Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory Northamptonshire MP: ‘I support the love of gay couples but it is unacceptable for them to be able to marry’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Paula Thomas 1 Feb 2013, 1:38pm

    Patronising.

    1. Why do we waste money on MPs? It looks as if some are just going to vote along the lines of what they think they majority of their constituents want. Well a computer set up in the local library could do that. Just invite people who feel strongly about any proposed legislation to register their vote and the majority wins? We could dispense with costly MPs altogether if this is how they are going to approach issues.
      Having said that, some do seem to be more far sighted and are prepared to do the right thing.

      1. That There Other David 1 Feb 2013, 3:44pm

        Why not just put the minimum voting age up to 65? It would have the same affect as your local library method, assuming of course that there is such a thing as a local library once austerity has run its course.

  2. “I really resent being forced to come to a decision about something”

  3. Bigotry wrapped up in flowery “I’m not a bigot” language.

    I am no christian, nor religious in any way, and obliging me to obey your interpretation of your beliefs and the beliefs of others that I do not share is tyranny.

    This forcing of religious mores on me offends me as a human being, before the bigotry offends me as a lesbian. I do not believe in your faith and should not be subject to its bloody whims.

    1. In fairness, she doesn’t explicitly say the faith-based view is also her own – she seems to me to be referring to her constituents’ views.

      I completely agree that religious mores shouldn’t be forced on anyone, but as an MP she does have to take her constituents’ opinions into account, doesn’t she?

      1. If their opinions have factual basis, sure. Which I would argue precludes faith – especially as the believers cannot even agree amongst themselves what the assumed wishes of their supernatural entity of choice actually are.

        Consider it a difference between having an opinion from the head with data to support it, and having one based on what you “feel”. The latter is only of relevance to that individual and should not be forced upon others.

        1. I know Valksy, but she wouldn’t really be doing her job if she (or anyone) said, to the people who elected her, “I despise the gullibility and feeblemindedness of those of you who believe in omnipotent gods, and therefore I’m not going to pay any attention to what you say”, would she?!

          1. The fairy tales and campfire stories of bronze age tribesmen who invented a “divine” mandate to butcher the neighbouring tribes and had no concept of why the sun rose has no place in modern British political discourse.

            So yeah, actually I would be overjoyed if religion was kicked out to pasture where it belonged. Believe what you want, how you want, you don’t get to make anyone else be compliant.

          2. Actually, having had a look at the link posted by Martyn below, I’m rather less inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt with regard to her impartiality.

      2. Dave north 1 Feb 2013, 2:26pm

        Not when they trample over others equal rights.

        1. Homosexuals are not and cannot be equal to man and woman. No matter how much law and nonsense you cry for, you will never be equal to those.

          1. Fool.

          2. Assertion is not truth. No matter what years of religious conditioning have drummed into your dull brain.

          3. Joseph oz 4 Feb 2013, 9:26am

            Matt… what are you actually saying here?

            “Homosexuals are not and cannot be equal to man and woman. No matter how much law and nonsense you cry for, you will never be equal to those.”

            Are you saying that gays and lesbians aren’t equal to straight men and women?

            Sounds as if you are to me…?!

            Perhaps if this were three or four hundred years ago you’d be saying…

            “The common man/woman cannot be equal to royalty/nobility.”

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Feb 2013, 4:08pm

        I’m not so sure about that. She forgets that religious people are the minority too and probably the only ones who bothered to contact her. Even if some aren’t religious but opposed, its all down to centuries of religious indoctrination. Don’t’ forget, homosexuality was only legalised in 1967, but the baggage of homophobia is still very entrenched in the psyche of a lot of people, especially if they happen to be Tories. There are more in opposition in their party than Labour and Liberal Democrats combined and it isn’t limited to the older generation either. As I’ve mentioned in a later comment here, this is really not a conscience vote if she’s going to vote no just because people of ‘faith’ are very concerned. She doesn’t even say she supports equal marriage regardless, so her mind was already made up, believe me.

      4. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Feb 2013, 5:24pm

        I don’t buy it, Rehan. Even if she’s not explicitly saying faith based views are also hers, would she vote against an ethnic group on the urging of her constituents who were the majority of respondents? Her mind was already made up before any constituent contacted her. What she and others of her ilk are doing are responding only to the opposition’s viewpoint just because they were the majority making their voices heard. She’s supposed to represent everyone, not just religious nutters. No, this is an extremely disingenuous decision to vote no. She’s pandered to bigotry and ignorance.

        1. I must admit I’m less ready to buy it now that I’ve seen the link that’s posted below.

  4. So what she is saying is that she doesn’t care about her LGBT constituents at all!

    Vile, hateful woman.

    1. You know, on this occasion I think the reporting is rather unfair: her letter, while disappointing, actually strikes me as honest and thoughtful and measured, and after she does quite explicitly say “I cannot vote against a measure that would mean so much to the minority of homosexual couples for whom marriage is the ultimate recognition for their genuine feelings for each other.”

      1. *after all

        1. I read her letter as saying that she would abstain rather than voting either for or against the bill. Am I misreading? Does an abstention count as a No vote?

          1. No, you’re right, she was saying she’s torn between conflicting ideas and will therefore abstain.

  5. That There Other David 1 Feb 2013, 1:44pm

    Her logic is as seemingly contradictory as the name of her constituency. However, if her constituents are being quite vocal in pushing her into the No lobby and she is actually abstaining then I’m actually quite happy she’s taken this stance. It’s not perfect, but then neither is the world we live in.

  6. Pink News: could you please not put words in quotes unless they’re the actual words said or written? Your headline is inaccurate and quite misleading, you shouldn’t lower yourself to that cheap level.

  7. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Feb 2013, 1:50pm

    Oh please, once it’s voted on and passed on tuesday, there will be nothing to reflect on, stupid silly woman. This harridan isn’t torn one bit or given it much thought either and has to lie about it. So she listens to her constituents, probably older Tory religious nutters in a constituency that is safe for her. Just look at her face, the face of the nasty party and her age is another indicator as to who among her constituents don’t want it passed. The nasty party will never be able to shake off its image even though it will pass on tuesday. I don’t care if it has more openly gay MPs, it will never ever evolve as Labour has, not that they are completely blameless. It’s been absolutely appalling that none of the 3 party leaders have countered the hatred and bigotry from the opposition. She feels her party has let her down, so why doesn’t she resign, go join UKIP where you will have an even better time enjoying bigotry.

    1. bobbleobble 1 Feb 2013, 3:03pm

      Remember though that this is only the second reading. All is not over come Tuesday and the vote. After Tuesday the bill, assuming it passes which is looking more and more likely, goes to a committee for further consideration and possible amendments before it comes back to the Commons for its third reading and the final vote before it’s sent to the Lords.

      I’m glad she’ll abstain and not vote against but by the time it comes up for the third reading maybe, just maybe, her views will have changed and she’ll vote in favour.

  8. HackneyMike 1 Feb 2013, 1:55pm

    Are there no constituents in South Northhamptonshire reading Pink News that could write to her and let them know that they want her to vote yes to this?

    don’t know the area but I can’t imagine the constituents there are more bigoted than the majority of the UK where people support Equal Marriage.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Feb 2013, 2:16pm

      There’s a lot apathy among supporters (some of whom are gay) in every constituency who can’t be bothered to take the time to write to her unfortunately. It’s been a problem since the consultation began. Had she received more responses from gay or straight constituents than those opposed, I very much doubt if she’d be voting yes anyway. The same applies to all of them, even Philip Hammond. Bigotry whose core is in religion is in their DNA, it’s what makes most Tories tick when it comes to equality which is why the majority of them will be voting no. Their minds were made up before the consultation began so don’t believe them when they say they’ve reflected on anything, they haven’t. A bunch of liars too. Believe me, if the majority of their constituents wanted to discriminate against an ethnic group, they’d support it which would prove this isn’t a conscience vote at all. They take their marching orders from religious bigoted nutters first and foremost..

  9. Robert (Kettering) 1 Feb 2013, 2:09pm

    I live in Kettering in the North East of Northamptonshire, a world away from the area she represents. She sits on one of the safest Tory seats in the country. Full of twee villages, the Green Welly Brigade and multi-millionaires. Hardly LGBT supporters.

    At the end of the day she reflects the narrow minded, homophobic bigots who live in her safe constituency.

  10. All is not how it appears with Mrs Leadsom.

    She signed the Westminster ‘Lite’ pledge in 2010. See: http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/the-westminster-declaration/

    This was a typical ploy of the usual fundie wingnuts [compare and contrast with Coalition for marriage signatories] , See original declaration here: http://www.westminster2010.org.uk/declaration/

    Amongst other things it states “…We pledge to support marriage – the lifelong covenantal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

    Sounds like Mrs Leadsom made her mind up a long time ago.

    Still, does no harm luvvie to wrap it a pretence of giving it some more thought…

    1. Nice link! So, it’s not unlikely that she’s really rather lying through her teeth, made her decision years ago, and is desperate to make her hands look clean? (I suppose abstention is better than a vote against, but her phoney concern rings out loud and clear)

      1. Hopefully she won’t ‘forget’ to walk through the ‘aye’ lobby after walking through the ‘nay’….(An odd procedure to abstain, btw)

        1. It’s more clearly an abstention on principle than just not turning up.

    2. I was about to take issue and chide those who had dismissed Mrs L as a vile, hateful, bigoted (etc) woman, since the reports seemed to show her views as genuinely reflective and honestly held, even moderate.

      Then I read Martyn’s post and its links.

      Vile, hateful, bigoted (etc) woman…….

      1. Same here.

  11. it about what right for all dear not what you want -selfish

  12. I actually respect her for her response. As an MP she is primarily working for her constituents and if that is the over-riding opinion from them she has to give that due consideration.

    She isn’t rolling out the stupid arguments seen from C4M et al, and from the way I read is taking on balance the feelings of the LBGT community, hence choosing to abstain. I could respect my MP more if his response had been similar.

  13. … and I’m SURE many of her best friends are gay!!!! Aye! Right!!
    Bigotry, however prettily wrapped, is still bigotry!!!

  14. Her statement would sound almost reasonable and balanced were it not based on a falsity ” which has not yet won public support”. All the major polls have shown a majority of the public in favour of SSM for some months now….

  15. Michael Anthony 1 Feb 2013, 2:59pm

    “Faith based belief” be damned. At least have the guts to call yourself a bigot. I refuse to pay any kind of respect to clerical fascism or the whims of the blue rinse brigade.

  16. bobbleobble 1 Feb 2013, 3:07pm

    Guys, please remember this is only the second reading of the bill. There’s a long way to go yet. After the vote, assuming it passes, the bill will go to committee for consideration and potential amendments and then back to the Commons for its third reading and another vote before it goes to the lords. We’ve still got a long way to go even in the Commons and that’s before it goes to the Lords.

  17. What a cowardly response..

    Unacceptable …why?
    She doesn’t say.
    Deeply wrong…why?
    She doesn’t say.
    Against her instinct?
    That would be her gut response based on what exactly?

  18. Northamptonshire….full of inbreds….its country folk….

    1. Robert (Kettering, Northants) 1 Feb 2013, 4:45pm

      Errrm, excuse me, I live in the county and am certainly not inbred. Seriously, see my earlier message about folk in South Northants. They’re the posh, green welly brigade living in 2 million pound barn conversions! What do you expect from their MP?

      1. whether you live in Kettering, Corby Wellingborough Rockingham
        or Northampton its all the same Homophobic….

        1. why all the minus its true between all these towns not even one single gay venue for population of half a million people…most gay people leave the area in order to meet people…

  19. GulliverUK 1 Feb 2013, 4:45pm

    Definitely better to “abstain” than vote against it, even if we fundamentally disagree with her on this. I was thinking just the other day it is far safer for an MP would doesn’t agree to abstain, because once you’ve voted No to the bill we will have a good list of every homophobic MP – some people have evolved and changed their minds over time, but the true homophobes haven’t, are still there, and it’ll be good to have a list so they can be properly rewarded come next general election – what goes around comes around. Local people need to be reminded what sort of person they are voting for.

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

      Yes, but even if she abstains, any of them for that matter, to me that’s a no vote anyway otherwise why not vote YES? They can run, but they can’t hide. She’s already made it quite clear she can’t support equal marriage, unacceptable to her so to abstain or absence (unless due to ill health) definitely means NO. We will remember all of them in 2015 in whatever constituency we live. They too will receive a ‘no’ vote in return.

  20. Northampton/shire,where i was born, is not exactly the same as inner London etc, but does have a good representation of LGBT people. You have to ask why she is ignoring there equal rights in a modern democracy. I suggest the people she has spoken to have all been very conservative middle englanders who want never to see any change in the law in this respect. Her past voting record is testiment enough that her mind was already made up and would conform to the majority,and hence back the winning side at the next general election. But her failure,along with others ,who vote on the back of vocalism of the majority of her constituents, may come to bite back at the next general election, especially as it would seem the vote will be in favour next Tuesday 5th Feb. Then she and others will see they backed the wrong side when the national concencous of political representatives will vote for the bill. You cannot go through political life blinkered to the fundementals of basic human rights.

  21. This bill apparently “risks centuries of faith based belief” – what does she mean? RISKS?

  22. Ms. Leadsom, you should start by not following people’s religious to be your guide in law making. If you do that, the next step is to have Muslims pushing their religion into law as well.
    If marriage held no legal weight and was only a cerimony at a church, there would be no basis for a legal fight for inclusion. It is not an establishment to create children, otherwise, baren couples should not be legally married either. It is about gay couples being able to care for and take responsiblity for each other in the same legal standard as straight couples.
    Period.

  23. Interesting argument she’s having with herself. Well, we know where she would have stood on slavery, then.

  24. All’s well that ends well! if I abstain instead of a yea or nay I won’t have to have a conscience.

    If I don’t vote yea, I won’t upset any of my constituents I won’t have given entitlement to human rights some might object to. I have not patronized any one, my conscience will be clear!

    If I don’t vote nay, I won’t upset anyone of my constituents, I won’t have denied any one human rights. I won’t have patronized any one, my conscience will be clear!

    Yes, it is the right thing to do! that way I am not accountable for voting either way, by abstaining I don’t have to show my true colors or be decisive about some thing with which some would prefer I disagree. I’ll just go bury my head in the sand until it’s over!

    “That’s the sum of it!”

  25. Barrybear1980 2 Feb 2013, 11:48am

    Strangely enough, I am one of her constituents and totally disagree with her. I have written a number of times and have not received a response.

    Clearly as she doesn’t represent my views, I will continue to vote for someone else.

  26. Angela S. 2 Feb 2013, 4:01pm

    What a ridiculous argument!
    She clearly should go back into the home to care for her husband in cooperation with the other wifes if her husband can afford them………!!!

    “I very strongly support everyone to have water, but LGBTQI people can not drink from the same well as I do……”
    The good old pick and choose mentality……

  27. Stupid woman, rights are not subject to democratic whim or prejudice

  28. Don’t like the wording? Yea right if you’d against it at least have the guts to say so don’t hide behind wording same old Tory kick one they all limp! And apparently she’s asked all her constituents and there all against ? No gays in Northamptonshire then ?? Ah yea Tory areas don’t have em do they !!

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