Reader comments · Lib Dem MP to vote against same-sex marriage bill because it ‘weakens’ families · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Lib Dem MP to vote against same-sex marriage bill because it ‘weakens’ families

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Shameful really. Dressing up statist arguments (for having children in marriage is for the “good of the state”) as liberal ones is plainly wrong.

    1. . . . oh we know . . .

      A deselection may be in the offing . . . we hope . . .

  2. Tell that to all the gay couples who have children-you PILLOCK!!!

    What he’s actually doing is putting the POPE before the constituents who ELECTED him as THEIR parliamentary representative.

    1. thank you John – I am constantly baffled by these degenerate MPs who present their own personal opinions, when – as you quite rightly state – it’s their constituents not themselves they are supposed to be representing…

  3. Robert (Kettering) 4 Feb 2013, 7:23pm

    Another homophobic bigot taking his orders directly from Rome!! He’s a disgusting excuse for an MP and Lib Dem as well. Shame on you and hope you lose your seat at the next election to the Monster Raving Looney Party!!

    1. Yes, this debate is certainly lifting up some rocks, and what we see isn’t very nice. MPs who happily take tax payers money but come crunch time It’s Rome that matters. Yuck.

      1. Let’s try to think of another scenario when an MP in this country states as fact that the leader of another state has influenced the way he will vote in our Parliament.

        Mr Putin says this is anti-Russian therefore I am going to vote against it?

        Mr Obama says I should vote this way on our independent nuclear deterrent?

        Mr Ahmedinajad is against gay marriage therefore I have to vote against?

        How come it is seen as OK when it is the head of the vatican?

        Now you can see why catholics were considered as a threat to this country.

  4. No evidence of this absurd claim. When challenged (in the US) to repeat this mental incontinence on the stand, those who espouse it declined because there is no proof and to claim otherwise would be perjury.

    Just admit it, Pugh, you don’t like queer people. We see right through you and your mendacious crap.

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Feb 2013, 7:27pm

    Why should he care about the quadruple lock? It’s safeguarding the CoE from being forced to marry us, the very thing they didn’t want. He’s chosen his religion, let’s face it. That alone begs resignation. Bigoted fool.

  6. Oh, well, that make it easy then. If marriage is all about the children, then redefine marriage so you can only get married when you have/adopt your first child. Problem solved!

    FSS. Whether two people have a piece of paper to say they’re married or not has no impact on children. Plenty of single parents, gay parents, and heterosexual parents who aren’t nor want to get married.

    1. Ian Bower 4 Feb 2013, 7:56pm

      Just cancelled my last bit of support for the LibDems.

      1. theotherone 4 Feb 2013, 8:09pm

        frankly i don’t see how one idiot can make you do that, most of the party support the bill after all

  7. thelostdot 4 Feb 2013, 7:43pm

    I move house tomorrow to Southport and Pugh will be my MP. I will certainly be complaining about this. he can intellectualise all he likes, but in the end I think the salient fact is that he is a Roman Catholic. This may actually cause me to do voluntary work for an opposing party. Such backwardness and bigotry is unacceptable in a political representative.

    1. Dave Page 4 Feb 2013, 8:24pm

      I’ll certainly be encouraging alternative Lib Dem candidates to come forward for Southport in 2015 from inside the party – there are plenty of Southport Lib Dems who disagree vehemently with Pugh!

  8. I’m just loving this process, it’s forcing these bigots into the open to have their vile opinions put onto public record. Vile!

  9. I note the 3 other remaining roman catholic lib dem MPs who have still not said anything about equal marriage

    Sarah Teather, Greg Mulholland and Charles Kennedy. I wonder what way they will vote?

    1. Glug Glug Glug 4 Feb 2013, 9:47pm

      Charles Kennedy is unlikely to be sober enough to vote

  10. He should now resign the Lib-Dem Whip. He is in the wrong party!

  11. Sean Johansen 4 Feb 2013, 7:58pm

    It just grinds when politicians pay more allegiance to the Vatican than the constituents they serve. If they can’t pay allegiance to the country they live in then stop being an MP and become a priest or move to the Vatican.

  12. Well , I’m sure Betty Windsor and her loyal government are cock a hoop that this traitor admits he takes his orders from a foreign power namely herr Reichspope rather than listening to the thoughts of ALL spectra of his constituents and his party leader

  13. bobbleobble 4 Feb 2013, 8:02pm

    He may be trying to intellectualise his opposition but it all boils down to the fact that he’s a Catholic and the pope won’t let him vote for it. He’s swallowed hook line and sinker every single one of the RC’s objections and repeated them whilst claiming they are his own thoughts on the matter.

    Labour have no chance in Southport so I find myself in the unusual position of hoping a Tory knocks him off in 2015

  14. And doesn’t he just LOOK like a poor tortured old dinosaur?

    Oh, not to have control of one’s own mind! To be a puppet of those black-frocked mental delusionals in Rome!

  15. ‘A bisexual menage a trois’ – So when did three somes have anything to do with your normal gay couple relationships and marriage. Stereotyping again!

    1. Dave Page 4 Feb 2013, 8:25pm

      And why should a liberal have any problem with other people indulging in a bisexual menage a trois?

      1. theotherone 4 Feb 2013, 8:27pm

        my thoughts exactly :-)

  16. Edmund Rodgers 4 Feb 2013, 8:18pm

    Every Roman Catholic MP should declare to their electorate their faith allegiance to Rome – it seems the orders of the Roman Pontiff trump those of the people who elect them!

    1. That There Other David 4 Feb 2013, 8:57pm

      Maybe they should actually stand as Vatican Party candidates at election time, seeing as they will put Rome first when the Cardinal comes a-knocking.

      Was he threatened with ex-communication I wonder? For him and perhaps his entire family? I wouldn’t put it past those manipulative bigots on the banks of the Tiber.

  17. “[The government] wants to rule out polygamy, a bisexual menage a trios [sic], incestuous relationships etc. It has a view about the sort of sexual relationships it wants to back.” What people do in their own home is up to them! What next – banning people from having sex on top of their washing machines……. I’m not exactly going to get married whilst having a threesome am I!? Lmao!

  18. Other than forcing self loathing gays back into proverbial closet and driving them into a phoney marriage with a hetero woman – HOW on earth can gay marriage ‘weaken’ families? Utter bollox – for shame Lib Dems – you contradict your own party view point

  19. Let’s face it people like this want the perks of office but when crunch time comes their loyalty is to Rome. And if nothing else this debate has exposed them.

  20. I know it’s exceedingly bad form to make fun of someone’s appearance because, like their sexuality, it’s something they can’t change.

    But I must admit that the PN’s photo of him instantly reminded me of this classic film clip (best in Full Screen and HD).

    Sorry, just couldn’t resist posting it !

    Well, my humourous comparison is far less offensive than his deadly serious one.

    He states “However in endorsing “gay marriages” but not say “consensual polygamous marriages” or “bisexual marriages – a committed ménage à trois” – the state simply expresses a contemporary preference whose arbitrariness is bound at some time to be questioned.”

    OK, I’ll get my coat…

  21. GulliverUK 4 Feb 2013, 8:57pm

    Absented himself from most equality votes, but doesn’t believe in people who are gay being allowed to adopt, or IVF.

    Stupid man is more afraid of the Catholic Church than he is of his electorate, or put another way has no respect or regard for the views of his constituents. I suspect this will be his last term of office as a politician. In fact, someone need to be ready to remind his constituents of his disregard for their views nearer the election, and for all the other b’stards who vote against.

    1. That There Other David 4 Feb 2013, 8:59pm

      He’s not been conditioned since childhood to fear his electorate. He’s a perfect example of why faith schools need to be banned in this country. By the time adulthood is reached half of them will never beat the brainwashing.

  22. This leads me to wonder how many MPs join a party only because they see it as the quickest way up the slippery pole?

    1. Dave Page 4 Feb 2013, 9:14pm

      In all honesty, if you were to join a party just to get elected as an MP, it probably wouldn’t be the Liberal Democrats. You definitely wouldn’t join the Liberal Party in 1977 as Wikipedia says Pugh did.

    2. That There Other David 4 Feb 2013, 9:14pm

      To my mind this explains all the bishops talking about Catholics being oppressed over the past couple of weeks. They were pre-empting all these MPs using their membership of the RCC as justification for voting against. The bishops genuinely want us to backlash against Catholics in Parliament, so they can act as if we’re the ones attacking them.

      I’m not playing the game. The Vatican is the source of the poison, not ordinary Catholics.

  23. Thanks for mentioning he is RC in the 2nd paragraph. I didn’t bother reading any further.

  24. There are broken families all around Britain, often you’ll find gay people actually are more loving and nurturing than women you see walking around with loads of kids in broken homes with no money and no income. I think that if a gay couple want children it is an infringement of their human rights to be fathers, it shouldn’t be that any person has to lie about their sexuality in order to be accepted in your shoddy example of a “perfect society” just remember, God forgives EVERYBODY for their sins. Would you rather see a child in a broken home with no home or a child in a safe and well off same sex household, exactly.

  25. The flaw in the man’s logic is obvious and exceedingly tiresome.

    He says that the decision to extend marriage to same-sex couples is “arbitrary”, that “the government and courts will be further drawn into adjudicating on the personal and sexual life of its citizens” and that “Whatever we feel morally the private and sexual behaviour of consenting individuals is not a matter for the state”

    But the decision to restrict marriage only to mixed-sex couples is no less arbitrary – indeed it is far more arbitrary, given that “potential for straightforward procreation” is one of the most arbitrary and irrelevant criteria it is possible to think of. The state ALREADY adjudicates on the sex lives of its citizens – currently adjudicating that LGB citizens have lesser lives than heterosexual citizens. The state ALREADY treats the private and sexual behaviour of individuals as its business – by deciding that only straight people deserve its most prestigious social institutions

    1. It is, in fact, a tremendous and nauseating helping of straight privilege that prevents Mr. Pugh from seeing how blatant his double-standards are. He simply does not realise that “keep marriage restricted to mixed-sex couples” is just as much a conscious choice with moral consequences as “extend it to everybody”. As is so very often the case with such people, he refuses to see maintaining the status quo as a morally culpable decision – change must be justified, but keeping unfairness as it is carries with it no blame. Straight people’s relationships get a pass, because they’ve always gotten a pass, and do not need scrutinising or justifying, but gay people are presumed to be undeserving by default, have to argue their case if they want what straight people are afforded automatically, and can be accused of rocking the boat by simply making that case. I’ve got mine, and never had to lift a finger to get it, you can all go hang.

      This is not liberalism by any definition I understand.

  26. randycrawfordsbed 4 Feb 2013, 9:30pm

    Like an episode of little britain

  27. It’s going to be fun to see ‘no’ votes tomorrow turn into grovelling apologies at the next election and beyond.

    Everyone knows the score, it’s all been seen. “I regret voting against [ENTER GAY RIGHTS LEGISLATION HERE] but we’ve moved on, times have changed and so have my views”

    I’m bored of it but this matter ensures the mantra will live on for a few years yet

  28. The Lib Dems need to improve their screening process for MPs, so bigots like this don’t get into the party. This was a failure at the executive level.

  29. The old “marriage is for raising children” – so what about gay couples adopting?

    1. Or straight couples that don’t want children

  30. Also, if “the potential to procreate” (to which we must add “in a straightforward manner”) is the rationale we’re using (it never has been, but humour the man for now), then why does he not insist that infertile mixed-sex couples are banned from marriage, along with those who never intend to have children?

    You can’t have it both ways Pugh – either that’s the rationale or it isn’t. If it isn’t then your argument is nonsense, if it is then you have to be consistent in its application. Anything else would just be arbitrary…

  31. Yet another MP outing himself as a papist taking an unelected lead from the Vatican bigots….de-selection anyone?

  32. Lion in Winter 4 Feb 2013, 10:44pm

    Wow – he looks like he sat in the tub too long…

  33. Been speaking tonight with one or two Tory MPs who previously have voiced reservations on the bill who now plan to support it. I don’t think the rebellion will be as high for Cameron. Fear of being on wrong side of history is tangible.

  34. This Sandgrounder MP is as wide off the mark as Southport beach is from the sea

  35. I’d like to think that Gordon Birtwhistle and John Pugh are the only Libdem MPs who wil vote against SSM BUT there is only 1 day left before the vote and there are still 9 libdem MPs who haven’t declared which way they are going to vote.

    For a party which explicity has equal marriage in their party policy I was expecting a 100% vote for SSM. Very disappointing!

    John Thurso by the way is on the Christian Concern list of MPs likely to oppose SSM. Has anybody contacted this libdem MP? And Mark Williams only a few weeks ago was still saying he was waiting for it to be in the Queen’s speech! Another dodgy libdem MP who I think should be contacted.

  36. Another dodgy libdem MP!!!!! Tim Farron

    “In addition, I’ve seen reports on twitter that party president Tim Farron is ‘still deciding’ how to vote, according to the BBC — though he’s listed in support on the Coalition for Equal Marriage’s website.”

  37. Yes, look at all those families ruined by same sex marriage in Canada, Argentina, Spain, Norway, etc.. Mr. PUGH speaks
    un-truths. When well they stop coming up with lies.

  38. Common sense 5 Feb 2013, 2:54am

    MPs sign the oath of allegiance so surely those who see the Pope as a greater power than the monarch and the people of the UK should be debarred from parliament.

  39. Something tells me that that face is not the face of the FUTURE of the Liberal Democratic Party.

  40. This is my local MP.
    I’m honestly ashamed and appauled at his argument. I’m going to make a video soon to adress my thoughts on what he’s said.
    I would like to say he in no way represents me or a large number of the people in Southport. Myself and a lot of my friends are hoping that this bill goes through because imo at the end of the day love is love.

    1. Londinium 5 Feb 2013, 8:59am

      Making a video would be informative, but have you contacted your local LibDem selection committee and asked them to ensure he represent constituents views and not those of a head of a foreign state? At least then you would know whether this is a personal opinion or one that goes throughout the local party.

      1. I know quite a few people who are lib dems, I guess i’d consider myself one although i’ve never really affiliated with a political party but I tend to agree with them on most things.
        I will make sure to write to the selection committee and ask them that.

  41. It will be interesting to see which party comes out on top tomorrow. The libdems should have been the best performer but at the moment labour have around 17% of their party voting against/unknon SSM and libdem are on around 19% of their party.

    Simon Hughes MP was also wavering on SSM a few weeks ago so it will be interesting to see how he votes as well!

    For shame LibDems if you come second after labour in the vote tomorrow!

    1. Well. To be fair. They did sell out to the tories.

  42. Same sex marriage has been around here in Spain for a few years now.
    Guess what? The fabric of society has not fallen apart and families seem to be as tightly knit as ever.
    Shock horror! Some of these families include same sex couples, yes indeed I did say include!

  43. Isn’t it great to now that we’re such a treat.

  44. I thought this guy was a lib dem

  45. Dave North 5 Feb 2013, 8:40am

    I see.

    So strengthening marriages weakens them.

    Back to Logic 101 for you Mr Spew.

  46. What a vile rationalization this politician forwards.

    This reflects badly on the Liberal Party, to have such a person in their ranks.

    He is putting his religious based prejudice before his obligation to represent all his constituents in a secular democracy.

    This man is not fit for public duty and the people of South Port need to deal to him.

  47. These people sicken me! They should have no place in parliament.

  48. The MPs who cited ‘liberal issues’ as a reason are generally catholic. No one is fooled by this, the reason he stands against it is based on his religion and not political conscious. We know this, we are not stupid!!

  49. What an ugly old bugger. You couldn’t mark him with an axe.

  50. Gary Wilson 5 Feb 2013, 2:06pm

    This guy has lost my vote for the lib dems :)

  51. Frank Boulton 5 Feb 2013, 4:29pm

    “Whatever we feel morally the private and sexual behaviour of consenting individuals is not a matter for the state,” he says.

    What a smokescreen! If what he says is true, then why have marriage and civil partnership legislation at all? And if it’s not a matter for the state, then why does the state discriminate between those who can and those who can’t have weddings and civil partnerships? It sound to me as if the state is already deeply involved in the private and sexual behaviour of consenting adults.

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.