Reader comments · High Court Judge: Same-sex marriage isn’t a priority as it only helps 0.1% of population · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


High Court Judge: Same-sex marriage isn’t a priority as it only helps 0.1% of population

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Sad old men need to stop sniffling round the knickers of other people’s relationships.

  2. Bigoted and homophobic judge reveals his true self, in contravention of everything we cherish in this country, a judiciary which is reasoned and fair-minded, he has shown himself to be completely unfit to remain as a judge. His obviously bias has disqualified him from continuing and done reputational damage to the judiciary. I hope his colleagues do not allow this to go unchallenged as that will only increase the loss of respect for the law.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 26 Dec 2012, 1:19pm

      He would appear to have prejudiced himself in respect of treating all members of the public equally.

      Also, his 0.1% comment seems to indicate that he is willing to substitute unsupported opinion for actual evidence when arriving at judgments.

      You can complain to the Office of Judicial Complaints here:

  3. One word comes to mind when reading about this!…


  4. “Same-sex marriage isn’t a priority”

    It’s not a high priority if the government are only capable of looking at a single issue at any one time. Is that what we are saying? “Wait George, we cant do any budget stuff for at least the next year, the gays want us to look at marriage”. Ridiculous argument. Whyt cant the government look at a strengthening families initiative as well as equal marriage?

    Im sorry but im tired of the majority deciding what my human rights are and when/if they are a “priority”.

    1. Even if this guy’s stats were right (and they aren’t) that still = sixty-five thousand people helped by this legislation!

      1. Not just that, it’s not only the people who get married who benefit from their happiness; friends, friendly relatives and co-workers can share in their joy.

  5. The crisis of family breakdown has been a cause for concern for decades, and legislation which seeks to extend marriage (and by implication strengthen relationships) is criticised for detracting from efforts to reduce marital breakdown. Strange logic to adopt. This seems to be something of a fig leaf to cover a case of homophobia.

  6. I do urge you to complain to the BBC about today’s anti-gay, balance-free C4M, second-most important story of the day post on their News web site (which follows on from yesterday’s unchallenged rant by Bishop Nichols!)

    Please insist on a telephoned reply.

    Call 03700100222

    Please be polite but firm: Why no balance? Why such prominence? Why no fact-checking? Why allow the anti-EM voices first say, rather than pro-EM voices (the views of head of the Liberal Jewish congregations is less valued than that of a Christian mouthpiece?)

    Excuse the re-post. It seemed more appropriate here than on the article I originally posted to. Sasha x

    1. I’m also going to write to my MP. The last few days coverage of the marriage equality has been incredibly one-sided and it’s clear someone has an axe to grind. They’re turfing out all this anti-marriage equality drivel with absolutely no balance.

      1. Dan, do you know the religious/political persuasion of the BBC Online editor? Wonder if there’s a way to find out… :)


        1. Helen Boaden is in overall charge of BBC news.

    2. Midnighter 5 Jun 2013, 9:24pm

      You can also make complaints easily online:

  7. It is not the place of judges to question the Executive branch of government on policy and law. Their place is to implement it and in some ways (although less so now) interpret the law and apply it. It is a distinct breach of the Separation of Powers for Coleridge to comment in this way, and I hope the Judiciary forces him to resign.

    This judge works in the family division of the High Court and it is clear that he could not apply the principles or statutes fairly based on this diatribe.

    He’s possibly also opened up problems in the court in cases where he has brought judgement that have involved sexuality. It’s likely he’s now given reason for his judgements to be appealed against.

    1. These (and Bishop Nichol’s rant yesterday) are just opinion pieces. Usually one bloke with an over-inflated ego. Yet the Beeb is treating them at the first and second most important world events of the past two days! Mind-boggling!

    2. Mumbo Jumbo 26 Dec 2012, 1:17pm

      He has clearly prejudiced himself in respect of treating all members of the public equally and his 0.1% comment seems to indicate that he is willing to substitute unsupported opinion for actual evidence when arriving at judgments.

      You can complain to the Office of Judicial Complaints here:

  8. …. and just what percentage of the population commits murder, larceny, burglary…….? This idiot has just proved himself unworthy of his post and ought to be removed immediately. It is NOT the place for judges to question Parliament, or try to influence Parliament’s decisions.

  9. Another middle-aged bloke labours under the misunderstanding that the rest of us want to hear his long-winded opinionated pronouncement. Beats me how they find the time to do this over the busy, hectic Christmas period what with all the shopping to do, clean the house ready for guests, cook the turkey etc. What d’ya mean, he hasn’t got ’round to doing any of this because he had to make these verbose pronouncements from on high? That’s pathetic! Yet I bet he still thinks he’s a little demi-god genius. Oh well, just another overgrown baby throwing his rattle out of the pram…

  10. Is this bigot religious?

    1. Take a guess… :D

  11. Brett Gibson 26 Dec 2012, 10:57am

    0.1% of the population when the director of Gaydar already stated that they have over 2.2 million profiles on their system and that’s just men. Yeah, give it another 2 censuses and the amount of Christians will be in the minority….roll on those HAPPY DAYS!!

    1. yeah, but ONS will keep bringing on their 1,5% numbers. Where do they question those people? At nursing homes?

  12. Keith Francis Farrell 26 Dec 2012, 11:00am

    I thought the average percentage of gay people is 10% according to the reports I read, so if there are 60Million people in Brittan that means that there are some 6 Million people that this idiot says our rights are not important. I dont get it. Where are his rights more important than mine. You sad old fart, stay out of the equailty fight unless you want to look stupid

  13. Kathryn Howie 26 Dec 2012, 11:03am

    Why am I not surprised that this:
    – turned up in a quick search.

    Impartial judgement – Phtt!
    Maybe its time that the Judge took advantage of his pension scheme, and let a less partial collegue take his place.

    1. Good research, Kathryn! So this is not just some wise old judge giving his learned view, but a long-practised homophobic bigot.

      “Throughout last week there were murmurings of an embarrassment at the Law Society involving marriage champion Sir Paul Coleridge and a controversial US group called the World Congress of Families (WCF). . . . So, the World Congress of Families organised a conference in partnership with Christian Concern to be held at the Law Society on 23 May. 120 people were expected to attend, with speakers including Coleridge and the right wing columnist Christina Odone. Rather ominously, it was called, “One Man. One Woman. Making the case for marriage, for the good of society.”

  14. I do wish people like this guy would stop pretending that marriage is somehow a magic solution to all the world’s problems. Marriage is utterly irrelevant to family stability and togetherness – it’s an institution that people who already HAVE these things contract into, not one that creates them.

    To say that marriage increases family stability is like saying that Knighthoods increase the frequency of exceptional services to the state, so we should be working to knight everybody and reap the benefits.

    The most kind and loving and stable families I know, my own not included, are unmarried ones. It’s the underlying psychological fitness that is important, the approach to society, the sense of priorities. And I think that a commitment to human equality and a fervent opposition to religious bigotry are just the sorts of values that stable, emotionally mature people prioritise.

  15. D Morris-Spruce 26 Dec 2012, 11:22am

    In my opinion which is one of many, everyone is entitled to there own views, I don’t agree with what the judge said, and I agree that a judge should be impartial in these type of issues, however what ever your views it’s not a major issue at the moment, having asked several of my friends they are not bothered about the issue, that’s why we have civil partnerships is it not? You can’t force our views on the various churches.

    1. And in my opinion it is a priority. And churches can’t (although they constantly do) force their views upon me either. Or is it all one sided as usual? So once churches stop forcing their vitriolic opinionated hate campaigns upon me and every other gay person on the planet l ‘ll stop being forced to defend myself by giving them as good as they give it out.

    2. Yes we can. And we should.

      We “force our views” on shopkeepers and employers and schools and civil registrars already. And on many others. Our equality legislation compels bitterly homophobic shopkeepers to offer their services to gay people on an equal basis, deeply racist teachers to educate all races equally, and suppuratingly misogynistic employers to hire women on an equal basis with men. That’s what equality law is ABOUT. That’s what it’s FOR. That’s why we have it.

      Churches should be no different. They offer services, they should be compelled to offer them equally to exactly the same degree everyone else is, however homophobic the people who run them are.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Dec 2012, 12:40pm

      You just don’t get it do you? We are NOT forcing our views on the various churches. Where is it written? Aren’t you aware the government intends to include a quadruple lock on the CoE/&W and an opt-in for all other denominations? Nobody’s beliefs are being compromised and nobody is being forced to accept equal marriage.

      Just because you have friends who aren’t bothered by the issue has nothing to do with the existence of CPs which were and never will be the solution to full equality. In fact they are a hindrance since they affect roughly 3 million of us which isn’t 0.1% of the population as this idiot Coleridge claims, just as Archbishop Nichols claimed that the consultation yielded 7-1 against when the result was 53% of the signatures gathered in favour of legislating for it. Yet another liar.

      The day the various churches stop bashing, denigrating and spreading spurious information about our relationships and right to marry, that will be the day we stop retaliating.

    4. “having asked several of my friends”…

      Your friends don’t speak for me or my partner and they certainly don’t decide that the ability to join in marriage together for the rest of our lives is nothing major.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Dec 2012, 2:05pm

        I often wonder if there were no CPs how those who are indifferent would react? They don’t quite understand that just because they don’t much care for marriage shouldn’t mean they can’t support it for those of us who do and I believe we are in the majority considering that various polls indicate that as much as 63% or more of the public support it..

        Some of us don’t care for CPs, I for one don’t, and would never consider one, but we wouldn’t want to not support those who make the decision to have one. The same should apply to those who aren’t bothered about having access to marriage.

  16. Hmmm he could be right. Also murder is committed by even less a % of the population, so we should not make that a priority either

  17. Peter & Michael 26 Dec 2012, 11:24am

    The BBC have shown their true colours by only allowing a one sided view of SSM over the past few days, there must be thousands of people shocked by this, and don’t forget we all pay a yearly licence fee to have their own bigotry shoved down our throats. Perhaps this will lead to the BBC being privately funded in the future! Goodwill toward men ? Bah Humbug !

    1. Agreed the BBC is showing anti-gay bias, once again. It is barely able to conceal where it stands.

    2. But on Xmas Day evening the BBC TV News report that I saw on this issue included footage of a miserably-looking Vincent Nicholls “celebrating” Midnight Mass, and footage of a row of the most miserable-looking, dull, and uninspiring old dinosaurs all packed into one row and gawping at the miserable Nicholls up on the altar.

      I think many many people in this country when seeing the above will say, “Well, just look at who they are! A lot of brain-dead old fogies!”

    3. I don’t pay a licence fee, I stopped years ago because I don’t believe the BBC deserve the money any more. If there is anything I want to watch on TV I use iplayer, 4od etc. as you don’t need a TV licence for them. Just stop paying and find something else to do with your money and time. Lovefilm, Netflix, DVDs whatever…

  18. BOTTOM LINE ; –


    If so — says it all?

    1. Been trying to find out. Will post as soon as I do.

    2. If only Catholics were the only people who are homophobic…

  19. john colling 26 Dec 2012, 11:27am

    Governments are meant to protect minorities.

    1) Google ‘national framework for the protection of minorities’.

    2) if marriage is a stabilizing influence on society, then why is it such a bad thing that gays would wish to be stable?

    Therefore, this judge’s logic is reprehensibly flawed..

  20. Leaving aside the made-up figures, if he really thinks marriage is so important then he should be welcoming extending it to all.

    He seems to be yet another person who thinks:
    a) rights for minorities just aren’t important
    b) the government is incapable of tackling more than one issue at a time

  21. In other words, if we can’t ban same-sex marriage then lets just ignore it and hope it will all just go away. Same old biased drivel. Only 0.1 percent (he says) of the population are subject to apartheid so why bother? Because it’s wrong, twit, that’s why. How can a judge be allowed to be this partisan and get away with it. I’ll bet if it was a same-sexed civil partnership he was asked to pass judgement on (and it included kids) he wouldn’t wait to slam down his hammer on the gavel and grant them a super quicky ‘divorce’.

  22. Could it be argued that this judge is trying to interfere in legislation making.
    Aren’t judges not alowed to do that?

    Could it be argued that his interference in legislation making means he is no longer allowed to serve as a judge.

    How does one get a judge fired does anyone know?

    He is clearly too stupid and bigoted to be an impartial judge.

  23. yeah right. because minorities rights don’t matter. bring back slavery, and keep them down to a minority so no one cares. and this man is a high court judge! he clearly shouldn’t be.

  24. Only “0.1%” so it only affects a minority. It’s worrying that this man feels if you’re a minority then your rights are not worth protecting in law. Is that the sort of person we should have operating within our legal system? If he was saying this about a religious minority, or racial minority, or disabled people then there would be uproar.

  25. Robert (Kettering) 26 Dec 2012, 11:47am

    But isn’t the protection of other minorities such as Asians, Afro-Carribeans; the disabled etc etc etc important in a civilised society? If so we as a minority are also entitled to the same consideration when it comes to “rights” as all other “minorities” surely?

    With attitudes and reasoning illustrated by this bigotted judge we’d still have slavery in this country and no Race Relations laws etc.

  26. Lynne Featherstone makes some interesting points on the other (better!) side of the argument

  27. PeterinSydney 26 Dec 2012, 12:29pm

    This Judge is also a leader member of some pro-hetero Family Foundation. So he is just preaching his bigoted nonsense from his Judge’s bully pulpit. AS for the Archbishop he is just trying to promote the hatred of Pope Vicious 16. Mr Cameron needs to stick to his guns and see this through as quickly as possible.

  28. PeterinSydney 26 Dec 2012, 12:44pm

    The old Judge is obviously too biased to sit on a Family Court. More people should complain to have him removed.

  29. the bill to change the line of sucession to the throne, allowing women and catholics equality with protestant men was just passed. It only affects ONE FAMILY, but that was judged worth the time in parliament. What does it matter how many people are affected by a law that corrects an equality?

  30. Put in a complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC).

    He already has form, and they have ticked him off at least once before for stuff like this.

  31. The priority argument is truly silly. The end of racial segregation wasn’t seen as a priority at the time. If Governments only acted on ghe top priority issue nothing would get done. And who would say what the priority is? A civilized and fair society should always be a top priority.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Dec 2012, 2:19pm

      Yes, and the vote for women wasn’t seen as a priority either when it was an all male right only and supported overwhelmingly by the state cult. He’s just another bloody Tory bigot mouthing off. It’s frightening to think people like this sit on the bench. He should mind his own bloody business. It’s none of his concern if heterosexuals divorce at a high rate and doesn’t entitle him to interfere in anybody’s relationship, straight or gay. Worse yet, how on earth could he be impartial when administering justice? Pompous arse! He should be forced to resign. His comments are inappropriate and unwarranted for a sitting judge.

  32. Mr. Coleridge, mate, why don’t you draft that number downwards, eh? Why not say that we gays and lesbians are only 0.001% of the population?

    I mean, it’s pretty obvious you would prefer us not to exist at all, so since you’ve lied and downscaled our numbers, why not go further? Practically cancel us out, why don’t you! You establishment rat.

    There’s a magistrate living in my street. She claims to like us queers, to an extent, but being an establishment rat like you, she too is against all this “Gay Marriage nonsense”!

    It scares the hell out of me that people like you Mr. Coleridge sit on the bench and make all important decisions about the likes of us, when you’d be better left to do the court cleaning!

  33. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Dec 2012, 2:07pm

    Someone should ask Coleridge where he gets the 0.1% from. C4M or Christian Institute? Facts please?

  34. Reason number 39 against ‘gay marriage’ or marriage as I like to call it: straight people’s families are breaking down, as they always have done and always will do

  35. 0.1% of the population – he’s being very liberal with his figures , maybe nearer 0.025% of the population.’Helps’ is not a good term either since it does nothing of the kind .Should the state sanction pseudo-marriage between those who are same-sex attracted when it causes physical, mental and spiritual damage ?

    1. I’ll have to agree with you there…
      it would seem that all of us LGBT Canadians getting married has had a terribly deleterious effect on the intellect of anti-gay Brits… that is the only conclusion i can come to after reading your comments: it would seem that my marriage has severely mentally compromised you. And for that, I apologize.

      Otherwise, I’m not sorry one bit for my marriage. 10 years and going strong. And with full support of my community, my family, my friends, and yes…. of my government.

      And you know what’s really nice? We live in a tiny, relatively remote, farming community, and still.. the people around us see us simply as another couple. We get the same warm greetings from our neighbours as anyone else. As a matter of fact, I was a bit surprised to learn recently that there are actually three married gay male couples in this tiny village (we haven’t lived here long enough yet, so I don’t actually know everyone yet).

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Dec 2012, 3:26pm

      The ones who are mentally damaged are idiots like you who are indeed in the minority in the UK. Go back to ex-gay therapy, clearly it didn’t work the first time around.

  36. Mr Paul Coleridge, the minority you are talking about are now going to make itself heard. In the next few days and months watch your 0.1 % figure grow exponentially. Have a nice day Sir, and enjoy the ride.

  37. Its only a matter of weeks since he was warned to keep a low profile. Of course, it maybe the drink, it happens to a lot of those holy-joe types.

  38. As there are fewer Jewish than Muslim people in the uk does that mean that Jewish people should be entitled to less equality?

  39. If this high court judge believes that the law shouldn’t protect or advance the rights of minorities, even those which are 0.1% of the population, then he would have enjoyed living in Nazi Germany.

    However, the silly man is probably too self-righteous to even contemplate that his views are fascist.

  40. This rather silly over promoted man has already been reprimanded by the Office for Judicial Complaints for taking too public a lead on matters that he established his narrow-minded family foundation to promote. Hopefully most of us in the law with an iota of modesty appreciate that our privileged position does not equip us to pronounce authoritatily on public policy.

    1. Michael, perhaps you could tell that to the Attorney General of Northern Ireland who pronounces his intention to influence government policy (he is supposedly an apolicitical appointment) with his personal views on abortion and gay rights issues – i.e. his anti-abortion and anti-gay rights views. Perhaps you are already aware.

      It appears that there are those ‘in the law’ who are very self-important and feel that their view of the world is so important that it should be gospel.

  41. I seriously doubt any estimate of how many LGBT people are are in the UK is accurate. Too many people are scared to state their true orientation on official forms. But even if we were 25% of pop. I suspet this daft b*gger would find another excuse to denigrate us.

  42. Would somebody tell me how you legislate to protect marriage from breaking down? Should divorce be banned so that unhappy people are forced to stay together? Repeal the married woman’s property act so husbands have control over their wives and they cant leave? Force women back from the refuge to homes where they are domestically abused and hurt? If marriages are breaking down, then what can the law do to help rather than make people even more miserable than they are?

  43. Mark Breedon 26 Dec 2012, 5:53pm

    I’m sure judges should not be flouting their views on anything. Facts in the case are more important. I wouldn’t want him at my trial.

  44. From Wikipedia: “a survey by the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) in 2010 found that 1.5% of Britons identified themselves as gay or bisexual, and the ONS suggests that this is in line with other surveys showing the number between 0.3% and 3%”.

    And, “In the United States, according to exit polling on 2008 Election Day for the 2008 Presidential elections, 4% of electorates self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, the same percentage as in 2004”.

    The minority is more major than this judge assumes.

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.