of liars and hypocrites. Most christians are. It’s God in the mix, that’s what’s at the hear of it but he’s even dishonest about that, let laone his apparent homophobia which of course he’ll deny saying he has gay friends, relatives or both.

  13. Paul from Sydney, NSW Australia 19 Dec 2012, 3:16pm

    One word:

    “GUTLESS!”

    Just Like our atheist, communist, unmarried, red headed and does not believe in marriage – female prime minister here at home!

  14. You know what, I didn’t think these morons talk to each other. if they did they would see that what they think is an original statement has, in fact, been said by other moronic bigots a billion times over already.

  15. Tory Scum – Equality in this world is a reality men like this spineless twat can not comprehend! – Therefore Strip him of his public office and salary!

  16. Kathryn Howie 19 Dec 2012, 5:14pm

    This guy is too stupid to be involved in government, Big Dave should replace him with someone with a fully functioning brain soonest as.
    Siblings, what utter shite! Is the poor fool not aware that hetrosexual opposite sex partners have siblings – to most people brothers or sisters – so what exactly is the difference when a same sex gay couple gets married – does this guy have any reasoning power in existance at all!
    Annulment is a red herring Its only important for Catholics and as they are not going to be opting in anytime soon and there has not been an annulment for years now, apparently (unless someone knows different) irrelevant. As to consummation, mutual stimulation to orgasm would seem to cover it, whatever the partner configuration, if its even problem, cant remember any of the other countries who have equal marriage having a difficulty.

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