Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory MP: Shelve same-sex marriage plans because it will drive away ethnic minorities

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. PantoHorse 3 Jan 2013, 3:53pm

    Another day, another excuse.

  2. Keep grasping at those straws.

    The simple truth – if someone does not like same sex marriage, they are perfectly welcome to not marry someone of the same sex. That is as far as their influence should ever be allowed to reach.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Jan 2013, 5:14pm

      The pompous pratt is too stupid to even figure that out. Makes you wonder how the likes of him ever get elected since they clearly don’t represent everyone. What has he done lately to attract ethnic minorities? Absolutely NOTHING. What possibly could any ethnic group think the Tory party have to offer them? We’ve never had a Prime Minister of an ethnic background since D’Israeli, a conservative ironically and a Jew who converted to Anglicanism at the age of 12.

      1. Why isn’t he extolling the virtues of sharia law then. That would get him a few more votes. Not sure how many muslims there are in The Wrekin though?

        Most muslims seem perfectly happy voting for pro-gay labour candidates from what I can see.

      2. D’Israeli? Is he the equivalent of John D’Oh ? :-)

  3. Oh goodness me. The Tory culture warriors have stooped to insulting racial stereotypes now. The NOM would be proud.

  4. Ah, so his thinking is ‘Let’s fuck over one group, so the other groups like us’. Let’s also not worry about what’s right, but what gets votes. Disgraceful.

  5. George Forth 3 Jan 2013, 4:04pm

    Trouble is… won’t many conservative party members relish the thought of not attracting ethnic minorities?

    1. Indeed. They’d certainly secure the support of their core constituency if they repealed all race and sex equality laws so perhaps he should propose that.

      1. A typical Tory! ie putting mainly British people down (gays
        and bisexuals) in order to gain the votes of foreign migrants who
        shouldn’t be in our country in the first place.

  6. Perhaps the consumption of pork and alcohol should also be banned?

  7. Who are the ‘ethnics’ going to vote for in that case? UKIP?

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Jan 2013, 4:18pm

    Yet another Tory scumbag getting away with the it. What on earth are the supportive MPs doing to counter this bullsh_t? We’re being bombarded with this crap on a daily basis and nothing positive on the issue. I’m sick of hearing it. I’m assuming these are some of the 130 Tories who said they would vote no? Almost half of the party isn’t it?

  9. The idea that PoC are more bigoted than white people is both untrue and racist as heck, and it shows that Mark Pritchard is not only a bigot but also a coward to try hiding his bigotry by projecting it onto others.

    1. It’s true and you know it perfectly well. The only reason they won’t go as far as forcing churches to perform gay marriages is because it’d mean they’d have to allow gays to get married in mosques and synagogues, and that was just out of the question because you know as well as I do it’d cause a riot. That’s what Sayeeda Warsi was referring to when she stepped in on the church’s behalf, warning of “unintended consequences”

      By the way, it’s great the way Mark Pritchard is playing divide and rule between homosexuals and ethnic minorities. The only thing that unites this unholy “left wing” alliance of Professional Victims and whiners -homosexuals, blacks, feminists, Muslims, etc – is jealousy and hatred of straight, white men. Without that, they have nothing in common whatsoever and would turn on each other instantly, so homosexuals ought to be careful what they wish for really.

      1. Obvious troll is obvious.

        1. Call me a troll if you like, but you still know perfectly well that what I’m saying is true.

        2. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Jan 2013, 5:04pm

          Another dumb arse more like it!

      2. No religious organisation, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. will be “forced” to perform ceremonies. The change in law will enable these religious organisations to participate if they “opt in”. In fact, the “quadruple lock” being proposed provides more freedom for religious organisations other than the CoE – the CoE is explicitly prevented from performing same sex marriage ceremonies. Warsi “stepped in” only because she is a bigoted mouth piece who like to spout off her homophobia at every available opportunity.

        1. Originally they wanted to force churches to perform them, but they backed down once they realised what it would mean. It’s the same reason they backed down on abolishing faith schools. They knew all hell would break lose if the Jews and Muslims weren’t allowed their own schools and would have gay propaganda (under the guise of sex education) rammed down their children’s throats like everyone else.

          1. Stop talking such crap.

            No religious cult has EVER been forced to marry anyone.

            The catholic cult refuses to marry divorced heterosexual couples.

            Civil marriage has nothing to do with religious cults

          2. “Originally they wanted to force churches to perform them”

            What, like they forced churches to have female bishops and to marry divorcees??

      3. The reason that the government wouldn’t force churches to marry LGBT is because the homo hysterics and closeted self loathers would run around like headless chickens screaming about religious freedom even though as everyone know they aren’t really interested in religious freedom at all, it’s just a useful prop. The government’s proposals actually enhance religious freedom( that’s why some of the mainstream churches are furious) so that all genuine believers in freedom from the “nanny state” and personal liberty should be delighted.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Jan 2013, 6:19pm

          Exactly right. Have you noticed that the CoE and the Roman cults haven’t dared to condemn the Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal and Reformed Judaism? It only shows just how cowardly they are and they were arrogant enough to assume they spoke for all religious denominations. They won’t say anything because they know in doing so would only concede their bigotry. The quadruple lock on the CoE in particular has in a way diminished its power, sent it into isolation in fact. Not a good place to be for a cult already in rapid decline and which wants dialogue with the gay community as newly appointed Archbishop Welby has intimated. Too late, I’m afraid. Damage done and no way out. Serves them right!

      4. The only thing that those groups you mention have in common is hating the tory party. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it unites them because nothing does that.

        So I like the fact that you agree that the tory party is identified as straight white men. At least we can agree with you on that much.

        1. The Tory party haven’t done straight white men any favours recently, they sold us out a long time ago. They’re no better than the traitors in Labour and the Lib Dems.

          It’s funny though, because ethnic minorities are not natural allies of Labour or the Lib Dems. They have more in common with the Conservatives on most issues. They’ll vote for Labour because Labour bribes them with benefits and other special privileges, but when it comes to homosexuality and feminism, they share the views of those conservative (with a small c), straight, white males that homosexuals and feminists hate so much.

          Sometimes I’d think it’d be amusing if the homosexuals and feminists actually got what they wanted. Straight, white men all disappear, and they’re left at the mercy of the Islamic militants and blacks. We all know how much they respect gays and women.

          1. Unmitigated trolling drivel. Go and lie down in a darkened room.

          2. Why are you commenting on a gay website?

          3. TBH. I don’t think most secure balanced white men are much bothered either way about same sex marriage, they will make the usual jokes about not “making it compulsory”, or “that’s ok more women for us then”.etc. They are quite rightly worried about Jobs, pensions, mortgages, debt and so on. Pretty sure they would have a problem with the introduction of sharia law or even a christian theocratic regime. They would probably prefer to live in countries like Canada and Denmark than Iran or Uganda. Canada BTW has survived the economic downturn more successfully than almost all developed countries, so “Gay marriage” hasn’t exactly brought them ruin.

          4. Of course they’re worried about jobs, pensions, mortgages, debt, and so on, and that’s what annoys them about gay marriage. Gay marriage is just unnecessary self-indulgence and a distraction from the issues that really matter.

            Who wants to listen to people complain that they’re oppressed because they can’t marry another man when the rest of us are having to deal with real problems? That kind of thing causes more intolerance, not less.

  10. Seems to me a lot of Tory MP’s know the Conservatives likely won’t win the next election, now rather than blame their piss poor policies they’d rather pass the blame onto us and the one policy that gives equal rights.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Jan 2013, 5:02pm

      The Tories will lose the election regardless and it will all be down to the likes of arch arsehole Pritchard who only represents straight conservative, mostly white people who think like he does. Minorities, such as gay people. really don’t count in his scheme of things. Same old nasty party it always will be. This is what now passes for the modern Tory party and he’s not one of the old ones dying off. For every old one who dies, another will be replaced of the Pritchard ilk. It will never be able to shake off the ‘nasty’ stigma.

  11. Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen 3 Jan 2013, 4:28pm

    Mr. Pitchard is absolutely right: all political parties must all ways choose between two groups, if they are with very different views on whatever (in this case on sexuality). Its just politics, nothing personal (I hope).

    1. This may come as a shock but there are politicians who have some integrity and do the right thing, in the longer term these people with some courage tend to fare better in every way.

  12. why are we not entitled to ahve equal rights mark?

    1. Equal rights are not negotiable and to suggest that they are just to garner a few extra votes is outrageous. But , hey , t they’re Tories and Christians … it’s what they do.

  13. In a decent society the question would be: Who are we to deny to others that which we enjoy as of right?

  14. jonnielondon 3 Jan 2013, 5:18pm

    Dear Mr. Pritchard, your opinion has no basis in fact. Do some research first please. The UK is not the first country to ever allow equal marriage. This problem of his has never been an issue in Canada or anywhere else that equal marriage is available. Such stupidity, really!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Jan 2013, 6:02pm

      Exactly! Now just wait when France votes on January 27. It’s going to make the Pritchards of the Tory party squirm and become even more desperate in their hateful rhetoric, just a little too close for comfort it might seem.

      Ben Summerskill had better get his finger out as soon as he returns from his vacation and counter these right wing loonies because nobody else is doing it are they? Not one supportive MP doing f_ck all to push back at them.

  15. I see, so we can trade off the rights of social group to appease the prejudice of another social group? No. That’s not how it works. The arguments to bolster up the prejudiced view are getting more bizarre. If someone doesn’t like the idea of two people of the same sex getting married, then they are free not to participate in either marrying someone of the same sex themselves, or attending a same sex marriage (unless, of course, it is their job as a civil servant). It’s also rather insulting of him to assume that just because someone belongs to an ethnic minority or is religious, that this means they are a homophobic bigot.

  16. Makes sense… Suppress one minority group’s right to appease another minority.

    And here’s me thinking (and not for one moment do I belive his remarks hold any water) that the problem lies where there’s ignorance. Educate the ignorant, rather than appease ignorance.
    How about this..’Stop giving ethnic minorities equal rights because you’ll lose the votes of racist voters?

  17. GulliverUK 3 Jan 2013, 7:05pm

    “IT WILL DRIVE AWAY ETHNIC MINORITIES” !

    Drive them away? I wasn’t aware any were wavering in who they would vote for. Also an incredible assumption that a group of voters who happen to belong to one particularly ethnic group all vote the same way based on their “ethnicity” and not other factors.

    Fact is, voters who happen to be from ethnic groups don’t tend to vote Tory, just like working class don’t, just like most people from our community don’t – because there is compelling reason to vote Tory. That hasn’t changed in decades, and this is the first time ever that they’ve offered up something for us (which all the other parties are also offering). And the idea that all Christians vote Tory is laughable, or that anyone from an ethnic background is homophobic and won’t vote Tory because of these proposals is naive. If only he had a sharp mind !

  18. People actually vote for these dimwits to have power? The mind boggles.

    1. GulliverUK 3 Jan 2013, 8:30pm

      Not really. Last election one women said she was voting for Nick Clegg, when asked why she said he was the best looking of the candidates.

      Another women said she was voting for the BNP, when asked which policies of theirs had appealed to her it quickly became apparent she didn’t know what their policies were.

      For most of these people it would be better to put the names in a hat and draw one, as a way to decide.

  19. Wait, I thought minorities usually vote labour, since the Tories didn’t pay much attention to their needs in the past… Just another pathetic excuse

    1. Not so Diana – the vast majority of Asians have always voted Conservative

      1. Not true. The ONLY ethnics who have ever had any real
        propensity to vote Tory are Jews, Hindu BUSINESS-OWNING asians and some Chinese people. ALL other ethnics have never voted Tory in appreciable numbers. Simply-put, the Labour Party has always attracted the vast bulk of the the ethnic vote. Why else did that cretinous and anti-British party open the floodgates during their last time in office? To create a dependable new electorate for them!

  20. Tories + ethnic caring = fantasy land.

    Is there no depth these homophobes wont go to, promoting inequality.

  21. How ironic 4 Jan 2013, 5:08am

    It will drive away homophobes. InB4NextRandomExcuse

  22. Jock S. Trap 4 Jan 2013, 10:19am

    Oh the excuses keep being rolled out to try to hide the bigot.

    It doesn’t work though Mr Pritchard and it is you that looks like a desperately bigoted fool.

  23. Stewart Edge-Webster 4 Jan 2013, 3:47pm

    To shelve this would be a bigger an insult to the majority of those Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Christian and Muslim (amongst many others) whose religions are based on tolerance rather than political posturing. As an NHS worker, I find my sexuality is not an issue for those who use services. The opinions, bluffery and spite espoused by MPs, Councillors etc, many of whom do not provide front line services, is of more concern to individuals in need (regardless of religion or geographical origin)

  24. Officer Dribble 4 Jan 2013, 4:23pm

    So – a summary of the list of ‘reasons’ not to extend civil marriage to gay couples is as follows:

    1. It will lead to straight couples not getting married

    2. It will usher in marriage between humans and animals.

    3. It will lead to the dissolution of the CofE

    4. It will alienate ethnic minority Tory voters.

    Any more???

    1. Apparently it will make white, straight guys second class citizens? Go figure.

  25. Racism and Bigotry, alive and well and living in Britain. Shameful. He sounds like the Parti Quebecois politician that blamed the too many ethnic minorities for the loss of the election in Quebec, Canada.

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