Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Nadine Dorries: The same-sex marriage bill is ‘political suicide’ and it won’t make gay couples equal

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. how bizarre and creepy…

    1. They all just sound as silly excuses to me. Consummation… in the 21st century??? LOL If two people had sex before marriage (as I suspect is the case for the majority), when is their marriage consummated?
      If two senior people decide to marry and can’t have sex, they are not really married? Are they just “friends”?
      State marriage… wtf? Same old: my “marriage” is not like yours, mine is better, and I retain the right of telling you so…

      1. “Same old: my “marriage” is not like yours, mine is better, and I retain the right of telling you so…” Absolutely! That’s what it’s all about for these homophobes . . . who just before the dawn of the big debate are literally going doo-lally, walking round in circles! I think we’d all laugh if we knew the rehearsals there have been for the grandstanding that will take place tomorrow in the Commons!

      2. “Despite her anti-abortion stance Nadine is not 100% signed up to the pro-family wing of the Conservative Party. After having three children with her second husband[14] Paul Dorries, in 2006 she left him suffering with multiple sclerosis after 23 years rather than sacrifice her political career [15]. Since then she has admitted to having an affair with “John Butler, a 55-year-old father of two and devout Christian” [sic] who left his wife of 30 years[16] and has since been called a “marriage-wrecker”[17] by Butler’s wife, Rachael. Nadine then tried to justify her affair by claiming that Rachael Butler had had an affair with Australian riverboat captain Stephen Coad, something which Coad has strenuously denied.[18]”

        http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nadine_Dorries

  2. You’d have thought that “I’m a celebrity get me out of politics” would be able to recognise political suicide by now…

    Obviously not

  3. And no amount of self-publicizing and attention seeking will make her popular. And, if it’s ‘political suicide’, I would suggest she gets out of politics and do us all a favour so we no longer have to listen to her homophobic, bigoted rants. This is simply pandering to the ancient homophobes among her constituents.

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

      Quite! Perhaps her constituents should be reminded of her own adultery. She would know a thing or two about consummation wouldnl’t she?

  4. PantoHorse 4 Feb 2013, 3:36pm

    Why is she writing on Conservative Home if she’s currently suspended?

    I went there to see. I stupidly read some of the comments. I wish I hadn’t. Quite a poisonous place!

  5. As a woman who is MORE than adept at political suicide, it may behoove her to stop interfering with something she’s clearly ill-equipped to pass judgement on and whose opinion is about as useful and as desired as a ear infection.

    1. Yes, good point, but, you see, Tom, this Nadine Dorries, well she’s kind of fecund, if you know what I mean, she’s a bit of a goer, it seems, and the first thing little Nadine thinks in the morning, and probably last thing at night, is the mechanics of cock and pussy. It’s sort of fundamental to Nadine, it’s her raison d’etre! And the poor (aging) lass can’t get her head round the idea of a relationship in which there is not one of each! Somebody send her some lesbian or gay-male porn! It’s possible she’s so straight-laced she’s never even followed any of those invitations she finds in her Spam Folder! Ha, ha, ha! I laugh at Nadine Dorries. Let’s all laugh at Nadine Dorries!!!!! (It makes you feel good!)

  6. Support U 4 Feb 2013, 3:39pm

    semantics, change it to equal marriage and then tweak it afterwards. better to get most of it right 1st then where there are issues, change it. Just like any law.

  7. If this is the case then there should be a government department to check the viginity status of all women in hetrosexual marriages in the UK to make sure they had sex. If not they should be issued an immediate annullment.

  8. What a nsty piece of goods this vile woman is.

    Blatently full of spite and hate.

    Lets hope she loses her seat in 2 years time- well rid!

  9. So now it’s all about just sex. There we have it. We’ll be getting drawings and and instructions stamped all over marriage certificates next what a couple must do in order for it to be a valid marriage..

    Let’s not forget that even the jungle rejected this dumb moron.

    1. No it’s not all about sex; but marriage does contain a sexual element. Much as I dislike this woman, she has a valid point: the bill is UNFAIR and unequal. So a heterosexual couple can cite adultery but gay people cannot? How is that fair? It seems pretty straightforward to come up with a homosexual definition of adultery to me: if a gay man married to another gay man has anal sex with another man, surely that is adultery?
      And where the hell is the provision to make civil partnerships open to heterosexuals?
      So gay people have to make do with unreasonable behaviour instead of adultery. Sorry, but this bill IS a dog’s dinner.

      1. bobbleobble 4 Feb 2013, 4:04pm

        And what if they don’t have anal sex? Then I can’t claim adultery either but I’d bloody well want to if my husband had oral sex with someone else. But then that would also involve a change to what constitutes adultery for heterosexuals otherwise that wouldn’t be fair on straight people and Cameron is desperately trying to avoid that.

        In any case there is another option which is just as easy and which doesn’t require adultery being expanded. We’re really not disadvantaged by not being allowed to use the adultery reason for getting out of being married.

        I suspect civil partnerships will be opened up eventually but they will want to see what the gay community does first. If civil partnership rates plummet to the point that there’s no longer much point keeping them going then I suspect they will be repealed, if not then they’ll be opened to straight people too.

      2. PantoHorse 4 Feb 2013, 4:21pm

        I think they should remove the adultery clause from OSM and make it unreasonable behaviour for everyone, with the test for what’s unreasonable defined by the couple themselves, or as per current guidelines for dissolving a CP. That would be fair and equal, wouldn’t it?

  10. bobbleobble 4 Feb 2013, 3:54pm

    She’s kind of right but defining consummation for gay couples is insanely difficult in a way that it isn’t for heterosexuals. For gay men would it be anal sex? Well what about couples that don’t partake. And would both parties need to be penetrated or just one?

    Far better to leave the whole consummation thing up to heterosexuals. Actually better would have been to remove consummation from marriage altogether but that would have freaked out the ‘anti’s no end.

    1. For heterosexuals it seems that above all, paramount, in any consideration or worthwhile discussion of the institution of marriage is the notion of cock entering pussy! For heterosexuals, it would seem that that is what it all boils down to! A man’s not a man, for all that, till cock has entered pussy! It’s base. It’s primitive. It’s course. But that’s what it’s all about for them! I laugh! Ha. Ha. Ha!

      1. correction: “it’s coarse”.

  11. Is she drunk? Or high?

    And isn’t this the same Nadine Dorries who is currently having an affair with someone else’s husband?

    1. Dave North 4 Feb 2013, 4:20pm

      Read it and see the true “Christian” she claims to be.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nadine_Dorries

      1. Perhaps she is concerned that some gays will desert their partners if they become ill? No it could hardly be that could it?

  12. Of course she forgets that this problem, if such it is, hasn’t brought the heavens down in those countries which have legislated for equal marriage; and that adultery as a fact in divorce, arises in less than 2% of cases and is anyway conceptually subsumed under unreasonable behaviour. What an utterly silly individual.

  13. I think she’s lost the plot. She sounds obsessed

  14. ALL marriage is “State marriage” in that it all originates in civil law. The nature of the ceremony and accompanying rituals (the wearing of rings for example) is a frippery that is only of relevance to the participants.

    As for “consummation” – by all means, Dorries, throw that gem in the face of the elderly and those who, for medical reasons, are not able to have sex. Would she see THEIR marriage dissolved? Or should she just shut up and stop her tedious habit of curtain twitching and figurative knicker sniffing over how other people live their private lives.

    But then knowledge and insight isn’t exactly her forte.

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Feb 2013, 4:25pm

    Thus speaks the harridan who committed adultery which means marriage is composed of one man and two women or multiple partners in the case of Sir Roger Gale. .F-cking hypocritical twat. To think people like her are elected.

  16. What if a married straight man is having an affair – but only having anal sex with the lady concerned.

    Is he then NOT guilty of adultery- but would be if the sex was vaginal?

    1. bobbleobble 4 Feb 2013, 4:35pm

      Adultery is defined as only vaginal penetration by a penis. No other forms of sex apply.

  17. Yes, how extraordinary! As the pressure mounts, as the deadline looms, how this one, this most frightful Tory of all perhaps, wriggles and writhes in the most labyrinthine manner in order to try and find a get-out!

    When I think Nadine Dorries, I think suffocation!

  18. “Stupid is a stupid does”, thank you forrest for those wise words that are so apt for this fool.

  19. SteveHedger 4 Feb 2013, 4:43pm

    No, sweetheart, ‘political suicide’ is dipping of work to star (no, sorry, can’t even use that word) in ‘I’m a Celebrity’

  20. Does being anti gay hold a particular attraction for adulterers? Does it make them feel a bit better?

  21. She still suffering from dirty mind syndrome.

  22. Another candidate for -“you can put lipstick on a pig,its still a pig”.

  23. In America we call this “concern trolling”. When a person of an opposing ideology offers advice to the people s/he opposes as to how they could “improve” things, either in their tactical use of rhetoric, rules, or with more philosophical consistency all under the guise of CONCERN, when in fact their singular aim is to confuse and derail the discussion and defeat the opposing view. It usually only applies to online discussion threads but I think it is perfectly applicable here.

    What do you Brits call it?

    1. I call it misrepresentation and deceit, but ‘concern trolling’ is a good phrase. Those kind of people get on my nerves – pretending to care but just desperate to treat us like cr*p.

    2. We would describe it as disingenuousness!

  24. Spanner1960 4 Feb 2013, 5:28pm

    These people accuse us of “redefining marriage”, yet they don’t seem to want to recognise the definition of “sex”.

    Sex does not have to be penetrative.
    I’m sure if two lesbians did in the middle of the street what they do in bed, they would be seen as “having sex”, so if it is good enough to define in law as a crime, it should also be seen the same when it comes to defining marriage.

    As for the adultery thing, I have never understood why that clause was omitted; All married relationships should be monogamous and faithful, irrespective of gender or sexuality.

    1. bobbleobble 4 Feb 2013, 7:15pm

      Adultery is omitted because it has a specific meaning in law as vaginal penetration with a penis. That’s the only ground for adultery at the moment. People simply don’t bother using it any more or at least not in any great numbers. It’s anachronistic but getting rid of it or amending it to a more realistic definition for the 21st century would have had the nutters up in arms about redefinition of marriage so it’s been left alone. I don’t think it’s a problem.

  25. A slut on high horse and hypocrisy of biblical proportions

  26. ‘Consummation… in the 21st century??? LOL’ – yeah it’s too natural right and not disordered enough for you?Is this considered 21st Cen then? : http://www.tht.org.uk/~/media/132C90B69AAF43C7AFE01E0F71E96D51.ashx

    Scoop some yorkshire puds into you armpit and call this ‘eating’- if you disagree then you must be a dinosaur , an armpit-phobe, against ‘equal eating’ – times have changed , we are not against ‘traditional eating’ and won’t stop ‘traditional eating’ – why should we be ‘marginalised’ and ‘discriminated’ against etc Yes welcome to the oxymoron that is same-sex ‘marriage’ and its pseudo ‘rights’ .

    Oh I forgot , what you call ‘sex’ that sad parody that breaks the laws of nature , causes diseases , unhappiness , unfulfillment, suicides etc – what used to be called acts of depravity is now to be called ‘marriage’ .This has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with a narcissistic longing to have a vile lifestyle accepted .

    1. Trolls are never happy. You sound particularly bitter and angry. Perhaps you would like to supply us with a list of sexual activities you approve of. I will tell you which ones I can’t do. It won’t be many. Will give the Yorkshire puddings a try tonight. Aunt Bessie’s. Phwoar!

    2. Ray, aww bless your unhappy soul & pray somebody-or-other gives you the neurons & the nudge t’ward deeper & broader knowing.
      I’m a Lesbian about to enter into Civil Partnership with a really gorgeous intellectually, spiritually & sexually evolved Other Lesbian.We make love in intensely creatively beautiful ways & have sexual intensity (& dare I say ‘endurance’) you can only dream of; trust me when I say Mother.
      This revolution is unstoppable. Loosen up Ray, never say never ;) 

      1. *Mother Nature approves* :)

  27. My first comment? Er, don’t think so.

  28. If a law from 30-odd years ago outlines this then she’s well within her right to point this out. I don’t understand why you’re all attacking her? She’s simply stating the facts that most likely 99.9% didn’t notice. She’s made it clear that she supports same sex marriages but only on an equal level. Rather than ‘skip to the end’ and attack why not try to read and understand what she’s saying? We’ll get nowhere if we blast people who are pointing out clear facts.

    1. bobbleobble 4 Feb 2013, 11:48pm

      She’s made no such thing clear. These are just the particular arguments against gay marriage that she’s chosen to use to justify voting against. Cameron is making the change to include gay couples in marriage without being forced to change marriage for hetosexuals. Consummation is an incredibly complicated matter for gay people and isn’t particularly relevant since the only reason to worry about consummation is if you are a catholic and need and annulment so you can get married in church again, something which doesn’t affect gay people. Most people don’t rely on adultery as a grounds for divorce these days because they don’t need to plus it hardly covers any situation anyway. Dorries isn’t attempting to make things easier or start a reasoned debate she’s throwing up irrelevant roadblocks to try to scupper things.

  29. No point put across there other than you trying to be as vile and outrageous as possible.

    Well done.

    Now grow up.

  30. Reminds me a bit on what some Mormons think about equal marriage becoming void when one of the partners crosses over. (ie not meeting in the afterlife because gay marriage is early ) It sadens me how closed minded some people of faith can be. This amendment of Doress is introducing seems to prove that her opinion on marriage equality is like the statement i mentioned above.

    I also feel heartwarmingly sorry for people of faith who DO truely believe in feminism and gay rights from the bottom of there hearts as the anti equality bunch like Dorres give them a bad name.

    I admire figures like Rosie Harper or Desmond Tutu who are people of faith that show progressive values to what is right. :)

    1. earthly meant not early

  31. PantoHorse 4 Feb 2013, 11:19pm

    Maybe just call her a hypocrite and be done with it.

  32. She wants same-sex marriage defined as “state marriage” – all legal marriage in the UK is subject to State legislation and can therefore reasonably be held to be State marriage.

    She is concerned about consummation as required under the Marriage Act 1973 – simply remove the requirement. Many another government has long since removed this archaic requirement (rooted in Church annulments which were all too often nothing more than a means of circumventing Church marriage – divorce by another, hypocritical name)

  33. I hope that a positive outcome of equal marriage will be an end to defining marriage and its violations via patriarchal obsessions with genital activity. Like any other contract, marriage should be entered into and dissolved on the basis of mutual consent, or dissolved after a specified period if only one party consents to dissolution. There should be an end to squalid wrangling over whether sex has happened or with whom.

  34. The consummation criteria should be deleted. It is a relic of a bygone era that is really a bit shameful for Britain still to have.

    More enlightened democracies do not have consummation in their marriage acts.

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