Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Exclusive: Defence Secretary Philip Hammond links incest with same-sex marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Tedious lying imbecile.

    Incest overwhelmingly heterosexual in nature – we could correlate that to heterosexual marriage, but that would be dishonest.

    That it doesn’t register in this absurd man’s head that incest is a criminal offence (for reasons I could explain, but you cannot reason with the unreasonable lackwitted cretins of the nasty party) is what disturbs me the most.

    I suppose he forget the next line on his crib sheet for idiots, and didn’t get round to mentioning the farm animals (since these fools don’t seem to recognise legal competence or consent either).

    1. How can this man be Defense Secretary? Either the man is a total idiot that cannot follow a logical argument or he is a total bigot that choses to ignore facts in order to impose his views.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 12:49pm

      The bigot should be censured or better yet, forced to resign. What he said abuses freedom of speech. He has no evidence to support his spurious claim. He holds a key cabinet position and represents the UK. He’s unfit to serve and should be replaced.

    3. I’ve just complained to him via “philip.hammond.mp@parliament.uk” and received the following automated information from him:

      “If you wish to contact me in my role as Secretary of State for Defence, and are not one of my constituents, please resend your message to DefenceSecretary-Group@mod.uk

      So it might be better to email him at:
      DefenceSecretary-Group@mod.uk
      rather than
      philip.hammond.mp@parliament.uk

      Or send your complaints to BOTH and to the Prime Minister!

    4. You do realise that the legal definition of incest depends on the same legal definition of “sex” that might be scrapped because the government cannot work out a definition for adultery or consummation for same-sex marriages?

      At the moment it is not a crime for close relatives of the same sex to have sex because they cannot actually have “sex”.

      1. As I understand it, sex between close relatives of the same sex is already illegal in England.

      2. bobbleobble 28 Jan 2013, 10:18pm

        That’s nonsense. Incest is dealt with in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and it is a crime for close relatives of the same sex to have sex. Check out sections 25-27 and 64-65 of the act.

        1. OK as with rape – oral and anal penetration were added to the list in 2003.

    5. This PinkNews story has made it to The Guardian, where there is more detail about what happened. It appears he didn’t actually use the word “incest” but he did liken same-sex marriage to allowing marriage between siblings . . . and has refused to discuss the issue further. The students concerned are quoted.

      See:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/28/philip-hammond-gay-marriage-incest

  2. I’d like to know why he is allowed to occupy a position within government when he’s spouting views like that. But then again, that’s the Tories for you.

    1. Another apologist for authoritarianism; “You have a different viewpoint from me so you mustn’t be allowed to have a voice.” Shameful. This paper is worse than the Grauniad.

      1. Then by all means, don’t let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

        Point is – If Hammond has correlated, say, mixed race marriage to incest, he would have been slapped down and censured so hard his head would spin. What he didn’t isn’t a viewpoint, it is a piece of hate speech.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 12:37pm

          Quite agree. Perhaps a letter writing campaign to Theresa May would be in order. The man is deranged to be making disgustingly outrageous statements like that. A pity 70 students weren’t 700. He calls himself an Anglican and he’s bearing false witness? I never knew that was a ‘christian’ value? Hypocritical bigot!

        2. Skin colour is purely cosmetic, like height or eye colour. It’s lazy arguing to conflate race with sexual orientation. On the subject of hate speech, religious believers are routinely described in this paper as mentally ill (a favourite tactic of Joe Stalin). LGBT people were once universally thought of as sick and disordered. It’s not very generous to treat our opponents the way they treated us when the shoe was on the other foot.

          1. Skin colour is cosmetic? You mean it washes off? Wow. I didn’t know that. So why do so many people insist on looking black and putting up with racism against them? I really am astonished at my own ignorance about this all my life!

          2. hey-hey, it’s a single-named troll-type commenter! ‘dennis’ do not be disconcerted by comments on this website – we don’t seriously think of religious people as mentally ill; what’s a bit of banter between differing opinions?

            in light of your weak and pathetic comments, exampled above and here, i can only hypothesize that either you have misjudged your medication today or it is simply your turn to spit bile on us inverts! in each case, i hope that your local witch-doctor quickly remedies that for you and that you get a life on one of those other planets in the universe you mention. opinions as rarely authoritarian and likening us to communist dictators isn’t going to win the argument or win us over. again, this is just banter, ‘dennis’. good-natured [godless] banter ;-)

      2. A party chooses its members and its representatives. They choose who they allow within their ranks. They choose who they wish to be associated with.

        If a party member decides to make disgusting racist marks, there’s a decent (well, moderately decent, these are the Tories after all) chance they’d be kicked out. If they decided to wear a swastica, they’d be kicked out. This isn’t authoritarianism, this is the party deciding who it wants to represent them

        The Tories are faced with a choice: reject Phillip Hammond’s vile bigotry and kick him out or at least sanction him. Or send the message that “yes, we accept this bigotry”. It’s not authoritarianism to expect them to do the former – because otherwise they’re doing the latter

      3. Barrybear1980 28 Jan 2013, 3:10pm

        He is welcome to his opinion, we live in a democracy after all. What he is not allowed to do is blatantly lie and make foolish remarks.

        He should indeed be forced to resign if for no other reason than going against the leadership of his party

      4. i see no paper, single-named troll. this website being a news service for the gays [like], perhaps you are confused; also, i see you don’t have a point. shameful.

    2. Yes, there’s a reason why they’re called the Nasty Party…

  3. Here we go. And there’s going to be worse said than this in the coming weeks. And this is why we have to get out there and combat the bigotry and homophobia or the new Marriage Bill will simply not be passed. We have to focus on the Marriage Bill as is, and not waste a single ounce of energy on the minor matter of whether or not it allows CPs for heterosexuals.

    Well done to those 70 students at Egham who greeted this homophobe with a protest!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 12:41pm

      Yes, Eddy, and nobody in government is going to counter him are they? If he’d said the same about an ethnic group, there would be public uproar and condemnation from Downing Street. This is the real face of the Tory party and shame on supporters of EM in his party who refuse to condemn this vile man.

      1. You’re right, Robert. And when I mentioned this Hammond statement to my partner over lunch he declared “But that’s outrageous! It’s vilification! Cameron should sack him! And to think he’s in charge of a department!” That put it into perspective for me. I guess that following PinkNews and the Guardian reports so closely I am a bit used to the all homophobia and failing to react strongly enough to it.

        Where’s Stonewall and Outrage on this issue, I wonder! This is something to hit the streets about!

        It seems the man is saying that allowing us to marry would be aking to allowing people in incestuous relationships to marry . . . which is to say that RIGHT NOW WE ARE NO BETTER THAN PEOPLE INDULGING IN INCEST!

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 2:21pm

          Couldn’t put it better, Eddy! This man must go!

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 28 Jan 2013, 4:42pm

      Might be helpful if people channel their anger by complaining to Central Office

      http://www.conservatives.com/Information/Contact_Us.aspx

      I good few emails to the party chairman’s office might help seal his fate.

      1. Peter & Michael 28 Jan 2013, 5:18pm

        Yes, we expect more homophobia in the papers especially the telegraph which we cancelled a few months ago and the daily wail, we have also written to our MP whom has already met with religious leaders in the constituency, stating to him that equality is a human right, although the Conservative MP has stated to us in a letter that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. He will lose our vote at the next general election, if he is not brave enough to vote for SSM.

      2. Thank you, Sister! Done. As follows:

        Dear Sir or Madam,

        I understand that Philip Hammond has recently made statements that have implied that the marriages of homosexual human beings would be akin to marriages involving incestuous relationships, between family members.

        Such statements imply a belief that homosexual people are no better than people within family units who indulge in sexual relationships.

        In other words, Philip Hammond appears to have implied that a loving and committed homosexual relationship, between two men, or between two women, is no different from a sexual relationship between, for example, a father and his daughter.

        Please have Philip Hammond apologise immediately, fully, and publicly, or resign from his position in the government.

        Yours sincerely,

  4. I’ve never met Hammond, but in general I’m starting to think that lots of these homophobes aren’t actually malicious, just incredibly thick.

    “he responded by likening the current ban on equal marriage to incest, where it is illegal for two siblings to enter into wedlock.”

    And? That ban would still be in place if we had equal marriage so it’s utterly irrelevant. No doubt Hammond would then say that EM is the slippery slope to incest – which is demonstrably rubbish as having centuries of man/woman marriage hasn’t led to a massive push for a brother to marry a sister. So EM wouldn’t lead to any push for a brother to marry his brother, or sister marry her sister.

    It’s so stupid, it’s beyond belief. But if Hammond really did compare same sex relationships with incest then he should be disciplined and have some obvious facts pointed out to him.

    1. It’s the same old fallacious argument that love between two people of the same sex can mean no more than love between siblings and demonstrates a thorough lack of understanding of human sexuality. Or, much as you put it, demonstrates a propensity to be extremely thick.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 12:47pm

      Iris, this is one time I would beg to differ. Comparing and alluding to incest because of EM most definitely is malicious, spurious and mendacious. It was said to foment hatred, intolerance, pandering to the worst prejudices among the opposition, fomenting homophobia and fear. Describing him as incredibly thick is being more than kind. The man is a vile bigot and should be taken to task.

      1. Both maybe, Robert. I used to think that all homophobes were saying stuff to be hateful, but having spoken to some I’ve realised that many are just ignorant – either because they don’t know what they’re talking about; have opened their mouth without engaging their brain; or have swallowed anti-gay propaganda without assessing its truth and go round parrotting it without realising the ridiculousness of what they’re saying.

        For a prominent MP to spout such utter garbage, I do suspect that he might just not know what the hell he’s talking about. However, I concede he may know all too well yet hope some people believe what he’s saying.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 2:25pm

          Irish, he chose his words carefully. He does know the implications and prepared to stand by the outcome. It’s more an act of desperation having to resort to such a ridiculous but deeply offensive statement. There is something intrinsically wrong with him. Deeply closeted self-loather perhaps? After all, they appear to be the loudest don’t they?

          1. Yes, I’d agree with the ‘wrongness’. He seems to share an expression that is all too often visible on the face of homophobes. Self-loathing? Immaturity in relation to sexuality? There could be a long list of possibles.

            I’d be interested in what Cameron has to say about him and what he said, especially considering his prominent position.

    3. Iris, may I enquire as to your lack of commentary in the Moslem intolerance debates that have been raging these last few days:- a debate seemingly right up your alley?

      A major topic that concerns us all and surely worthy of your contribution(s), yet one you have, erm, apparently chosen to overlook?

      Why is this, if you don’t mind me asking?

      1. Because I don’t have time to comment on everything, Samuel. :D No other reason. Some weeks I read/write lots, others nothing. There are no threads I avoid by design.

        1. T’would appear to be the, ahem, Common Sense approach, if you get my drift?

          I look forward to convening with you in future debates… :)

          1. Samuel Poirot 29 Jan 2013, 5:33am

            Oh, and the veritable assault of red arrows in response to my outwardly innocuous post above would confirm all my aforementioned claims elsewhere.

  5. bobbleobble 28 Jan 2013, 11:45am

    On what basis does he believe that gay couples are going to take churches to court? How many cases have there been in any of the 20 odd jurisdictions that have approved same sex couples marrying so far? Zero that’s how many – so why are we different? Does he really believe British gay people are just itching to get the churches into court, there’s a word for that Mr Hammond, paranoia and quite frankly I’m not sure someone with an obvious paranoid persecution complex is suitable for the role of defence secretary.

    As for incest, draw me a line between same sex couples marrying and approval of incest because I just can’t see it. Still, if he’s out of the country when the vote occurs that means one less vote against.

    1. Exactly, and is Spain, a supposedly catholic country, there have been no legal challenges.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 5:05pm

      Anyone who won’t be in the House for the vote or abstains clearly signifies a no vote, no matter where they may be. Even if there were a mandate for equal marriage or a national referendum which yielded a yes vote, Hammond still would vote no as would all bigoted religious nutters. The mandate and manifesto nonsense are clearly that, and red herrings too, feeble excuses to do nothing. There was no mandate to give women the vote and the CoE was dead set against that too don’t forget.

      1. I agree with what you say about abstaining or not turning up to vote, Robert.

        I think it’s wrong that elected politicians can fail to turn up to vote and in most cases abstain. It’s arguably their most important duty.

        They do it just to avoid having to vote one way or the other when it comes to controversial issues like equal marriage.

        In my opinion, any MP or MSP who abstains or doesn’t turn up to the equal marriage votes is a coward and a homophobe.

      2. bobbleobble 28 Jan 2013, 8:55pm

        My point was that if he isn’t there he can’t vote against it. He’ll be marked as absent. Any abstention won’t count in the vote totals against either. It lowers the number of MPs that the pro side need and potentially increases the majority in favour. Makes our lives just that bit easier.

  6. Phillip Hammond is an idiot! Pure and simple.

  7. That’s just weird, hardly worth a reply.

  8. Watch the BBC ignore this while desperately trying to search for some religious nut to warn against how it’ll lead to the mass extermination of children and cute wildlife or something

    1. Its not just the BBC ignoring it, all major news outlets are ignorring it; perhaps they are worried about getting burned ala plebgate so it may not be the BBC’s rampant homophobia this time. Suprised the Indie or the Guardian havent picked it up though.

  9. Is he just a vatican parrot? Anyone know?

  10. The true extent of his extremist homophobic views are now revealed.

    This is a man who has voted against (or abstained) all equality legislation since he entered Parliament.

    He is a dangerous individual to have as an MP, let alone minister of defence, and should be removed from his position. His comments are now too extremist for him to stay in any type of cabinet post or even any junior ministerial role.

    1. If we embarrass these individuals as much as possible in public over the coming weeks, we could actually rid ourselves of a number of them . . . permanently!

  11. Jock S. Trap 28 Jan 2013, 12:19pm

    Absolutely shameful!!

    I struggle to see know why anyone who clearly knows nothing about the LGBT community/relationships can really say anything about them let alone say anything while in power of authority.

    To link us with incest is just as bad as those other nasty comments these people make and link us too. Again not based on any facts just their own discrimination.

    He may well be a Cabinet Minister, he may well disagree with marriage equality but to make such nasty comments in such a public place warrants no merit and he should be disciplined for this blatant discrimination.

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 12:34pm

    We should make as much noise about this as we possibly can. No MP is going to counter his outrageously offensive statement so its up to us to do it. He is totally unfit to be in government if he really believes EM will lead to incest. It’s illegal. Further, how many divorced heteros have sued the church over the years? NIL! So why would he think gays marrying would create a demand to do it? He should be forced to resign. Vile, disgusting man.

    1. He’s actually demonstrated precisely how little regard or respect he has towards “the queers”.

      This is what we are up against, and will continue to be up against even IF the Marriage Bill succeeds.

  13. I never could have imagined saying this but I’m actually beginning to feel sorry for Cameron, encumbered as he is with dimwits like this one in his party.

    1. Come the next general election all of these quotes are going to come right back to them and haunt them. If anyone who is gay was even contemplating voting Tory at the next election, when these quotes are endlessly repeated far and wide, it will remind them of just how extremist some of these Tories are, and in particular the veteran members like him.

      Last year he was just saying there were more important things to be getting on with, now he’s saying gay marriage is like legalising incest !! He’s clearly now destroyed his future career, because not disciplining him for this will seem like condoning his comments. The PM will have to distance himself from Hammond’s remarks or risk undoing his whole modernisation programme – this is one of the most senior government ministers, and what he said he just as offensive and hateful as it gets.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 2:20pm

        I’d be happier if Cameron and others sanctioned him, rebutted his vile comments for a change. It has no place in any party or in government. He’s shown the true face of the nasty party and nobody is condemning him. That old addage, silence gives consent, is quite evident.

  14. He looks like a product of incest, that’s for sure!

  15. As a former MOD employee I am particularly disgusted with this. How DARE a person in public office make such a discriminatory, bigoted, defamatory and disgusting comment, and not be held to account.

    The Civil Service operates in the best way possible to combat this type of discrimination, but yet Members of Parliament and the Cabinet continue to say appallingly discriminatory things such as this, which any Civil Servant would be dismissed for saying.

    David Cameron should hold this bigot to account immediately.

  16. Phillip Hammond reminds me of the ‘Hugh Abbott’ character from The Thick of It, not only does he have a look of him, hes also stupidly incompetent, brash with his throw away comments and ignores rational arguments to anything!!

    Something is really wrong when life really does start to mirror TV comedys!!

  17. Do not allow this to go unnoticed.
    Write to express your disgust to Philip Hammond
    Member of Parliament for Runnymede and Weybridge

    Secretary of State for Defence
    Tel: 01784 453544 / 55 Cherry Orchard , Staines, TW18 2DQ
    Email: hammondp@parliament.uk / Web: http://www.runnymedeweybridgeconservatives.com

    1. Have sent the following:

      Dear Philip Hammond,

      I understand that you have recently made statements that have implied that the marriages of homosexual human beings would be akin to marriages involving incestuous relationships, between family members.

      Such statements imply a belief that homosexual people are no better than people within family units who indulge in sexual relationships.

      In other words, you appear to have implied that a loving and committed homosexual relationship, between two men, or between two women, is no different from a sexual relationship between, for example, a father and his daughter.

      I call on you to apologise immediately, fully, and publicly, or to resign from your position in the government.

      Yours sincerely,

  18. Edmund Rodgers 28 Jan 2013, 1:01pm

    Repugnant viewpoint and deeply embarrassing to his party. They should ditch this homophobic dinosaur before he causes more damage.

  19. Glad they mentioned his predecessor.

    Liam Fox, he reminds me of one of those self-loathing, bitter, rancid closet-queens from the old days of bowler hats and underground toilets.

    How’s his ‘special’ friend, the young man who went everywhere with him, these days?

    This self-hatred pisses over the rest of us with the power he exerts.

    Whenever there’s a bigoted movement to try and keep things ‘as they were in the golden days’, you can bet your pretty arse that a bunch of closet cases are driving the cause.

    1. GulliverUK 28 Jan 2013, 1:20pm

      He doesn’t exert much power any more – sacked / forced to resign in disgrace. Nobody would pay much attention to him now, thankfully :)

      1. Thing is, they do pay attention to him. The media pays attention to him. Why mention him in this article if he didn’t?

        He can stir up quite a lot of trouble from the back benches. That’s why party leaders often have their biggest critics close by. He’s still seen as one of the leaders of the right of the party and pushes the right agenda.

        If you need reminding, this from September – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19551653

        He’s the type of figure you might spot hanging around in shadows with a dagger in his hand.

        1. GulliverUK 28 Jan 2013, 2:18pm

          That BBC article is a fantasy of theirs. The Tories won’t be in government, under any circumstances, after the next election. They’ve managed to upset practically every single group going. They won’t get the womens’ vote, students’ vote, gay vote, they never get BME votes, they won’t get the middle class, public sector workers, they won’t get the youth vote, they may not get backing from many sources they traditionally rely on, and the more religious fundamentalists might go elsewhere.

          Fox and others can spout this nonsense after what they’ll go after 2015, but I can tell you now that what they’ll be doing is sitting quietly on the opposition benches, tails between their legs, going on a learning process that the GOP will also be undertaking around the same time.

          1. If only I could be so optimistic.

            I remember those endless, tortuous 18 years of the last Tory government.

            Just because Team Cameron has upset many groups doesn’t automatically mean they’ll face slaughter at the next election. A lot of people still believe the lie Labour messed up the economy while accepting that the Tories are reacting to a global crisis.

            In the 80s, Thatcher upset most of the groups you mention. Didn’t stop her winning three times. The Tories are a populist bunch and will tickle your g-spot with one hand while the other robs you blind .

            It would be great if your prediction proved right but I won’t hold my breath. Each time the party veers to the right, it goes down well – at the moment (ie jump in the polls over the Europe referendum announcement). It could lean too far, fall flat on its face. This isn’t the most polished of governments. after all.

            There is hope that you’re right but history and experience doesn’t fill me with the same confidence.

    2. Edmund Rodgers 28 Jan 2013, 1:26pm

      Fox went to a catholic school in East Kilbride – I knew one of his class mates who went on to ordination and who was a self hating gay who had several gay affairs and kept beating himself up whilst dispensing anti gay rhetoric. Seems such hatred is learnt from an early age!

  20. How can I report him for breaching the Ministerial Code and who should I report him to?
    Section one of the code says that a minister should uphold the highest standards of propriety – equating equal marriage with incest must conflict with that responsibility.
    Section nine of the code says that ministers should clear speaches, interviews etc with number 10 – did he?
    Would appreciate some guidance as determined to get the old bigot out.

  21. Mr Hammond is entitled to his opinion and his free vote.
    This does not make him less of a fool.

    1. Steven Mackay 30 Jan 2013, 4:14pm

      He is however, whilst in a top governmental position, not supposed to disagree with a party line so publicly. He brings more dissent into the party and leads to a more people rebelling. He is of course entitled to his opinion but if it is offensive then you tread the line of breaching someone else’s rights. My thought would be keep your opinion to yourself please, I do not wish to hear it!

  22. This disgusting idiot should be sacked from government. People who hold homophobic views have no business being government ministers.

    As far as equal marriage, I know all parties in Westminister & Holyrood are giving a free vote, but I don’t think this should apply to government ministers. What about collective cabinet responsibility? How can a member of the government abstain or vote against government legislation? I bet it wouldn’t happen with any other legislation.

  23. But the royals marrying their cousins is sanctioned by God and doesn’t lead to incest.

    1. There`s a case for banning, hetrosexual marriages.

  24. ...Paddyswurds 28 Jan 2013, 1:56pm

    I am hugely concerned about the number of Conservatives and conservative religious who seem to have a rather unhealthy fixation on Incest and paedophilia and this dinosaur is just the latest example of this rather worrying phenomenon. is the Government and indeed the Police aware of this penchant which has become evident either inadvertently or by design. since the Equal Marriage bill was mooted. Are these creepy weirdos trying to get a national debate on the subject going on the back of the Marriage bill and if so they must be stopped by whatever means because paedophilia and incest must never be discussed never mind made legal….

    1. GulliverUK 28 Jan 2013, 2:11pm

      on the other hand, perhaps their remarks will help us. Whenever people like Hammond go over the top, we seem to increase our supporters and allies, because people stop for two seconds to think about it and immediately come to the conclusion that this is so ridiculous, bigoted,homophobic, hateful, vile and nasty that their only option is to fully support equal marriage — and it reinforces the need to stamp out homophobia everywhere. So whilst I agree, I think the more hateful and vile their remarks are the better – it shows their extremism and nobody likes being associated with extremists.

      We shouldn’t be disheartened by these fringe and extremist remarks, which will get nastier and nastier for the next few months at least, because they don’t necessarily harm us, but rather those who utter them. I think even people who thought Hammond was a reasonable man will now be reassessing whether they still think so.

    2. ...Paddyswurds 28 Jan 2013, 7:23pm

      Any who wants feel free to copy and paste this comment as we need to drive this notion home and embarrass the bastar*s into shutting the phuck up with their sick perversions…

  25. Robert (Kettering) 28 Jan 2013, 2:02pm

    The man’s even more of a bigot and homophobe than I first thought. An utter disgrace to compare EM to incest!!

    He should be sacked from his government job.

  26. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 2:32pm

    And now I’ve learned catholic Archbigot Peter Smith yesterday distributed 1 million postcards to send to MPs urging them to oppose equal marriage. Sickening!

    1. They have the confidence of people who absolutely “KNOW” that the one true Almighty God and all his angels and saints think that they are RIGHT!

      We are up against an army of mental delusionals. (I have a close friend who has unfortunately become a clinical “mental delusional”, a paranoiac, and I know how absolutely impossible it is to shift him from some of the ridiculous conspiracy theories in which he believes. He is literally prepared to DIE for the nonsense he has invented and in which he believes.)

  27. Davisonbob 28 Jan 2013, 2:42pm

    Mr. Hammond you need to get out of your hate box and do some reading as it is fundamental.
    The first thing you need to read is Lawrence v Texas…sodomy laws were overturned by the SCOTUS. This made homosexuality legal.
    Second thing you need to read is every law in every state outlawing incest….see, every state has laws prohibiting incest.
    Guess your ignorance proves you truly do not belong in the posiiton you hold in government.

    1. Wasn’t Lawrence v Texas in 2003 – ie scarily recent! Homosexuality has been legal in the UK since 1967 – more relevant to Hammond and the UK, I think.

  28. Sorry – but where are the direct quotes? Where is the evidence for this?

    If you are going to make such claims you need some verifiable evidence before rushing to print.

    And those rushing to condemn him should wait until the evidence (if it exists) is made available.

    It is also wrong to publish this sort of allegation without seeking comment from Mr Hammond.

    I am not defending him – or his alleged comments. I am merely saying that allegations need to be properly verified before being spread.

    This article does not meet basic journalistic standards – and does nothing to support the case for marriage equality.

    1. bobbleobble 28 Jan 2013, 3:21pm

      Did you miss this bit of the article?

      ‘When asked by PinkNews.co.uk to clarify the remarks concerning incest and why he mentioned the word, Mr Hammond personally emailed PinkNews.co.uk: “The discussion ranged very widely and was not limited to same sex relationships.”’

      Hammond was asked for comment and replied personally. Presumably if it hadn’t happened then he would have said so in his response. Perhaps those rushing to defend him should the read the article before commenting.

  29. Hammond get back to your day job; blowing people up.

  30. Can someone with a bit more technical know how update his wike page to link this story to his profile. Thanks

    1. Edward, go to the Wiki page and in the top-right corner sign in. You will need to register. This is a very short and easy procedure. Once you have done that, you can then edit any Wiki page you like. However, these days Wiki is very closely monitored and the change you make must be reasonable, professionally stated, and should include a reference to a credible source. Otherwise, your alteration may be removed.

  31. Is there video of this incident? As Hammond’s SpAds are currently denying he said it.

  32. jbears mama 28 Jan 2013, 3:04pm

    it will soon come out, im sure, that hes just another angry closeted old buzzard

  33. hammondp@parliament.uk

    email the bigoted idiot and tell him what you think of him !
    The guy is clearly a total tosser !
    Should be made to apologise and resign !

  34. No comment… because I fear what I might type!

  35. Isa Kocher 28 Jan 2013, 3:47pm

    another one of those homophobic perverts that have zero regard for fact, logic or reason. hate mongering.

  36. How is this cretin allowed to be in such a high powered position coming out with utter nonsense as this. This man is despicable… how we are supposed to be progressing as civilised country with people like Hammond in the cabinet let alone the government he should be removed from office. Disgusting beyond belief

  37. I guess it says a lot about the Tories when they have an imbecile as Defence Secretary. I would urge everyone to complain about his breach of the ministerial code and complain to the PM about him as well. I notice others have given the links.

  38. He should stop judging us by his own standards!!!!!

  39. Where did you get this one, Dave?

  40. If he’s that DUMB about Marriage Equality, about what else is he equally DUMB? Should we worry about the safety of the country!!!

  41. Me thinks he needs psychotherapy – yet another elderly conservative nutter!

  42. Ed Stevens 28 Jan 2013, 5:51pm

    According to The Times the rancid old bigot is now denying that he did!

  43. Has this man gone off his rocker?
    The opposers will use any trick they can rake up to mislead normal people

  44. Alan Edwards 28 Jan 2013, 6:21pm

    Well the only consolation is that it’s another Tory “Prawn” to have lost his job! If he doesn’t then our Dave’s credibility is shot to pieces. Just think….this man is in charge of the Armed Forces!!!!1

  45. James Incer 28 Jan 2013, 7:37pm

    This obviously didn’t happen. Leftie students making it up.

  46. Right, I work for the department that this man heads and I will be sending him a tersely worded e-mail in the morning. He’ll most likely ignore me but it will make me feel better

  47. Write to him all of you:
    Fax: 020 7219 2617
    douglasi@parliament.uk

    That’s Liam Fox.
    Hammond is
    Fax: 020 7219 5851
    philip.hammond.mp@parliament.uk

  48. Well, this PinkNews story has now made it to The Guardian, where there is more detail about what happened. It appears he didn’t actually use the word “incest” but he did liken same-sex marriage to allowing marriage between siblings . . . and has refused to discuss the issue further. The students concerned are quoted.

    See:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/28/philip-hammond-gay-marriage-incest

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Jan 2013, 9:48pm

      Eddy, he may not have actually used the word ‘incest’, although many others have who support C4M including Lord Carey, but likening equal marriage to allowing marriage between siblings is implying incest. So yes, he believes incest might occur once we’re allowed to marry which is absolutely outrageous. There has been no demand for such relationships in the UK and moreover, it’s illegal. If he doesn’t know that, then he shouldn’t be in government. No sane government in its right mind would support incestuous unions and the majority of us most certainly wouldn’t. Perverse of him to even conceive of it, which leads to another question. What is it with religious nutters and their obsession with not only incest, but also polygamy and bestiality? I’d like to know where the demand is and where there are legal unions for this in any western society? As an Anglican, he should be ashamed of himself for bearing false wtiness, assuimg he really is a so called ‘christian’, which I doubt.

      1. Interesting reflections, Robert. I was reflecting the other day how sexuality and sensuality were healthily expressed and celebrated by the Ancient Greeks, and by many other peoples of the same period, and earlier, and then along came the Middle East religions, Xianity being the first, and their first concern was to control sexuality, to control pleasure, to commandeer it. And that’s what they’ve been doing ever since. It’s what they’re about. Without that function they are nothing, they have no purpose.

      2. Surely if/when SSM is passed SS couples will be asked in the paperwork what their relationship is, and to swear that they are not of certain family relationships? Surely such a question is asked of heterosexuals who apply to marry?

  49. Thank heavens he’s arranged to be out of the country on the 5th feb when the vote takes place.

    This is one occassion I don’t begrudge public finance being used for his airfare. In fact I’d personally pay for a coach trip to Longleat on the 5th for the other 135 bigots who have come out against equal marriage.

  50. …keep with it people, it’s the 21st Century – if homosexuals can distort marriage , why can’t siblings ? Incestophobia? Dinosuars etc Get back to the Dark Ages etc Religion should not dictate to people who love each other etc …’Equal marriage’ – but not if you are brothers – how equal is that !

    What harm can it do if two brothers ‘marry’ or two sisters, or a father and daughter ? As long as they ‘love’ each other .Who said anything about children – if they are sterilised what harm can it do ?

    Naw ! Think I’ll stick with marriage being(as it always naturally has) the union of one man and one woman , ok Mr Cameron and your liberal elite demographic…hope you get the message

    1. bobbleobble 28 Jan 2013, 10:46pm

      Marriage has always naturally been the union of one man and one woman? So I must have imagined that some countries did and still do endorse polygamy.

      Marriage has been ‘distorted’ as you put it many times over the centuries. It used to be one man one woman for life (I note you missed out that bit) but society recognised that forcing people to remain legally bound to someone they don’t want to be legally bound to is unfair and so divorce was introduced.

      Cameron and large sections of society now recognise that gay couples are just as valid as straight relationships and therefore there is no reason to treat gay couples differently and so marriage can be opened up to us as well. Society changes and so does the legal constructions society allows.

      But no one is forcing you to marry another man Ray, you can stick to your definition as much as you want. But you have to recognise that society may not agree with you nor will always will it always reflect your values. Live with it.

      1. Homosexual couplings have the same legal protection as married couples so why distort the word ‘marriage’ ? Same-sex pseudo marriage masquerading as ‘marriage’ no matter what the State dictates is a natural impossibility.Marriage is not a legal, religious , cultural , or ethnic ‘construct’ but one founded in authentic reality ie to bring forth the next generation and to nurture it .

        1. And black people were on the same bus as white people even though they had to sit at the back…

          There’s no reason why we shouldn’t have equal civil marriage, Ray.( Let religions marry or not marry whom they choose.)

          It’s no ‘distortion’ any more than allowing women to vote distorted democracy.

        2. Marriage is not a legal, religious , cultural , or ethnic ‘construct’

          Poppycock.

  51. Unsurprising. Reactionary/defensive politics tends to merge from policy to policy. This is the man that’s spent a few hundred million pounds on Trident before Parliament has even made a decision.

    Obviously a massive fan of the status quo on a range of matters. One of these folk who think everything about Britain is under attack.

  52. I think it’s revealing that this article refuses to quote what Mr Hammond said. Other newspapers have:

    ““We had a meeting with Philip Hammond,” Mr Rayment said. “During the meeting I asked him what right does the state have to tell two people who love each other that they can’t get married?
    “He said, ‘Well we don’t allow siblings to get married either’.
    “We then said that incest and homosexuality are not comparable.”

    A spokesman for Mr Hammond said it was “untrue” to suggest that Mr Hammond had compared same-sex marriage to incest.”

    If you read above, Hammond did not equate same sex marriage to incest, but he merely disproved the absolutism of the student’s claim that the state can’t disallow people in love to get married, which he admits, as instead of saying “we should allow siblings to marry” he said “yes but that’s different”.

    The article is wantonly misleading. I support Gay Marriage, but let’s beat the opposition fairly, not distort the truth to demonise them.

    1. Given that context, I have to say I can’t join in the outburst of abuse at Hammond.
      If he was just saying that the fact that two people in love can’t always automatically and always claim the right to marry regardless of their relationship, he’s surely right as long as we have rules about degrees of affinity.
      The problem lies with whoever used an argument that gave him an easy chance to refute it.

  53. ..NO way, this sort of rubbishy attitude should be stopped. How dare this cretin of a politician say such a nasty unrealistic thing. He ought to be fired, as he obviously is out of touch with the human race!

  54. “Hammond was very concerned with the reform and that he believed gay couples would attempt to take religious groups to court if they refused to provide them with a marriage ceremony.”

    And your problem with that being?

    Are you afraid to DEFEND them then, if the deluge of court cases does happen? Scared of being overworked are we? Go count the ammo store contents at Brize Norton. There might be some PARANOID dust laying on the tank.

  55. s.k. saidi 31 Jan 2013, 8:23am

    Bravo Mr.Hammond . The bill is a shameful move and an attempt to destruct the society morals. We are born in two sexes for a purpose not just for the pleasure and the purpose of marriage is the survival of the human race.

    1. No straight marriage is going to be stopped if some same sex couples marry! The majority of marriages will continue to be between two people of the opposite sex and children will continue to be born (and born outside of marriage too).

      Are you so insecure in your own sexuality that you think a few gay people getting married will turn you gay?? Sort out your own issues and then you’d not feel the need to discriminate against LGBT people.

      I feel sorry for you.

  56. Let’s see what the gay Tory supporters say to this. No doubt they will have a good explanation. I wouldn’t go near a church and don’t want the right to wed. Why are we following straight society, we should be setting our own agenda.

    1. Marriage isn’t owned by religion – nor is it owned by straight people. You personally may not want to get married, and that’s absolutely fine, but why deprive others of that right? None of my unmarried-by-choice straight friends want to ban marriage just because they themselves don’t want to marry.

      There’s no such thing as ‘straight society’. Yes, they’re the majority, but that doesn’t mean we don’t count. You’ve got a mortgage or rent a house? Oh no! The majority of people doing that are straight so you’re following straight society!!

      We’re all part of society and we’re all entitled to make our own choices. No-one’s going to force you to marry, so why are you trying to force other LGBT people NOT to marry? Have it as an option, just like it is for everyone else.

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