Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory MP Henry Smith: I’m against same-sex marriage, but I’m no homophobe

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Separate but equal never is. And yes, you are, since you can offer no actual cogent legitimate reason. Individual faith is only of relevance to that individual and exemptions are well understood and being built into the bill.

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a bloody duck.

    1. Very true…and this guy is a duck!

      1. I have never known a time when so many people have felt the need to say “I am not anti gay”.

        Of course if you are not anti gay, it is normally obvious from what you say and do.

        All they really have to do and say is the right thing, then we will know.

        Also they don’t believe this 300 letters against, crap, that is just an excuse. What does worry them though is that there are more than 300 pro gay people in their constituency who will assume that they are anti gay come the next election. Hence the denials.

        1. Spanner1960 2 Jan 2013, 11:53am

          Why is it “obvious”?
          Cabbages are green, but not everything that is green is necessarily a cabbage.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 12:52pm

        And a f_ck!

    2. Sorry but separate but equal is only a sound bite. Menand women are equal, but they are different. They are both human but they are both different, should we rename them? Love is love of course and equality should be for all, but male/female marriage is a natural institution which brings forth children. It is the best place for a child to be naturally born and raised and needs protection so it remains distinct. Marriage should remain as it is, civil partnerships should also be renamed in a more unifying manner but it should allow marriage to remain as an institution in its own right.

      1. Why? Apart from irrational prejudice, can you give me any reason why? And if you set so much store by the effect of marriage on children, why not afford this protection to children with LGBT parents?

        Oh, and it’s not a ” natural institution”, that’s sky fairy thinking – it’s about civil marriage and that’s a legal contract.

        I’m afraid that most opponents of equal marriage are just too blinkered to accept that the inescapable inference of their position is that they think gay relationships just aren’t good enough, but they lack the honesty to say so outright, so they hide behind this ‘oh, won’t someone please think of the children claptrap.

      2. There is no such thing as a ‘natural institution.’

      3. Just so much utterly debunked crap.

      4. “They are both human but they are both different, should we rename them? ”

        Your analogy doesn’t work. It would only work if men and women had to use different names for the same things eg men had a bank account, but women had something different because they weren’t allowed to have a bank account only something that was similar but couldn’t be called the same name simply because they were women.

        Male/female marriage doesn’t always ‘bring forth children’ nor is bearing children compulsory. Civil marriage makes no mention of procreating whatsoever. Also, many LGBT people HAVE children.

        You can’t rationalise your opinion about equal marriage. Why not admit you simply don’t like the idea? But…..it won’t be compulsory and it won’t affect you so why do you care so much?

  2. So what if more than 300 of your constituents wrote to you in favour, would you then be in favour? I doubt it!

    Civil Partnerships are not 100% equal marriage and marriage was NEVER purely a religious ceremony in the first place. Facts that he would do well to remember.

    So the label homophobe sits well on your lapel!

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 2 Jan 2013, 10:31am

      Perhaps 300 people should write and ask him to stand up and toss himself off during the next Prime Minister’s Questions and see if he does.

    2. Spanner1960 2 Jan 2013, 11:50am

      Have you considered he might just be pro-M/F Marriage instead of anti-gay?

      The two are not mutually exclusive.

      1. yes, they are.
        he is against equality.

        I am for chocolate cake. but I’d never stand in the way of banana bread, despite my not wanting to partake of it. If someone were to want to pass a law that encourages chocolate cake, but bans the baking of banana bread, I would be against that law. I won’t partake of banana bread, but I am not “against it”.

        He can be “for” opposite sex marriage all he wants… it already exists. it needs no defending.
        But refusing same-sex couples the right to marriage is the same thing as being “against” something. And being against equality for gays is being anti-gay.

        There, I explained it in easy words. Do you understand it now?

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 4:50pm

          Exactly right!

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 4:59pm

      No, he didn’t support it before 300 or more people contacted him. Even if all 72000 of his constituents supported it, he’d still vote against it. Never believe a Tory when they claim that mandates are necessary for supporting legislation. Not when it goes against their personal beliefs. A bunch of liars and hypocrites. This moron can’t even be honest about it and say he just doesn’t believe gays should have the right to a civil marriage. If there were no civil partnerships, they’d still say no. CPs have become a very useful tool for them even though many among them don’t even want those. They feign support for those inferior unions to justify a no vote. I think his attitude would be very different if Cameron proposed abolishing civil marriage for divorced heteros and replacing them with CPs. You can also bet he would be against allowing heteros access to one.

    4. CPs were created (with the advice/help of LGBT organisations) to give gay people legal equality. What exactly are you trying to gain from the word “marriage” – if not some mysterious/magical quality that is consistent with a religious/spiritual world-view?

      It makes sense for religions to define marriage as something more than tax codes and inheritance rights. But why are atheists claiming the word marriage works some pixie dust magic?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 8:17pm

        Listen, religion didn’t invent civil marriage, the secular state did so it’s none of the religious cults bloody business. The equal marriage debate is about civil marriage access and permission for any religious denomination to perform them except for the CoE and CoW who will be banned from doing so. If CPs are so equal, why aren’t other countries imitating them and foregoing equal civil marriage? Why haven’t they become the universal gold standard for gays and straights alike. Why do you think the goverments of 11 countries, and more to follow, have legislated for them? Explanation please? They have proved that CPs or the varying degrees of non-marital unions for gay couples aren’t about equality at all. By the way, some atheists often marry in a civil ceremony and aren’t demanding CPs. Are you really that stupid?

        1. Answer your own questions! What makes the word “marriage” so special?

          Religious folk can give you an honest answer to that question. Of course I know that atheists do get married. I want to know why they bother.

          1. Tax codes and inheritance rights, as you yourself point out above.

          2. Marriage is a commonly understood concept all over the world and one that many people grow up wishing to take part in. I cretainly did. Oh, until I realised that I was gay and thus couldn’t. Pointless and unfair.

            Civil marriage is a legal contract and we shouldn’t have a ‘separate but not quite equal’ legal contract for a group of people just because of their sexuality. We don’t have a separate institution for interracial marriages, for example, and rightly so. Every adult in the UK should have the option of a civil marriage regardless of their sexuality, race or belief or lack of it. We should all be treated the same.

            (and the churches like to refer to it as ‘holy matrimony’ not marriage as I was reminded by a vicar the other day)

  3. “There are much more important issues to be focussing on such as the economy and Europe.”

    And Mr Smith there are important people who are sick and tired of being side lined – remember those, the people who vote for you.

    1. Darren Theoret 2 Jan 2013, 12:02pm

      Goodness! Could you imagine going to a restaurant to order some lunch and waiter says, I’d like to entertain your order but “There are much more important issues to be focussing on such as the economy and Europe.”

      Piss-off. If you can’t balance 2 thoughts at the same time, check in to a home for the daft!

    2. Staircase2 9 Jan 2013, 8:30pm

      @Paul… Not if they have any sense they don’t…

  4. Homophobe!

    1. Spanner1960 2 Jan 2013, 11:48am

      Knee Jerk.

      1. nobhead.

    2. Newsspeak

  5. “300 people of differrent faiths had written to him to express their concerns”, in a constitency of c. 72,000, what exactly is blown out of proportion? okay, we aren’t the majority but more people would be helped by having this equivalency. democracy in action, or lying down and letting religious wingnuts rule democracy?

  6. “I’m not a homophobe, I’m just a stupid cunt” – Henry Smith

  7. “Deeply offended”? I think he means deeply offensive, doesn’t he?

  8. Craig Denney 2 Jan 2013, 10:43am

    Lying Bigot!

    So why is it ‘Henry’ that when I key word search your website, not one single word ‘gay’ comes up, if you are such a big supporter of gay people???
    gay site:.henrysmith.info

  9. “They have the same rights and although it is only a small thing to redefine the term, it would cause so much concern among the religious community.”

    This is about Civil Marriage! The religious community (thought not all of them) need not worry about it because if religious marriage ceremonies were allowed, it will be an ‘opt-in’ for all except the COE which will have a total ban imposed on it. So stop giving excuses Mr Smith!

  10. OK, it’s just possible he isn’t really a homophobe, in that he doesn’t actually believe gay people should be treated any differently from other people; but he’s certainly sloppy in his thinking (to say the least) when it comes to the distinction between CPs and marriage, and he gives far too much of his attention to the religious in a non-religious matter.

    1. He’s religious and he want special rights for religious people to discriminate. The same people who are so quick to crow about imagined persecution of their religions.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 7:23pm

      Again Damien, he has come to his own judgement. In this case, a minority’s beliefs are more important to him than any others. He’s unfit to hold public office. Let’s hope he’s voted out in the next election. He’s a homophobe either way. Saying he supports CPs doesn’t mean he isn’t.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 7:28pm

      But would he want a CP if he were told he could not marry? Nobody ever asks the opponents that question. If they consider them equal, they should support heterosexuals having access to them but they wouldn’t would they? It would really put them in a quandary trying to justify their opposition to equal marriage because it would debunk the myth they’re latching on to that CPs are identical and good enough for gay couples only.

  11. If CPs are so good, then all MPs who oppose marriage equality should be restricted to Cps. No marriage for them.

    1. Spanner1960 2 Jan 2013, 12:19pm

      I have always pointed this out. If “marriage” is in the eyes of God, then what are civil marriages? Why not demote all secular and civil straight marriages to civil partnerships if there is no difference?

      We all know why. There would be screams of derision and they would have a bloody war on their hands.

      1. Why not give it a go? Oh – because you are more interested in bashing religions than promoting equality.

        1. Spanner1960 3 Jan 2013, 12:08am

          I’ll tell you why: because marriage was around long before Christianity claimed it as their own, and over 2/3rds of marriages are secualr, civil ceremonies, so if anybody ought to drop the ownership, it’s the church.

        2. Chipsy, how you can be so ignorant is beyond me. Most gay people couldn’t give a first hoot about religion and have certainly not gone out of their way to bash it, as you suggest. Many people want full recognition in the eyes of society and the eyes of the law. That is what it is all about. Either you are too stupid or too bigoted to understand that.

          The religious bigots should keep their noses put of the debate since it is all about civil marriage. This had absolute nothing to do with the church.

  12. It’s a weak argument. And what a shame that he didn’t get an equal number of letters from GLBT people in his constituency so he would not have been able to use that as an excuse.
    Henry, homophobic does not just mean people who beat up gays in the street. It means people who wish to withhold our dignity and equality.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 12:46pm

      So, Henry Smith, if he really believed CPs were identical to marriage, would he object to the government abolishing civil marriage for heterosexuals and alllowing them only to have a CP? If not, why not, all things being equal?

    2. I agree with you, he can take an opposing opinion to gay marriage. All this fighting over the use if a word, you would think there were more important things like the poor in society needing to be helped.

      1. So why fight then, Bee? Just let equal civil marriage pass and there’ll be more time and energy for helping the poor.

  13. Julian Morrison 2 Jan 2013, 11:39am

    Fuck your offence at being called out, this is not about who is offended, this is about who is perpetrating oppression, and it’s you, mister Henry Smith.

    1. Get a grip and grow up Julian learn to use reason rather then sprout hot air

  14. Unlike Civil Partnerships- marriages are officially acknowleged and recognised in every country throughout the world.

    Unlike Civil Partnerships marriages confer parental rights to those in them.

    Unlike Civil Partnerships- marriages cannot be used to deny partners accomodation in Christian B&B’s.

    As for consummation- well thats possible in both types of relationship.

  15. Another Nasty ,Homophobic, Bigoted Tory. No surprise there.

  16. Spanner1960 2 Jan 2013, 11:46am

    Why does anti same-sex marriage have to equate with homophobia?
    That is like saying anybody concerned about immigration is a racist.

    People set priorities in their lives and I can understand why many Christians might find the concept of homosexuals getting married unacceptable, not for any dislike of gay people, but simply they see marriage as something that should remain exclusive to them.

    I think they are wrong, but I accept they have the right to think this.
    People need to get off their opinionated, accusatory high horses and appreciate that not everyone sets the same values. Being gay is important to us, and is a big part of many people’s lives, but for 95% of the population it is of no interest or significance whatsoever.

    1. Being opposed to equal marriage cannot but be considered homophobia, because it is a position fundamentally opposed to gay equality. You simply can’t get away from the fact that it is a position that denies us equal access to the institutions of society for no valid reason. It is a position that implies that gay people are lesser, and that the “right” to exercise religious bigotry is more important than the fundamental human equality of LGBT people. Anyone who thinks that we do not deserve equality is a homophobe, it’s really that simple.

      Would you say that someone opposed to mixed-race marriage is not a racist? Or that someone who says disabled people shouldn’t be allowed to get married is not prejudiced against the disabled? Or that someone who insists on unequal legal rights for women in marriage is not misogynistic?

      I am sick and tired of people trying to excuse religious bigots of their bigotry simply because it is religious. It is vile homophobic nastiness, end of story.

      1. Spanner1960 2 Jan 2013, 12:16pm

        I disagree; Like I said, some people set different priorities to others.
        You obviously feel it is more important for gays to marry than it is to observe the Bible. Many others see it the other way round. Just because one is pro- something does not necessarily mean they are anti- something else. If I ask you to choose between a cream cake and a steak sandwich, and you choose the steak, does that mean you hate cakes? No. It is simply a matter of what you perceive as the most important choice.

        I appreciate there are some nasty people that use religion as a weapon and a means of mass control, but also there are also a lot of very decent, good people that are just rather misguided; they simply need educating. Calling everybody that does not follow your way of thinking a “vile homophobe” is simply narrow-minded, judgemental and wrong.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 12:51pm

          There is nothing decent about someone opposing full equality just because he or she have have theirs and in their view think we have enough and should be content and accept it. That’s what bigotry is all about and he is a bigot according to any reputable dictionary. I don’t much care for religion, in fact I detest it, but I wouldn’t want a ban on it because it offends my beliefs as much as I resent religious nutters.

        2. If only it was that simple, Spanner. You speak of simply choosing to observe the Bible. NOBODY observes the Bible in its entity. They pick and choose the bits that suit them based on their tastes, needs and prejudice. People who choose to withhold equality from gay people are homophobes on some level. Those within the Gay community that do so are self-loathing, an unfortunate syndrome brought about by religion (and others) having a negative effect of susceptible children.

          1. Neat summary of liberal Christian brainwashing! All second hand ideas from the 1960s.

          2. Spanner1960 3 Jan 2013, 12:18am

            Yes, and equally there are good, decent, upstanding Christians that follow God and have absolutely no problem with gay people or same-sex marriage.

            There are also gay prats that love to throw their weight around and accuse anybody that criticises LGBT people as homophobic. There are just as many gay arseholes around as there are straight ones, and most of them are not “self-loathing” – in fact quite the opposite. They are vain. self-centered, egotistical narcissists.

      2. Try these for valid reasons:
        1, Heterosexuals in marriage have a specific definition of adultery in law i.e. penis in vagina sex. You really think it’s a good use of time for the courts to come up with an equal definition for gay people, because they will have to for ‘equality’,s sake. Ditto consummation.

        2, It is impossible for two gay people to reproduce naturally thus it is impossible to presume parenthood as it is with heterosexual marriage.

        Gay marriage will never be the same as straight marriage so it is best to accept cp’s= fair alternative and forget marriage fullstop.

        1. 1. instead, don’t you think it would be a FAR better use of the court’s time and energy to actually redefine adultery for heterosexuals so that it fits a real-world definition? if there MUST be a definition of “adultery”, then it should include ANY and all sexual contact, whether fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, anal, oral, vaginal, frottage… having sexual contact with a person outside your married couple is “adultery”. Not “having this very specific sexual act”.

          2. it is also not possible for my grandmother to have a child, yet after my grandfather’s death, she still remarried. I have a friend who is paraplegic, and completely infertile, yet they were able to marry legally. I know MANY heterosexual couples who refuse to have children… it’s not “part of their plans”. Should they turn in their marriage licenses?

          Two people marrying will ALWAYS be the same as any other two people marrying, regardless of any ancillary details: children or lack thereof, sexual acts, etc…

          1. No. I don’t. The consequences of sexual intercourse for straight couples i.e. pregnancy goes beyond the mere hurt feelings of cheating. THAT’S the reality of life for straights.

          2. bobbleobble 2 Jan 2013, 2:56pm

            Sjr, you are aware of contraception, abortion, anal sex etc I assume. The consequence of sex is not necessarily pregnancy even when a penis is inserted in a vagina but ONLY in that instance, whether it’s suited up or not, can adultery apply. That’s a nonsense in this day and age.

        2. Off you toddle, bigot, and tell the impotent, elderly or differently abled that they can’t have marriage because they cannot consummate according to some archaic notion (and it isn’t up to you to decide time resources, mind your business and stop sniffing round everyone else’s bedrooms – if you are not invited to participate it really is NOTHING to do with you.)

          Child-rearing has nothing to do with marriage. You need not be married to have kids, you need not have kids to be married, so your argument on parenthood is a steaming pile of babbling irrelevance. But nice job on disdaining and denigrating all fostered and adopted children and their families

          1. YOU’RE the one who wants the government to decide what consummation and adultery is for gay people NOT me!! If you didn’t, you’d be happy with civil partnerships that make no mention of such sexual issues.

            What exactly is consummation for gay people, Valksy? They’ll have to decide, you know. Adultery, too.

        3. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 8:25pm

          It is also impossible for an infertile heterosexual to reproduce naturally and impossible to presume parenthood within such a marriage unless they adopt or use an unnatural surrogate mother through invitro fertlisation. frowned upon by the catholic cult I might add. it is also extremely impossible for a para or quadraplegic to consummate a heterosexual marriage. You’re an absolute idiot.

          1. No, you are the idiot as you fail to understand that marriage is a tool for heterosexuals to produce children should they CHOOSE to do so.

            By the way, Robert, what is your equivalent of adultery and consummation for gay people? And just how can it be EXACTLY the same for heterosexuals? Indeed, how can it be the same for gay men and lesbian women? Have to be done, y’know, in your world of ‘equality’ where you seem to have an OCD like need for everything to be the same.

            YOU’RE the idiot as you have not grasped that equal doesn’t have to mean the exact same. A five-year-old does that.

          2. How many children are born outside marriage? How many children live in a marriage but are not the children of one or more of the spouses?

            Consummation? Adultery? Not exactly hard, is it? ‘Genital contact’ would be one way to phrase it. The actual definition of adultery for straight people needs updating anyway, so it could be done at the same time.

            You also forget that adultery isn’t often given as a reason for divorce (being hard to prove and liable to contest at expense for both parties) and in the case of consummation when was the last time you heard of someone having their marriage annulled because it hadn’t been consummated?

            Civil marriage carries NO requirement for procreation. It’s a legal union and nothing to do with any religion. I would defend religions’ rights to refuse to marry whomever they want and to conduct their marriages in their own chosen ways, so why don’t YOU allow us the same courtesy? Marriage isn’t owneed by any religion.

      3. Kathryn Howie 2 Jan 2013, 9:43pm

        Excellent -well said VP

        I’d give that 7 ^ if I could.

    2. @ Spanner1960

      Let’s travel back in time for moment…

      “People set priorities in their lives and I can understand why many whites might find the concept of colored people sitting next to them on the bus unacceptable, not for any dislike of colored people, but simply they see the front of the bus as something that should remain exclusive to them.

      “I think they are wrong, but I accept they have the right to think this.

      “People need to get off their opinionated, accusatory high horses and appreciate that not everyone sets the same values. Being colored is important to us, and is a big part of many people’s lives, but for much of the population of Alabama it is of no interest or significance whatsoever.”

      NOW do you see how offensive your daft comment is and why it’s been heavily down voted??

      1. Spanner1960 3 Jan 2013, 12:13am

        There is a whole big difference between a marriage and total social exclusion. Stop trying to throw weak straw man arguments into the mix in order to strengthen a pathetic argument.

        1. You want to talk about weak arguments, what about your pathetic attempt at analogy with steak & cream cake? That would only be apt if, in choosing the steak, you also sought to ban cream cakes for everyone else.

          1. Spanner1960 3 Jan 2013, 3:39pm

            Not at all.
            I am merely stating that because the man is against same-sex marriage he must automatically be homophobic.

            The two facts are not mutually exclusive.

          2. I agree with Spanner, this stupid calling of homophobia of everybody who opposes gay marriage is stupid as it closes down any discussion. I get fed up of posting on Pink News as the comments are so angry and bitter…People why is there is so much hate on Pink News?

  17. Nope. You don’t get to say “these people are unworthy of justice, of rights, if equal treatment” and then claim not to be prejudiced. It’s a ridiculous lingual distortion

    This man is a homophobe and should be treated as such

  18. Paul Brownsey 2 Jan 2013, 11:54am

    Many years ago Private Eye printed a wonderful series of cod letters beginning,

    “Dear Sir, I am not a racist but…”

    And what followed the “but” were things like “these brown people smell funny” and “they really don’t understand our ways so it would be a great kindness to send them back to where they came from.”

    I always think of that Private Eye feature when I read the “I am not a homophobe but…” letters.

  19. This is like arguing that the back of the bus was OK for blacks but that doesn’t equate to being racist.

    You’re a fool Mr Smith. An offensive fool.

    1. Sorry, should have added . . . an offensive, homophobic fool.

  20. Of course there are more pressing issues that need tackling, therefore more reason to pass the equal marriage law quickly and dispense with homophobic reasoning that delays the process .
    Religious beliefs are private matter and are not valid reason to deny equality to others that do not share those religious beliefs

    1. You think it will be quick? Dream on. It will be far from quick. Let’s see: oh yes, because heterosexuals have a specific definition of adultery and consummation (like it or not, they do) we will Have to -for the sake of equality- come up with the same for gay people because otherwise it’s not fair. Oh yes, and the presumption of parenthood cannot be applied in the same way to gay people because it is OBVIOUS that two gay people cannot reproduce together (that said, I’m OK with gay couples adopting) and that there is obviously an opposite sex parent out there who may be the other parent.

      Civil partnerships are a fine, decent compromise but the pro-gay marriage crowd want to (impossibly) distort reality.

      The general public will wake the **** up, though, when they realise that a lot of their hard-earned cash will be wasted upon deciding such trivia as homosexual adultery and consummation. I’m an atheist who has no time for religion but gay marriage really is a load of balls.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 2:37pm

        So by you’re moronic deduction, hetero marriage for straight infertile couples, as well as para and quadraplegic heterosexuals is a load of balls too since they can’t procreate let alone consummate? Idiot! Your atheism is lame. Many atheists actually get married, dumb arse.

        1. If you think that I think it is a good use of governmental time to decide what exactly consummation is for gay people, YOU are the dumb arse. And, yes, I do think that allowing infertile people to marry is a waste of time. Offer cp’s instead.

          I am pro cp’s but I will be signing the C4M so that idiots like you won’t waste my money deciding -needlessly what adultery is for gay people. Damned right I’m opposed to gay marriage!

          1. bobbleobble 2 Jan 2013, 2:53pm

            So marriage is only about having kids? That’s a very religious view considering you claim to be an atheist. There is nothing in civil marriage that requires children of the couple marrying.

            As for consummation and adultery it’s about time those concepts were looked at. Currently if a man in a heterosexual relationship cheats on his wife with another man she cannot claim adultery either. Nor can she if he gets a blow job from another woman. Instead she has to rely on the ‘unreasonable behaviour.’ Surely it’s about time these archaic concepts were reconsidered.

          2. So why don’t you toddle off to the Torygraph or Daily Wail sites and stop trolling here? The logical fallacies of your position, as well as the inherent bigotry, staggeringly tedious. Though I did get a moment of amusement considering the implications of your asinine suggestion of cp’s for infertile couples – pre-marriage fertility testing? Having to notify the courts you need to downgrade your marriage when you discover that you’re infertile? Does hitting the menopause mean that childless married couples would automatically be reclassified? And what about the waste of time amending cp legislation for infertile straights? Is that any less of a waste of time than updating antiquated notions of consummation and adultery?

      2. You also appear to be an “Atheist” with a sadly lacking ability to think logically.

        1. Don’t see why an atheist has to think logically but there you go. And, yes, marriage is only about having kids, or, rather, it provides a legal framework for heterosexuals to do so.

          Legal -forget religion this is a LEGAL issue- rules mean that adultery and consummation are specifically defined for this very purpose. Also, it would be impossible to apply the default setting of husband being father of his wife’s child to gay people.

          Marriage is about procreation from a legal sense and while I am perfectly fine with civil partnerships, applying these legal rules in marriage to gay people makes no sense at all.

          I don’t know why any homosexual person with half a brain would be pro gay marriage when cp’s cover their needs as they stand.

          1. Cp’s are not exactly the same as marriages there are some important differences, you know that very well otherwise you would not be arguing against it by using divorce law. Essentialy equal marriages are about equality and not about being the same as cp’s

      3. Hello, gay people pay taxes too. You talk about divorce law as if it is extremely complicated piece of law. It is not and its long overdue for reforming. Equal marriage would be perfect excuse to update it so it would reflect XXI century reality

  21. Quick test – change some of the words and see if the statement makes sense. “I’m against muslim marriage, but I’m no Islamophobe/racist”. What do you reckon?

    1. Spanner1960 3 Jan 2013, 12:20am

      Straw man argument.

    2. I reckon you are exaggerating and being rather dramatic. It’s only a word dear, civil partnerships are marriages really.

      1. Then why have a different term for civil marriage? Separate but equal is not equal – why is that so hard for you to undrestand? It basically says ‘you’re not good enough to joim our club’

      2. If it’s ‘only a word’ Bee, what’s the problem with using it in relation to same-sex couples?

  22. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 1:00pm

    It seems that the Tory party will never be able to shake itself free of these bigots, even the younger ones like him. Same old nasty party in general.

    A pity that 300 gay constituents or more haven’t taken the time to write to him to let him know that their beliefs count too. We rarely ever hear from those MPs in support to counter the opposition’s often absurd and offensive rhetoric. Why is that I wonder? All we get is negative reporting almost on a daily basis at PN lately, rather depressing. It gives the impression that equal marraige may not be a reality since so many appear to be opposed and get more coverage than those in support. Why the complacency?

  23. saying same sex marriage is on the same level as civil partnerships. Is like saying come on the bus , but sit at the back!

  24. Presumably it only takes 301 to write to him in favor of same sex marriage and he’ll be all for it then.
    Problem solved.
    Of course he isn’t homophobic. Gay people are different, aren’t they? Gay people can’t be treated equally because they aren’t really people, right?
    And after all this has blown over, I think everyone should question their parliamentarian about every decision they make, and how much their christian beliefs influenced them in their decision making.

  25. Homophobe.

  26. Meg Cowie 2 Jan 2013, 3:36pm

    What, he can’t think about two ideas at once?

  27. Is that like “I do not tell lies”?

  28. Mr Smith should remember that we live in a representative democracy, and that his responsibility as a representative is to ensure one set of peoples dont rule tyranny over the other.
    To quote Edmund Burke: ‘Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.’
    Mr Smith rather than listening to and obeying the weight of these peoples’ opinions why don’t you judge the power of their argument?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 4:48pm

      Well, the thing is, he actually believes the 300 because he subscribes to their beliefs. Now if 300 equal marriage supporters had written to him, he would have said it wasn’t significant to warrant his support and would probably have added that there is little support for it. A bigot is a bigot, more so if they happen to be a religious Tory. Clearly he fits the description admirably..

      1. Well he needs to be criticised both for his position and the moronic means by which he has chosen to defend it. Which translates to ‘I’m not a bigot, I’m just a spineless man than bows to the opinion of others rather than coming to my own judgement.’ Personally i’d rather a homophobe than a someone who’s a intellectual wimp. Not sure if he’s a homophobe masquerading in an intellectual wimps clothing though…

        1. Spanner1960 3 Jan 2013, 12:24am

          At least you have the honesty to admit he may not be homophobic. The fact he is a sheep for one reason or another is a different matter entirely.

  29. barrybear1980 2 Jan 2013, 4:51pm

    Oh, here is a thought…. Equal marriage means that there will be many more people looking to get married. That will mean:
    a) more people spending money on wedding venues.
    b) more people spending money on nice outfits for their/their friends big day
    c) more money spent on honeymoons
    d) more money spent on wedding gifts

    Oh, silly me, that is not going to have any impact on the ecomony is it. You chuffing idiot.

    An I am not even going to start on sjr, he just needs locking in a room (padded if possible)

    1. You need your head examined if you think that there will be hoardes of gay people getting married. That really IS funny! Given that men, as a rule, have no interest in marriage to women-they only do it because women want the ‘big day’ I can’t see them rushing out to marry each other! Put me in a locked room, but you know sweet F.A. about men and their nature. Oh and by the way, I’m being ‘sexist’ here not homophobic as you people are so keen to label everybody as an ‘-ist’.

      1. I think what’s really offensive to me is that it is MEN here who want gay marriage. Men -regardless of their sexuality- wanting marriage full stop is so weird and unnatural. I mean, I’d have thought that most men would avoid it if possible or if in a committed gay relationship, have a cp that avoids marriage bollocks.

        1. Avoid any ‘bollocks’ you want, but don’t seek to deny it to others.

        2. Any ‘bollocks’ in marriage applies to CPs too.

      2. It’s kind of funny you say that.
        I’m married.
        most of my friends are also married.
        they’re a mix of gay men and lesbians, but they ALL wanted marriage.
        and the funniest thing is, no divorce laws had to be changed other than in very minor fashion to accommodate full equality.
        We’ve had marriage equality in our country for years now, and the marriage rate among LGBT people is quite high.

        British divorce law desperately needs updating. I’m amazed that no heterosexual couple has challenged those laws in court, attacking their constitutionality. If your only complaint against marriage equality is that the divorce laws would need to be altered, then you are fighting the WRONG battle. You should be militating to change the archaic divorce laws of your country.

        1. What do you mean ‘married’? Are you a man married to a woman or vice versa? I agree that gay people can marry the opposite sex in the UK-and frequently do as they want children and -shock horror!!-think it best that the child has a mother or a father. I agree that it is more natural for lesbian women to want marriage as they are women and women want to settle down and coo over babies. But when men want to marry each other, that’s just weird. Men wanting to marry full stop is just weird. They’re usually coerced (subtly) by the female. ANY man (gay or straight) who positively campaigns for gay marriage is acting unnaturally as it is the male desire to not settle down. I actually know of no gay man who wants actual marriage. A Civil partnership seems more appropriate as they are revulsed by the heterosexual nature of marriage.

          1. I smell a troll. A homophobic, sexist troll at that. ‘you people’? Honestly, sod off and grow up.

          2. “Revulsed”? Heh.

      3. Spanner1960 3 Jan 2013, 12:30am

        The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter if NOBODY got married.
        It is the principle that is at stake.
        The fact that any straight couple can pay a quick fee, sign a form and it’s all over is something everyone takes completely for granted. You can get married or not, the choice is entirely up to you.

        LGBT people do not have such an option, and are instead given the feeble compromise of some second-rate alternative.

        If nothing else, if I say I am married, I am obviously straight, if I say I am in a CP, many immediately think “Oh… Faggot.”

        I want anybody to be able to say they are in a legally and socially recognised partnership without having to divulge one’s sexuality.

        1. That is a good point and one that has been much overlooked – why should we have to disclose sexual orientation every time we fill in a form with a marital status field? And before anyone says it, marriage to a person of the opposite sex doesn’t mean they’re straight – Elton John and Rock Hudson for example. Sexual orientation is sensitive personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act, so should not have to be disclosed unless necessary – your employer, for example, does not have to know.

  30. darkmoonman 2 Jan 2013, 5:28pm

    “I’m no homophobe … I just want poofters to remain second class citizens.”

  31. David Wood 2 Jan 2013, 6:39pm

    Many of those same religious communities would have been opposed to the equal rights of women, abolition of slavery and even the acknowledgement of each others Faith. Would Mr Smith expect to take a position against the aforementioned liberations based on those “Religious Communities” prejudices? He wasn’t voted in to represent religious communities so he needs to stop using them as a platform for what is clearly his own personal bias!

  32. He’s a homophobe, and brainless for not knowing he is. FFS, these idiots rule our country.

  33. Keith Francis Farrell 2 Jan 2013, 7:16pm

    I think this homophobe needs to reexamine the laws on civil partnerships, there are a number of inequalities within that law. Im tired of being treated as 2nd class. My spouse does not have the same rights including the same right to freedom of movement within the EU, all because he is not British. this means we can never enjoy any of the special escapes to Europe, it takes too long for him to get a visa.
    We moved and had to pay double to have our mail forwarded by Royal mail. these are just some of the problems we face, we cannot freely walk down the road holding hands. yet straight couples can. no you need to get real my friend otherwise you are a homophobe, you have an irrational fear of gay people having equal rights to you.

  34. Religion shall have no influence over civil liberties. If that was to be the case, inter-racial marriages and civil rights would not be supported in the legal aspects as well. Gay people are no better or worse than any other citizen but are the only community that is excluded from accessing the legal recognition required to protect their families. If Mr. Smith cannot understand that then he needs to be removed from his position so that an unbiased representative can be there to help progress the social inclusiveness.

  35. Keith Francis Farrell 2 Jan 2013, 7:22pm

    proposed abolishing civil marriage for divorced heteros and replacing them with CPs
    I read this response, I think it is a wonderful idea, If we dont get the same rights why dont we make this the only legal form of marage for divorsed people. I wonder ow many MPs will still be married, I think a lot of them would be in CPs

  36. Robert (Kettering) 2 Jan 2013, 7:29pm

    If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it’s a duck.

    Say what you like Mr Smith, you’re a bigot and a homophobe!

  37. This is the MP who said he received 300 letters opposed and only a few in support. While he may have voted no regardless of his mail count, this raises a good question as to why the UK gay community seems unable or unwilling to do the work of communicating with the MPs. Why has there not been an organized effort by Stonewall and other groups to ensure that the MPs here from equality supporters? This is a critical moment, and it is being met with sloth and indifference. Whatever happens on this vote, this has been an enormous failure on the part of gay political organizations.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jan 2013, 8:07pm

      Totally agree with that. I’ve been saying it for a while now. Total apathy, complacency. I contacted StonewallUK about it last year, and not one response from them. That Out4Marriage campaign if you could call it that has done precious little to rally support and hardly any from the gay community. Of course, the opposition is going to say there is little support for equal marriage from the gay community and population in general simply because nobody is taking the time to write to their MP but the opponents are. Makes it hard to believe 63% of the population support it. Lazy thinkers, lazy people. Complacency is what will see equal marriage fail. StonewallUK has done bugger all to counter the spurious rhetoric coming from the right wing religious nutters including this idiot, Smith.

      One American commenter here a few weeks ago said he couldn’t believe the apathy and lack of organisation on the part of gay organisations in the UK. He was right. It’s absolutely appalling.

  38. The irony being of course you can probably count on the fingers of your amputated arm the number of times he’s spoken out on the “much more important issues” of the economy and Europe. It’s so unimportant the issue that MPs who you’d never heard of are desperately trying to get their name in the media to tell you how desperately unimportant the issue is. “Gay marriage? What a waste of time. Clear my diary, I’ll be doing media all week on this!”

  39. jonnielondon 2 Jan 2013, 9:14pm

    A homophobe is as a homophobe does. Yep, you’re a homophobe!

  40. What a hypocrit pig. Equal marriage has nothing to do with religion, so it doesn’t matter what your constituent say.

  41. I agree with Mr Smith

    From what I can make out, Mr Smith neither fears or hates gay folk and by definition is not homophobic.

    1. Same way as wanting to deny someone something due to the colour of their skin isn’t ‘racist’ unless you hate them or are terrified?

      1. Spanner1960 3 Jan 2013, 12:31am

        Nobody is stopping you getting married.

    2. Homophobia is an irrational dislike of gay people, JohnB. ‘Irrational’ is the operative word.

  42. Bill Cameron 2 Jan 2013, 10:52pm

    From the ‘facts’ mentioned in the article I cannot say whether he an ‘homophobe’ or not, however he is perhaps ignorant of the fact that ‘civil partnerships’ do not give all of the rights which marriage confers. There is an excellent little video-clip on YouTube which explains it all:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT6I72W9SMM
    – I think many people are genuinely ignorant of the subtle, but far-reaching differences, legally and financially. For myself any religious aspect is completely unimportant, although I accept that for some homosexuals/lesbians it is, but I do want complete legal/financial equality which civil partnerships do not provide.

    1. Spanner1960 3 Jan 2013, 12:33am

      I think the most obvious difference is simply they are not the same – if that makes sense. One procedure for everybody.

  43. Why are people’s names being hidden behind profile images?

    1. Thanks for the speedy readjustment.

  44. “I believe in slavery but I’m not a racist”. Hahaha. These funny old Tories. They say the most amusing things. You have to laugh. Soooo delightfully quaint and old-fashioned. LOL.

  45. PeterinSydney 6 Jan 2013, 10:16am

    Oh yest mate, you really are a nasty homophobe.

  46. boo hoo hoo, you’re offended. A hurt homophobe. Must be rough.

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