Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Philip Hammond denies same-sex marriage incest claims

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Watch the live debate on BBC Parliament Channel on Tuesday Feb 5th.

    Anyone know what time the debate starts?

    Should be rivetting!!

    1. Thanks for the reminder that “BBC Parliament” exists! Will definitely be watching! I hope PinkNews is sitting there with the DVD recorder at the ready for any quotable idiocies, and, no doubt, yet more horrific similes!

  2. Edmund Rodgers 28 Jan 2013, 11:10pm

    He should not have made the comparison at all- he lacks judgement and is not a suitable person to hold public office.

  3. doesnt matter if he used the word or not, he still said the same thing.

    Many Tory MPs have issues with sexuality in order to cover up their public school guilt bisexual past

    (if you are in the USA, public means private)

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Jan 2013, 12:34pm

      He’s not the only one. The Tory backbenchers and C4M hate group have used identical language. Lord Carey alluded to incest and polygamy as a result of equal marriage and actually used the words. Well, polygamy is practiced only by heterosexuals, mostly muslims in some parts of the world, up to four wives at a time and equal marriage played no part in it. So Hammond has a lot of explaining to do.

    2. GbCambridge 29 Jan 2013, 11:09pm

      A well reasoned and articulate expression of the issues raised.. as if!
      Why bother?

  4. Why can’t Philip Hammond explain himself more fully, why get a spokesperson to do his dirty work?

    Get the spokesperson to lie for him and to deny everything, how charming! what a coward.

    No-one has refuted Mr Rayment’s version and he is quite clearly equating equal marriage to incest.

    1. GbCambridge 29 Jan 2013, 9:01am

      Read what he said.. he was answering a point… not criticizing anyone. Aren’t you protesting just a little too much?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Jan 2013, 12:26pm

        Even if he didn’t use the actual word, he alludes to two siblings wanting to marry one another which if anyone has a reasonable degree of English language command implies incest. So yes, he was trying to say that incest could result. Otherwise, why use the sibling comparison? You tell us, what exactly has equal civil marriage to do with incest? If he had been able to provide evidence to substantiate his statement, then this wouldn’t be an issue, but he hasn’t and can’t. There are eleven countries and several American states allowing equal marriage. That should be enough for him to come forth with the evidence. His statement was meant to provoke and foment anti equal marriage opposition. He knew exactly what he was saying. The man is a bigot and a homophobe. Stop acting as an apologist.

        1. Hear, hear! Well said, Robert!

    2. I think it is because a spokesperson would be able to construct a sentence without offending anyone.

  5. That was a disgusting and insulting thing to say. Of course Joe Rayment found it offensive. That old Tory creature should go.

    1. Common sense 29 Jan 2013, 2:48am

      What was disgusting or insulting about it? Really confused by this as on the evidence of what was said, Mr Hammond was making the simple point that the state can and does restrict who can or cannot get married. He is wrong in his opposition to gay marriage but the point he makes is a a valid one and it is frankly preposterous that he should be accused of equating gay marriage with incest.

      1. Oh, don’t be a bore! In the context of Joe Rayment asking about his human rights, Hammond chose to mention incest. What has incest got to do with the issue of Gay marriage? In his mind they are obviously linked in some way.
        EVERY VOTE AGAINST MARRIAGE EQUALITY COMES FROM A BIGOT.

        1. Common sense 29 Jan 2013, 5:00am

          Capital letters does not make it any more true.

          Look, marriage equality is a relatively trivial reform in the grand scheme of things and we would do a good deal better (as would our opponents) in ramping down the hyperbolic outrage.

          Hammond is against the reform and should be challenged on that.

          But taking offence where one was not intended just makes us look as if we were spoiling for a big fight.

          1. Hmmm, Mr Hammond’s response is rather quite offensive, to provide example of criminal activity as a reason as to way state shouldn’t allow 2 people in love to get married is a serious error of judgment.

          2. Common sense 29 Jan 2013, 6:16am

            He is not suggesting moral equivalence. Why don’t you get that? His answer is specific to the question asked. The state clearly DOES have the right to say who can and cannot marry and should bloody well continue to do so. Mr Rayment either should not have asked such a stupid question or should have followed up asking him specifically whether he equated the two. That he did not and instead decided to accuse Hammond just looks like a stitch up frankly.

          3. A bigot not intending to be bigoted makes their remarks not bigoted? The fact that Hammond wouldn’t clarify his remarks, or apologise for offending the two students, or face the gay student and tell him he shouldn’t be able to get married is ample evidence that his remarks were intentional and based in bigotry.

          4. The comment made, whether it was intended or not is irrelevant. The fact is, he made it and anyone can see that he is equating same sex marriage to incest.

        2. Patricia mcl 30 Jan 2013, 12:04am

          Actually, I think polygamy is
          sensible for bisexuals. Group
          marriage

      2. OK, read the following dialogue closely!

        ———————————————————–

        I am against same sex marriage.

        Why are you against same sex marriage?

        Well, we don’t allow siblings to marry each other, do we?

        Siblings marrying each other is incest. Homosexuals marrying each other is not incest.

        I would not have pointed to siblings marrying each other, if it were not in my mind much the same thing as homosexuals marrying each other.

        ———————————————————–

        Now, I hope it is clear to you why Mr. Hammond has revealed his true feelings about homosexual men and women. Never forget it. The man is a homophobe. He thinks we are no better than siblings involved in incest. Incest was Mr. Hammond’s simile for same sex marriage.

        1. Common sense 29 Jan 2013, 9:54pm

          But that is not the actual exchange. Hammond was asked whether the state had the right to deny marriage to two people who loved each other. In that context his reply about siblings is consistent if a little specious

          1. you need to learn to read between the lines.

  6. He’s a politician. Is there even a lower species of human being ? :)

    I’m happy that he made a slur against people who are gay. This is the man who was absent or voted against every single piece of equality legislation.

    He’s given no concrete rational reasoned argument for why he’s against equal marriage – but we could have asked him about the equal age of consent, or adoption, or Civil Partnerships — he was against them all. He’s a vile nasty homophobic bigoted sh$t, and unworthy to be in parliament at all. If someone is a screwball do you want them representing you in parliament, making laws which control your life, charged with the defence of our country? NO, NO, NO.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Jan 2013, 12:39pm

      They also use CPs as a convenient tool to deny equal marriage, even though the majoirty of them really don’t support those either. I bet if you asked them if they supported CPs for straights, they’d be opposed even though they claim they are equal as far as gays are concerned. I can just imagine their feeble responses as to why they wouldn’t want one. It would really put them in a bind to explain their way out of it, really expose them for what they are, bigoted, homophobic liars.

  7. He’s just trotting out the usual damage limitation which they all do when they’re caught out. He was speaking to 2 students not a roomful of people so he probably thought he could say what he wanted and it wouldn’t get out. Not only is he a nasty homophobe, he is cowardly too for not admitting what he said.

    1. GulliverUK 29 Jan 2013, 1:26am

      TIP: Whenever you speak to a politician or a suspected homophobe —- ALWAYS, Always, have your tape recorded recording. Most of it will be crap – some of it will be solid GOLD :)

      1. Sounds a good idea in theory, Gulliver, but it may end up backfiring!

        http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20317140

  8. Common sense 29 Jan 2013, 1:19am

    I am by no means a TOry but this seems a little unfair. The question had been what right the state had to stop two people who loved each other marrying. He pointed out the state’s bar on siblings marrying implying that this is a fair prohibition that is not at present contested. I took it that he meant that the state quite properly DOES have the right to say who can and cannot get married and not that he in any way said incest and gay marriage were the same.

    1. Rubbish, why mention marriage between siblings when being asked about equal marriage. For what you are saying he could have equally and legitmately have said that we don’t allow people to marry their dog or we don’t allow marriages between adults and children. He just didn’t go that far, did he? He didn’t dare, he was wise enough not to bring those comparisons up but thought the comparison with marriage between brother and sister were fine and dandy.

      But we all knew what he was getting at ie he was clearly implying that equal marriage would lead o or is equal to incest.

      1. Common sense 29 Jan 2013, 2:52am

        He was implying nothing of the sort. Look at the exchange. He was asked ““what right does the state have to tell two people who love each other that they can’t get married?” And Hammond replied “‘Well we don’t allow siblings to get married either’.”

        It is a fair point surely and a valid answer to what was a pretty stupid question.

        1. Why are you ranting on about this? The question was obviously prompting him to explain his reasons for being anti Gay marriage. Incest??!! Where the Hell does that take the conversation? It was a snide and insulting response.

          1. Common sense 29 Jan 2013, 4:55am

            If Mr Rayment had then asked “are you equating gay marriage with incest” I have no doubt Mr Hammond would have answere “no, of course not”

            Look, there is real and potent injustice in the world including a lot of it directed at us as gay people. We would do well to direct our energy at changing that rather than wasting our time getting our knickers in a twist about a misunderstood unintentioned comment like this.

            And PInk News, can you please please stop reporting non-stories like this?

        2. Incest is illegal, homosexuality isn’t so the comparison is daft. And yes, I do believe it was prompted by his own homophobic beliefs. Why did that particular comparison occur to him? It’s not a good analogy so why use it.

    2. The example I would have said is that after divorce you cannot marry your ex-stepchildren if you helped to raise them – that is a relationship which is legal but you cannot ever get married/civil partnered.

  9. Without the ban on incest and polygamy in our marriage law Philip Hammond’s two daughters and his son might want to enter into a polygamous and incestuous marriage with each other, perhaps this is what he was obliquely referring to.

    Otherwise I can’t imagine why he brought up the topic of marriage between siblings at all other than as an attempt to smear same sex marriage by association.

    1. Ooooo, you may have hit on something there, Pavlos! Hammond may suspect his kids are having it off with each other . . . in a BIG way . . . and at this time he’s really worried about that and where it might lead! ;-) Wouldn’t it be wonderful if something delicious like that leaked from the Hammond household!

  10. So to compare an illegal relationship to perfectly legal one and then use it to justify state’s refusal to allow 2 people in legal relationship to get married is not only derived of any logic but irresponsible especially when it comes from a person in position of power

  11. My favourite gaffe about marriage equality and incest was from Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. When asked why gay couples should not be able to get married, she replied that Alaska doesn’t allow cousins to marry. One of her aids had to inform her that, in fact, Alaska does allow first cousins to marry.

  12. GbCambridge 29 Jan 2013, 8:58am

    Well, I think he was trying to give an example of where the state does decide who is allowed to marry. He could have said that children are not allowed to marry, but that would not imply that he was equating gay marriage to anything involving children. Perhaps your reporter is just a little too sensitive? Over-reporting of minor concerns is one of the reasons that commentators find it so hard nowadays to give straight answers, in case someone, anywhere, might possibly be offended. I think a little maturity is called for here.. it would do everyone some good.

    1. Common sense 29 Jan 2013, 9:17am

      Totally agreed!

      1. GbCambridge 29 Jan 2013, 10:59pm

        I note that you did not get much support for your support of my comment. Don’t let it get to you.. we are dealing with the professionally aggrieved here and they feel the need to be upset.. even when there is no intention or actual occurrence.

    2. What you call “maturity” is, in fact, either outright irresponsibility or a poor grasp of basic logic!

      1. GbCambridge 29 Jan 2013, 10:51pm

        His example is a valid one, so please explain the “outright irresponsibility” or “poor grasp of basic logic”.
        I think you are looking for a reason to be offended… .good luck in finding a better one than this.

    3. That’s a very generous interpretation, but if – if – you are right, he was quite clumsily making, as has been pointed out above, a false analogy: incest is illegal, homosexuality is not.

      1. GbCambridge 29 Jan 2013, 10:49pm

        Well, ” he was trying to give an example of where the state does decide who is allowed to marry” and as such his example is valid. That is about it really, unless you prefer to get into a tizz about not much

        1. Perhaps we agree it was a blindingly silly example to give, in the circumstances?

  13. from HuffPo

    “Writing on a blog that night, Saffery-Rowe said: “When questioned why I shouldn’t have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, he brushed the question aside as a ‘silly game’ talking about human rights.

    “And when asked why the state should be allowed to say who can and who cannot have their relationship recognised by the law, he retorted that you wouldn’t allow ‘two siblings who loved each other to get married’.

    “He equated the love of a same-sex couple with incest…”

    He could have used all sorts of stupid arguments, such as not being able to reproduce in the male-female way, that it was against his strongly wingnut religious beliefs, that it would infringe on religious freedom, that a child needs a male and female role model, that children might be teased or bullied at school, that it would lead to straight couples not getting married, that the world might crack open and we would all be devoured by goblins — but instead he used incest. Disgusting.

  14. Why mention siblings marrying when asked about same sex marriage? The implication in what he said was that siblings marrying was a bad thing and that the state prevented it – and that the prevention of SSM was similar.

    He might not have spelt it out but I can’t see he meant in any other way because his comparison/comment isn’t relevant. Sex between siblings is illegal, sex between people of the same gender isn’t, so why even mention it?

    If he believe his comment is relevant to SSM then I presume he’d think it was equally relevant to opposite sex marriage? A brother can’t marry his sister so it’s perfectly right that we ban a man from marrying a woman.

    Did he actually give any proper reason for his opposition to EM? I’m still waiting to hear even a single sensible reason against equal civil marriage.

    1. It’s relatively simple. He doesn’t have any robust, reasoned compelling arguments against equal marriage, so stupid idiotic offensive remarks slip off the tongue. If he had thought about it very carefully he’s know full well this would cause offence. This is what he said, this is the comparison he made, and the ONLY way to row back now is to do the following;

      a) admit what he said – or he’ll never be trusted ever again
      b) say that he mispoke and apologise for any hurt he’s caused
      c) outline his actual reasons for opposition to equal marriage
      d) acknowledge that he has NEVER, EVER, voted in favor of any single equality measure.

      His remarks have damaged the government, because he is a key part of it, and damaged the Tory party, and he’d better do this quickly before his silence causes even more damage.

  15. He voted AGAINST;
    - equal age on consent
    - sexual offences (amendment) bill
    - stopping homophobic bullying in schools
    - against adoption rights
    - against the repeal of Section 2A (like Section 28) in Scotland
    - against IVF provision

    He did not vote for; (absented himself)
    - the repeal of Section 28
    - Civil Partnerships
    - Sexual Equality regulations 2007

    How much more homophobic could you be without changing your name to Anita Bryant or Baroness Young !
    People like this shouldn’t even be in Parliament, it’s an affront to decency and democracy.
    Did he have religious reasons for acting like UK’s premier anti-gay hate group, The Christian Institute?

    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=40512&dmp=826

    1. Thank you, Gulliver! Excellent research there.

      You have absolutely proved that Hammond is a homophobe.

      PinkNews! Please do a profile of Philip Hammond, simply giving basic biographical information and including all of the facts which Gulliver has presented above.

    2. GbCambridge 29 Jan 2013, 11:02pm

      Irrelevant.. address the actual issues, please don’t invent them so that you rant

  16. This particularly tedious fox in the debate really should be shot. Equating gay marriage to incest is done to vilify our relationships and pro-equal marriage advocates respond with outrage to assert the dignity of our relationships and to agree with the apparent vileness of incest.
    Hatred of sexual relationships between close relatives is as irrational as homophobia. The issues involved are practical and ethical – people in such relationships should be discouraged from having children because of the dangers to health of genetic proximity – as should others who are not closely related who know they are likely to transmit a heritable disease to their offspring. Marriage is not denied to the latter; nor should it be to close relatives. It is also wrong to equate incestuous relationships per se with abusive or paedophile relationships.

    1. But he did not say that!

      1. My point was general about the pubic debate. Hammond indeed apparently made no explicit link between incest and sexual abuse or paedophilia. And his primary response seems to have been that the state does indeed regulate who can marry without general challenge as to why this should be.
        However, the fact remains that the first illustration of this point that came to his mind was the prohibition of marriage between siblings. This understandably provoked anger from opponents, since it was all too similar to the frequently repeated equation made by homophobes between gay marriage and the possibility of incestuous marriage. This is done with the clear intention of inciting hatred and revulsion via association with a heavy social stigma. Given the political and religious rhetoric Hammond is likely to be surrounded by, the fact that he put his argument in these terms is probably not coincidental.

  17. Standard ploy – put the assertion out there, then retract.

    A classic, and highly cynical move

  18. ...Paddyswurds 29 Jan 2013, 11:59am

    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….

  19. This notorious homophobe needs to get sacked, period.

    He’s not a suitable person to hold high public office.

    1. As much as I dislike his views he is entitled to his own views but he should just keep them to himself.

      Quite I agree someone with homophobic views on this level should not hold public office in government

  20. Foolish question and foolish answer really. The state legally defines marriage and is the only authority when it comes to the law, so yes they have the right to restrict it just like they have the right to pass any legislation. That’s a major part of what they’re there for!

    Bringing up incest doesn’t answer the question at all.

    1. GbCambridge 29 Jan 2013, 11:07pm

      I am not sure where the “incest” came from anyway.. the actual word was not used.. but that does not seem to affect the arguments here… they can pretend it was and then get huffy. IMHO, just a bunch of children squabbling

  21. Why is he thinking about incest? Personal experience?

    1. GbCambridge 29 Jan 2013, 11:03pm

      But he wasn’t and he didn’t so what is your point?

  22. nigel ingham 29 Jan 2013, 7:46pm

    What kind of message do his remarks give to gay members of the armed forces? How can a defence secretary treat them with such contempt?

  23. IF and this is a big IF he did not want to equate a legal relationship with an illegal one then the example he should have used was:

    An ex-stepfather/mother are unable to marry their ex-partners children after divorce if they helped to raise said children. There is nothing illegal about the relationship but they are unable to be married or civil partnered.

    BUT the fact that he jumped to incest … suggests that in his mind homosexuality is disgusting and should be illegal.

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