Reader comments · Exclusive: Philip Hammond: Government’s marriage reforms don’t protect faith groups · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Exclusive: Philip Hammond: Government’s marriage reforms don’t protect faith groups

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Liar.

    Religious exemption already exists in the Equality Act 2010 and that will be extended to cover those with objection to same sex marriage.

    1. There will be LGBT people in the armed services who this man is responsible for. They have my sympathies.

  2. I can’t be the only one who doesn’t really care whether faiths and religions are protected. These people seem damn set on not protecting our rights.

    1. They know very well that religious freedoms are protected. He is just clutching at straws which is obvious to anyone, whichever side of the debate you support.

  3. Why would you want to protect faith groups anyway?

    1. You shouldn’t. They continue to exist by spreading fear among their faithful and vilifying whoever they can to buttress their positions.

    2. Wow. What a selfish idiot you are. You’re no better than the religious zealots who would deny us our rights. ”Always kick ’em when their down,” right? And I bet you believe youself to be civilized. Gotta love totalitarianism. Uncle Joe would be proud of you.

      1. You seem very fond of calling people ‘idiots’ and ‘thick’. That is hardly a reasoned argument.

  4. “I have concerns about the robustness of the protections for religious organisations that are being put in place with the best of intentions.”

    And these are? Always with these concerns yet none of them seem willing to say what they actually are, or are based on. Maybe if they were then steps could be taken to address these possible concerns no? Or is it perhaps just that you don’t wish equal marriage to be allowed?

  5. What’s so special about faith? Let’s think about two phrases:

    1 – “A church can refuse to marry gays”

    2 – “A church can refuse to marry blacks”

    Why is 1 acceptable, but 2 would be outrageous?

    1. Jock S. Trap 23 Jan 2013, 1:19pm

      Actually they, in reality, are both outrageous… it’s just that we are an easy target for such discrimination because those extremists in religion feel they have the right to separate and discriminate.

      Though I do get your point!

      1. Yeah, I didn’t phrase that very well – I meant to highlight that both are unacceptable.

    2. What a stupid comment. I’m not even going to waste my time explaing the difference between race and sexual orientation, it’s pretty self-evident. You must be really thick if you’re seriously comparing ethnicity and sexuality.

      1. There is NO difference between race and sexual orientation. They are both something people are born with and cannot change. YOU “must be really thick” not to know that.

      2. Except there’s no difference whatsoever where it matters – both are arbitrary and irrelevant grounds for discrimination.

        Would you deny ginger-haired people the right to get married? Disabled people? People who vote Conservative? People under six foot four?

        None of these categories has the slightest relevance to marriage. Nor does race. Nor does sexual orientation. The analogy is an absolutely perfect one.

      3. Why? Is it because you BELIEVE that sexuality is a choice?
        The only choices here are religious beliefs and bigotry.

      4. Jock S. trap 23 Jan 2013, 5:21pm

        Ironic you calling other thick when you clearly don’t understand humanity!

  6. Protect ‘Faith’ groups against what exactly – the inability to be bigoted – believe me that won’t stop the backward retards!

    Outlaw Organised Religion it is evil and an outdated superstition with no substance and no proof

    1. I think you’re channelling the spirit of a certain mustachioed Georgian by the name of Iosif Dzhugashvili.
      Outlaw something ‘cos you don’t like it? You ought to be ashamed of that comment. Your’re no better the the Telegraph-reading dinosaurs who say gays should be imprisoned. Idiot.

    2. I disagree with outlawing them. Freedom is freedom, after all. But a Bishops ‘power’ should extend no further than judging the cakes at the parish fete.

  7. What Hammond is really saying is that he wants to maintain the religious privilege to discriminate.

    1. Dave North 23 Jan 2013, 1:11pm

      And enshrine it in law.

  8. This is just another nasty dog whistling story intended for Daily Mail reading bigots to ensure that they remain in their seige state. This is the third successive vicious Tory tale I see: do we have a trend? Surely not!

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jan 2013, 1:05pm

    Now let’s see. The CoE bans hetero divorced from marriage. How many lawsuits have ensued since and been successful? NIL!

    I blame Cameron, Miliband and Clegg for allowing this nonsense to fester. The announcement of the quadruple lock did nothing to assuage the bigots from what I’ve read. I can’t believe that the government would introduce such a measure without getting sound legal advice to counter and debunk Aiden O’Neill, QC’s legal opinion that there may well be loopholes to sue the CoE. I don’t know if the ECHR were contacted by the government to assess compliance with its regulations in the matter. If not, why not.

    This is getting out of hand and nobody in government is addressing it. It needs immediate attention to shut these bigots up once and for all otherwise equal marriage will end up becoming the dog’s dinner one Labour MP alluded to recently and could fail because of the inaction by the government. Those waivering Tory MPs could well end up voting NO.

    1. I think it’s ‘getting out of hand’ from the bigots’ perspective, which is why they’re ramping up their opposition…But the more they air their ridiculous ‘arguments’, the more opinion polls seem to swing in our favour…I suspect they see how utterly foolish they’ll look when their dire predictions fail to come to pass and the ‘institution of marriage’ fails to come crashing down. The only interesting questions now are which church Elton & David will choose to have their State Wedding in, and by how much GDP will increase as CPs are converted to marriages….

  10. We should be making damn sure the church can discriminate in any way it likes when it comes to the services they provide without fear of being legally challenged. Churches should be free to refuse to marry anyone they like for any reason they like.

    The reason? From our point of view it’s simple. Give them power and they’ll abuse it as they always have. Nothing will turn the younger generation off more than an organisation that won’t keep up with the times. Forcing them to keep up with the times is simply prolonging their time of influence.

    1. WordsmithNeil 23 Jan 2013, 2:06pm

      There’s a problem with this in that churches have a role in a lot of other organisations, e.g. schools, charities etc. Even though I feel they generally shouldn’t (especially with regard to schools).

      Letting them discriminate however they want could lead to gay people, any people who are pro-equal marriage etc being dismissed.

      1. That’s different because they’re acting as a charity or educator in those cases, so yes they have to obey anti-discrimination laws then. Same kind of idea with those B&B people who refused a gay couple a room, they’re running a business, so they have to operate with the same restrictions as any other regardless of their personal beliefs. But within the church premises, when they provide services like marriages or funerals or whatever, it’s better to let them discriminate. The more they do it the better because in today’s world there’s no way for them to hide their dated views from the public.

  11. Jock S. Trap 23 Jan 2013, 1:11pm

    What nonsense!

    Fact:- The protections protect those that do and those that don’t.

    What this argument is about is most likely because of those faiths that do wish to perform marriage equally but what does that say about their ‘Religious Freedom’?

  12. Is that a syrup of figs he wears, it seems to be exactly the same length all the time in all pictures.

  13. Robert (Kettering) 23 Jan 2013, 2:08pm

    Just another homophobic bigot looking for an excuse to allow the LGBT community to be kept as second class citizens.

    If this were about any other minority group there would be mayhem. Seems we’re easy prey to these vicious bigots.

  14. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jan 2013, 2:21pm

    Makes you wonder on which planet this Tory cabinet member lives. This is all down to the fact that nothing is being done to counter this nonsense. Cameron needs to spell it out, loud and clear. Instead, these religious nutters persist in running rough-shod over the proposed legislation and nobody says a word. Gullible people end up believing this crap if those of the Hammond ilk repeat it enough times. Cameron needs to intervene and shut the tossers up once and for all.

    1. It has been spelled out loud and clear. Just a couple of weeks ago Cameron was headlined as saying perhaps we have not made ourseleves sufficiently clear on this. Just what part of the quadruple lock do these people not get? Its all whistling in the wind because they know that the vote will go ahead and they are having their last moments in the limelight.

  15. Garry Cassell 23 Jan 2013, 2:33pm

    This is another nasty biggoted wing nut…just trying to be important, at least to himself…has to prove his existance someway…God knows he has no other abilities to justify his pay from the public purse…Just a F****** hatefilled blob of matter.

  16. Another Tory tosspot who doesn’t understand the concept of EQUALITY. If HE were discriminated against in some way .. like being barred from using the House of Commons toilets because he’s an upper-class nob, would HE be happy being told, “But you can use the outside lavs”. It is DISCRIMINATION. It sets gay people apart. In a society where we’re all tax-paying equals (apart from all religious charities, that is) it’s just plain wrong.

  17. Crap, Mr Hammond. I’m sure the laws are just as robust as the one that permit the church to refuse to make women bishops.

    BUt I’m guessing you know that anyway. You’re just trying to make your opposition look all concerned when in actuality you’re a bigot who thinks we aren’t worthy of the privilege of marriage and should be happy treated as lesser to others. Disgusting.

  18. More importantly, the current laws don’t protect us from religious bigotry and discrimination.

  19. Brett Gibson 23 Jan 2013, 3:07pm

    God forbid religious people would be unprotected against persecuting everyone who isn’t like them.

  20. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jan 2013, 3:07pm

    Can you imagine if all divorced heteros were barred from marriage but forced to settle for a CP? Hammond would be among the first to cry foul. Thrice married Sir Roger Gale wouldn’t be a happy camper. It would force all of them to admit that CPs aren’t equal and aren’t marriages.

  21. All good points again so why don’t you all write to him like I have:

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Jan 2013, 5:01pm

      Dee, thank you for the link. I just emailed him. I’m not expecting a response but if I do, it will probably be similar to those I received from other opponents. Their minds were made up prior to the consultation. Religion is in the mix unfortunately.

      1. Another good tactic is to write a letter to their local rag asking if their local MP represents them at all or will he be guided by what his irrational belief in elves tell him when voting in the House. God all mighty – he’s the Defence Secretary too!.

  22. Dennis Hambridge 23 Jan 2013, 3:28pm

    uuuum is this bloke as an idiot as most polictical figures or just using an excuse not to agree with the policy of gay marriage, i suspect the excuse,

    it,s quite clearly stated and not being pursued by the lgbt community that the religious bigots are not being forced


  23. Ah but they do protect faith groups which is where people like you have been caught on the hop Mr Hammond. In fact they protect and enhance religious freedoms as you well know.

  24. GulliverUK 23 Jan 2013, 3:43pm

    Church of England lawyers said Section 202 of Equality Act 2010 fine for protecting against legal action on CPs, and same will follow for all religions with marriage. CofE will need additional legal protections because part of its law is also state law, and the two are in conflict, hence they will need state law with overrides Canon law and disables their need to provide marriage to all who are eligible.

    Hammond is and also has been a total arse. Homophobia bigot who has voted against every single piece of equality legislation, or been absent.
    Absented himself on Civil Partnerships – so he didn’t vote for them.

  25. Look, these grey old hasbeens aren’t going to change the record Stop trying to debate with them. They don’t have a brain to debate with, and they don’t even understand the law as it is – civil partnerships do not confer all of the same benefits as a marriage. If Hammond doesn’t know this he shouldn’t even be in parliament. Gay people are in effect, subsidizing heterosexual marriages whether they are in a civil partnership or not! Tell Hammond to get his facts right!

  26. As Defence Secretary don’t you have more important things to be worrying about?

  27. Get off the cross, Hammond, we need the wood. It never ceases to amaze me how many politicians seem to believe that so-called “religious freedom” should take precedent over lgbt rights and equality. We were born gay. Were you born a Christian, Hammond? Right, so why are you more important?

    1. no one is born a christian according to the bible, bible says you become a christian by repent of sin and acceptance of Jesus who died for you & your sin.

  28. Neon Genesis 24 Jan 2013, 4:10am

    Why is it that it seems like all these politicians who oppose same sex marriage are a bunch of old white heterosexual male Christians?

  29. “God made them male and female, for this reason shall man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh,” Genesis 2 v24 & Mark 10 v6. Marriage between a man and a woman has been around from the time of Adam & Eve the first couple on planet earth, it seems unatural to me.

  30. I watched a youtube video the other day which surprised me Peirs Morgan said we should UP DATE yes that’s right up date the bible because it’s out of date, interesting, as the bible state woe unto any man who alters it, who does he think he is. JUDGMENT DAY WILL COME.


  32. Realityz, in reply to this “you were born christian”, the bible states no one is born christian you become one when you repent of your sin and receive Jesus by faith as savoiur & Lord.

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.