Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Labour MP Rob Flello: The government should not ‘re-write’ marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. That There Other David 21 Jan 2013, 7:42pm

    I’m sick of this hypocrite already.

  2. Separate is never equal, you idiot!

    Why is he still a shadow minister? Labour should be kicking him out so fast that he doesn’t even bounce.

    1. It’s both risible and worrying that he is a shadow justice minister.

  3. bobbleobble 21 Jan 2013, 7:49pm

    It’s very easy to say you’re in favour of equality when you get to decide what equality actually means. If you set up your own definition of what it means to be equal then clearly you’re going to meet it every time. It doesn’t make you a supporter of equality though.

    Mr Flello are gay couples allowed to marry in the same way as straight couples? No? Then we’re treated unequally – not the sharpest tool in the box are we Mr Flello.

    It is entirely within the State’s remit to rewrite the fundamental nature of marriage (although I would argue that this change doesn’t do that) as it did when the state legalised divorce, property rights for married women, civil marriage and so on and so on. You clearly haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about so blinded are you by your faith and your marching orders from Rome.

  4. PeterinSydney 21 Jan 2013, 7:52pm

    We must demand the resignation of this man as Shadow Justice minister. He is utterly flawed. If he does not resign Miliband must sack him with out delay.

  5. Marriage has been rewritten before – to allow divorce, and in the Married Woman’s Property Act for a start.

    The government also rewrote suffrage by allowing women the vote – should we not have done that then? Let’s just stick to how things have been, eh?

    Separate isn’t equal, Flello. If you like CPs so much why don’t we swap? You covert your marriage to a CP and I’ll have a civil wedding. No?

    1. If he is so picky, why didn’t he object to Charles marrying Camilla?

      Might have affected his future job prospects I suppose.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jan 2013, 12:35pm

      Iris, I wish MPs who support equal marriage would pose the question to those in opposition. They all claim CPs are equal but have you noticed they never say they are equal to marriage because it would then open up a can of worms for them, having to concede that they are interchangeable which they aren’t. I’ve yet to hear one MP counter Flello’s statement, but of course, it won’t happen. I dare any opponent to admit that CPs are equal to marriage.

  6. So he’s just confirmed that he is a religious bigot…

    No explanation really as to why he is against equal civil marriage and no explanation as to why he thinks the Quakers etc should have no right to their religious beliefs.

    He really shouldn’t be a shadow minister and it’s a joke for him to be given the position of a Justice minister. He doesn’t know the meaning of that word as well.

  7. Craig Nelson 21 Jan 2013, 8:10pm

    This is simply appalling. As it is a free vote I have no problem with MPs taking any position for or against. However a shadow justice minister must back the shadow cabinet position. I hope it is only a matter of time before this particular politician finds opposing equality to be a career limiting move. I hope the time comes he drops off the front bench (now or in a few months time) and that he never clambers back onto it.

  8. To be honest his position just sounds ill-informed if anything. We should sit him down with an intellectual for a little while and get them to explain the words ‘equality’ and ‘education’.

  9. The law is constantly being rewritten and always has been. We are talking about the law not religious belief. It’s called progress.

    Why are we funding people like this if the law is stagnant? We could just have a civil service over seeing never changing law.

    1. Good point! :D Flello’s talked himself out of a job, it seems. Except, of course, marriage is one of the laws religion thinks they own. Perhaps somebody should explain to Flello that religion does NOT own marriage?

      1. labour supporter 21 Jan 2013, 9:11pm

        write / email to Milliband and sadiq Khan about how your opposed to Flello’s stance ans that he should resign from his position. They hate their mailbox being filled up with complaints and also its time to let them know how pissed off we are

  10. labour supporter 21 Jan 2013, 8:43pm

    as a labour supporter this man is a disgrace. he should resign his position as he does not uphold the principle of equality and justice for all

    1. labour supporter 21 Jan 2013, 9:08pm

      write to Milliband and Sadiq Khan stating that you disagree with Flello and alos asking that he resign- they hate their mailbox being filled up with protests.

  11. Davisonbob 21 Jan 2013, 8:47pm

    Mr. Flello it would be far better if the church had not “re-written” marriage laws in the 1300’s. You really need to get out more and read..it is fundamental. Marriage equality was readily available in Europe and England until La Palud and the popes of his era rewrote the canon laws to prohibit it.

  12. Lukefromcanada 21 Jan 2013, 9:29pm

    the government has rewritten marriage many times, for f***s sake the king created a new church just so he could rewrite marriage

    1. It seems to me that Mr. Flello is a member of the church that Henry found so unaccommodating and we all know what they are doing at the moment. To be charitable, over charitable, Mr. Flello might be having a struggle to reconcile traditional dogma and doctrine with such a modern concept as equality. I suspect that CPs for him are an act of tolerance, an accommodation. How can we “disordered” souls possibly be considered equal?

  13. Not good enough, bud! This is a litmus test, plain as day.

    If you support anything less than full marriage equality then you’re a backward, evil troll, simple as that.

    You shouldn’t be an MP. You shouldn’t be tolerated. Get lost.

  14. ‘…My faith is very important to me but this is not a question of faith. The question is whether the State should re-write the fundamental nature of marriage. Given the existing legal equality I don’t believe the State should…’

    It would be great if he could elaborate why marriage shouldn’t be rewritten, he says it has nothing to do with his faith so what other reasons are there against extending the institution to gay people

  15. Hello!!! It might not be an issue of equality for you, but it is for us. A Civil Partnership is not the same legally as marriage. Your faith should have no bearing on equality, which is what this is all about EQUALITY.

    We’re all human, right? We all sleep, sh|t, eat and fvck the same don’t we? It doesn’t matter how we do it or who with.

    Once state is separated from this religious leash it seems to want to stay attached to, then the better it will be for us all. I don’t see what effect same sex marriage will have to your pitiful little life. Why are you harping on so much about preserving the fundamental nature of marriage? What marriage is, in your eyes, is based on old, outdated theologies written on some ancient strip of canvas. It’s about time it was updated. This, my friend it will be; hauled into the 21st Century; anyone who doesn’t want to be on the Equality Express can alight now as your reservation isn’t valid.

  16. So Labour is the new right wing party?

    Don’t they screen out bigots like this first?

  17. He’s digging a bigger and bigger hole for himself.

    Like the Bishop of Truro-he’s just wriggling and wriggling-first this way -then that- to try to avoid the UNAVOIDABLE.

    He is married himself-yet he seeks to deny that basic human right to a certain minority of his constituents.

    Don’t do as I do- do as I tell you.

    Its just not good enough- and he certainly should NOT be a member of a Labour Shadow Cabinet-ESPECIALLY JUSTICE Minister!!!

    1. That There Other David 22 Jan 2013, 10:16am

      It’s interesting that some news articles about him refer to his “wife”, and other later ones to his “partner”. Are these two people one and the same?

  18. What an arrogant tosser. Though I can’t see Milliband firing him. How would it look to give everyone a free “conscience” vote and then punish those who took him at his word.

  19. Funny thing is though, Stoke had two elected gay Mayors in the past when they had the Elected Mayor system.

    This guy has honestly shown his true colours and may lose the gay vote come election time.

  20. Rob Flello needs to leave the Labour party and join Margate Conservatives or UKIP where they are hetrocentric

  21. Robert (Kettering) 22 Jan 2013, 12:37am

    Basically this bigot is backing apartheid when it comes to marriage. As LGBT people we are not “quite” human enough to be afforded the rights heteros take for granted.

    For us sittng at the back of the bus is good enough for us. I can only hope this homophobe gets the boot at the next election or is removed as Shadow Justice MInister as he’s clearly not in favour of “justice” for the LGBT Community.

  22. Says as seen 22 Jan 2013, 12:53am

    Just because he doesn’t share your view he should be kicked out, regardless of all of the good that he done? If he can’t have an opinion, then why the hell should you?

    1. He can have an opinion, sure, it’s just that his opinion is foolish enough that he should be unelectable and shamed out of office, or at the least sacked from his critic post. And it’s not because he doesn’t share my view in particular – a belief in equality under the law is something any MP should have, and there shouldn’t be room in the Labour party for MPs who disagree.

    2. If he had an opinion that supported the denial of equality to other groups, especially ethnic groups he would be out before his feet touched the ground. As it is he is paid by the tax payer as an MP in a party that at least pays lip service to the concept of equality and claims that equality is one of the values that it is founded on.

  23. Rob Flello , the labour CATHOLIC shadow justice minister dishing out CATHOLIC justice on LGBT folk on behalf of the CATHOLIC church.

    I suspect the staff member who said that Flello is a “religious man” has hit the nail on the head as the reason he has decided to vote against SSM. A person with so much bias can’t possibly hold the position of a shadow justice minister.

    The catholic church’s intepretation of CPs (if any) is a “profound friendship”. This is what Flello suports I suspect. He doesn’t support what CPs are supposed to be.

    Sack him and for heavens sake don ‘t vote for him again please!

    1. GulliverUK 22 Jan 2013, 2:06pm

      Can’t sack him as an MP, but they could certainly replace him as Shadow Justice Minister, and that would be an excellent thing because we’re all going to have really difficult questions about him come the next election (assuming you were voting Labour).

      Our rights and the judiciary and the legal system are interlinked, and we cannot be sure someone like him wouldn’t somehow scupper equality legislation or try to block or deny equal and fair treatment — he is, in this area, just that which Labour despises in the Tories, unfair, incoherent as to any reasoned compelling argument for his actions.

      When they said he was going to explain a little more I licked my lips, but in reality he hasn’t explained his position in the slightest. He’s Labour and Catholic and against it, Ian Duncan-Smith is Tory and Catholic and for it – go figure !

  24. “My record of support for gay rights and equality for all speaks for itself.”

    That somehow makes you a bigot in the eyes of gay militant extremists, Mr. Flello.

    Do not be intimidated by these foul-mouthed bullies into jumping into line and conforming with the herd like so many of your spineless colleagues in Parliament have done.

    1. That There Other David 22 Jan 2013, 10:23am

      LOL. When it comes down to it he doesn’t believe we should be treated completely as equals under the law. He thinks we should settle for some second-rate status, and that he can’t be criticised for taking that position because he helped us get to that second-rate status.

      His record therefore certainly does speak for itself, unfortunately not in the way he thinks it does.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jan 2013, 12:52pm

      Oh and imposing religion on those who aren’t religious (almost three quarters of the entire country), trying to dictate to a secular government what it can and cannot do isn’t militancy? When did religion invent civil marriage? If CPs are so equal, why aren’t you and people like Flello campaigning to allow heterosexuals access to them, for those who don’t want to marry, idiot? If CPs were to replace marriage, what would you do, what would Flello do since his marriage would no longer be valid? What about all those heterosexuals who wanted to marry? They’d be forced to leave the country to do it and upon return to the UK, find out that their marriage isn’t a marriage at all but something quite different, less than marriage.

      As a Jew you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you learned nothing from discrimination. Your people were considered not to be deserving of being treated equally because you were a despised minority? You’re a vile disgusting man.

    3. bobbleobble 22 Jan 2013, 1:18pm

      You’re taking his word for it?!

      He wasn’t an MP in 2004 so we don’t know if he’d have voted for Civil Partnerships or not.

      What makes him a bigot is that he is prepared to put his religious views over and above the rights of other people.

      Also I would suggest that in the face of the onslaught we have received from all sides it is those who are voting against gay marriage who are spineless and those voting in favour who are brave. Voting against means caving into religious bigotry or for fear you might lose your seat. Cameron is sticking to his guns in spite of everything that’s being thrown at us and him over this issue. That’s bravery, not kowtowing to your master in Rome or Canterbury.

      I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about do you?

  25. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but are religious institutions licensed by the state to conduct marriages in the first place?

    I’ve sent a tweet to Ed Miliband asking if he will remove this man from his post. Not that I expect a response.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jan 2013, 2:12pm

      Good idea! I think everyone should do the same as quickly as possible.

    1. That There Other David 22 Jan 2013, 10:57am

      And people wonder why so many youngsters in London carry knives….

  26. This man is a hypocrite and it’s clear that he is taking his orders from the Pope and not from his constituents.
    I am just out of hospital after a minor operation at Peterborough City Hospital. I was asked who my next of kin was. As there was no civil partnership option on the form I had to explain to the health care worker, who was was foreign, what it was. I am fed up of this lack of equality.

  27. GulliverUK 22 Jan 2013, 1:59pm

    Unfortunately, having looked at all the things he tends to support, in Early Day Motions, and how he votes, I find myself agreeing with his voting positions on much of that, and he has made speeches time and again when he supported equality, only … in this instance .. he seems to have a total mind-wipe or mind-block where he cannot see the wood for the trees. These proposals are precisely about equality, and little else.

    And if I lived in his constituency, I’d have to vote for someone else, because I could never vote for someone who wanted to keep equality from me and other people who are gay, regardless of me agreeing with so much of his other positions. When it comes to elections I vote first and foremost on equality issues.

    It every single person who is gay and lives in his constituency voted for someone else he might very well lose his seat. That might mean having a LibDem who supports equal rights, maybe even a Tory who supports equal marriage rights.

    1. Gulliver, speaking as a constituent of his, the danger would be that if we did not vote for Flello we could end up with BNP who were very strong around here prior to the last election. Less so now, I hope. I am very disappointed that he has taken this Rome rules stance.

      1. Edmund Rodgers 22 Jan 2013, 2:54pm

        Next thing he will be bowing before the Supreme Pontiff of Rome on artificial birth control and other sexual issues. He should have taken the line of President Kennedy ” I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all