Reader comments · Tory MP Caroline Dinenage: Banning gay couples from marrying ‘takes nothing away from their relationship’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory MP Caroline Dinenage: Banning gay couples from marrying ‘takes nothing away from their relationship’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. perhaps we should ban marriage altogether see what she thinks then…

  2. Another bigot airs her views in public and isn’t ashamed of herself. And then blames her hate on the CofE.

  3. what tripe this woman talks..maybe she should be reminded that the only reason her Anglican church was formed ,was to allow divorce …not for any theological reason. So they obviously arent that stuck on tradition!!! This is just Tories showing their true colours !

  4. Michael Barber 4 Feb 2013, 11:08am

    Marriage has been “redefined” by heterosexuals for thousands of years. The only objection conservatives have is when gays want to redefine it. HYPOCRISY MUCH?

  5. What planet is this vile woman living on?

    Her views do not surprise me considering she attended a Roman Catholic comprehensive school.

  6. Right, so let’s nullify her marriage if she has one, and ban her from it in future and see if the mendacious delusional fruitcake has a change of heart (I’m going to guess at…yes).

  7. I got a feeling we are not going to get gay marriage this time. The one good thing about that will be that that nasty tory party will never get in power again for a long long time.

    1. theotherone 4 Feb 2013, 11:17am

      the same nasty tory party that has brought the bill forward?

      1. bobbleobble 4 Feb 2013, 11:26am

        And is providing the vast majority of the opposition, Dineage being only the latest in a long line of Tory MPs voting against. I haven’t heard of many, or any Labour Party Chairmen resigning over Miliband’s support or Labour members resigning over the policy either. Maybe it’s happening but obviously not in large enough numbers for it to warrant comment.

        Jojojo don’t be pessimistic, Labour and the Lib Dems are almost unanimously supporting us and that on its own is nearly enough to get this through tomorrow. It will happen this time, don’t panic!

        1. theotherone 4 Feb 2013, 11:28am

          from what i can see a majority of all parties backs this so it will get through

          1. bobbleobble 4 Feb 2013, 11:33am

            Certainly Labour and the Lib Dems. I actually think the largest block of Tories tomorrow will vote in favour but it’ll be close and there’ll be a huge number of absences and abstentions although I can’t see the point of abstaining myself, why bother showing up at all!

      2. So one bill in our favour makes them the nice guys. Dont be so easily pleased!

        1. theotherone 4 Feb 2013, 1:34pm

          and historic convictions?

          how about consulting with the gender variant community on laws specifically for them?

          sorry but on this front the tories have outdone labour.

          1. I’m sorry, you are aware that this is a COALITION government?

          2. Adele Magee 4 Feb 2013, 3:42pm

            Joss, really, I hadn’t noticed. i think the joke on the opening credits of Mock the Week, where Cameron asks Clegg for a Latte as if he is the office boy is closer to the real status of the government.

          3. Really Adele? So am I to take it that you believe that the conservatives should be given sole credit for this bill because Nick Clegg is a glorified barista?

            Just so we’re clear I wouldn’t vote for any of these clowns so I do not say this as a lib dem supporter. In fact I’d like to see the lib dems rot in political obscurity for their deceit re tuition fees.

  8. “The state has nor right to redefine marriage” So who is this mystery body that has redefined marriage so often in the past? Could it be the aliens?

    1. theotherone 4 Feb 2013, 11:27am

      i was wondering about that – wasn’t the de-establishment of the catholic church in the uk all about redefining marriage?

  9. bobbleobble 4 Feb 2013, 11:23am

    It worries me that people this stupid can become MPs.

  10. theotherone 4 Feb 2013, 11:25am

    ‘let me tell you all about my faith’

    no, lets talk about human rights

  11. As many others have said – another vile Tory airing her views in public. If, as she says, the “State has no right” to redefine marriage…who has?

  12. Mumbo Jumbo 4 Feb 2013, 11:29am

    “…..I believe that the degree to which someone practices their faith…..”

    No need to read further to know “How” she came to her conclusions.

  13. Perhaps then I can have all the money back, paid through my taxes, for the institution she is so happy to see me banned from. What is even more galling is that this young twit is telling me, a man much older than her, and with more decorum and brains than her by the sounds of it, that I am banned from anything whilst she can do whatever the hell she likes, and I have to pay for the thing she is determined to ban me from. Who the hell does she think she is? If anything has brought my blood to the boil its this holier than thou creep. Gay people also died to defend this country to give her the freedom she enjoys now. And this is about as obnoxious as spitting at the Epitaph.

  14. WordsmithNeil 4 Feb 2013, 11:52am

    Banning straight people from marrying takes nothing away from their relationship either, according to that line of thinking.

    And when will these idiots get the idea that this proposed law does nothing at all to make churches have to marry gays or change their limited views on marriage?

  15. According to her if Hitler were still alive a woman could go and marry him, but Alan Turning could just go and, well, get lost. I mean, what did Alan Turning ever do for our country and our freedom?

  16. Her dad was crap, and she’s crap.

  17. That There Other David 4 Feb 2013, 12:54pm

    Oh dear. The state, Caroline, has EVERY right to set the boundaries of marriage. The state exists as an administrative entity on behalf of our society. We all, as members of that society, choose the direction the state takes in that administration process.

    The only entities that have no right to control access to marriage are religious organisations. They have inserted themselves into life’s important events to avoid getting real jobs, to con people out of their money, and to assert undeserved influence over the gullible. Well, no more! Society does not need these charlatans and con-artists, it never did.

    And it’s a pity Caroline that you are so conditioned by their dogma that you cannot see their operation for the utter sham it is.

  18. thewildkoala 4 Feb 2013, 1:09pm

    “Preventing same-sex couples from being allowed to ‘marry’ takes nothing away from their relationship.”

    This is yet another example of the insidious homophobia which permeates the opinions of many who profess a faith. It’s putting the rights and lives of heterosexual couples above those of gay couples. We simply want equality.

  19. So Caroline Dinenage: if we ban your marriage then that would take nothing away from your relationship with your other half?

    How do you come to that conclusion?

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

    What exactly would she know about discrimination and who is she to speak for gay people?

    All of the bigots in opposition should be asked if they would be happy to have a CP for themselves. I can imagine the absurd responses most of which would be against it. Nobody has bothered to even put the question to them. I wonder why not? Ignorant bint!

  21. bobbleobble 4 Feb 2013, 1:35pm

    Just out of interest, Chris Huhne’s resignation today has a kind of good news bad news vibe to it. We’re losing one yes vote but the vacancy in his constituency means that 317 votes are needed to pass the bill rather than 318.

  22. This woman has uttered one of the best arguments I have ever heard for disestablishing the Church of England.
    She has openly asserted its ‘right’ to determine civil and secular laws under which millions of non-Anglicans live.
    Politicians like this are a disgrace to liberal democracy.

  23. What a hypocrite.

    In one breath she claims that allowing same-sex marriages would ‘redefine marriage’ – presumably for the worse, otherwise why oppose it? In the next, she claims that being banned from marriage ‘takes nothing away’, and civil partnerships are exactly equal.

    If same-sex relationships are equal, there is no reason to deny us marriage. And if being denied marriage means nothing then why bother with it for anyone? I hope she is pushing for the ‘right’ to call her own marriage a civil partnership.

    Also, putting aside the fact that she is being deliberately misleading with her manifesto claims, I hope that she will be voting against every single bill her Government introduces from now on unless it was spelled out clearly in the manifesto before the election – she’ll be voting against the whips until doomsday.

  24. “the Church of England is the established Church in this country….”

    Right, so why don’t we stop anyone who’s not a Christian marrying, eh? I mean how very dare all those non-believers get married in registry offices all over the country? Some of them are even remarrying after divorce! Dreadful, isn’t it? After all, as you imply, Caroline – it’s the C of E that gets to choose what marriage is.

    An embarrassing fool.

    1. That There Other David 4 Feb 2013, 2:50pm

      She’s certainly shown that she was voted in on her father’s local celebrity status rather than her mental prowess. Unfortunately it’s Gosport, where the only party that ever challenges the Tories are the Lib Dems. Which means she’ll still be around after 2015.

  25. What absolutely amazes me is that in 2013, such views are OK to air publicly and openly. YES to ‘free speech’ but also YES to ‘equality’ methinks, and in this context, one DOES trump the other! Why? Well, I always think to myself, “what if we removed the fact that this issue is about same sex relationships, and inserted relationships of colour or even the mixing the races and religious creeds, would this even be up for discussion”? Of course not. No civilised society would invent a state of legal union between two consenting people that is different to that devised for another section of society (eg. Caucasian people and non-Caucasian people). So why should Gay people accept CP’s as being a viable alternative to that which our straight counterparts have a legal right? SHAME on anyone of those that vote ‘no’ tomorrow!

  26. When are bozzos like this going to realise this is NOT about ‘choice’ … it’s about ‘equality’? Why SHOULD gay people be treated as second-class citizens? We pay out taxes like heteros. We are entitled to equality – not some ‘special status’ reserved for gays. Presumably, this woman is also of the opninon that black people should sit in a separate part of the bus ….?

  27. floatingVoter 4 Feb 2013, 8:23pm

    Many of her constituents gay and straight have been trying to get her to realise that “not being able to marry” does matter, without any impression from Caroline that she is really engaging with the arguments. It is a pity as Gosport is not as backward as our MP implies.

    Civil partnerships are not equal to marriage, because:

    (i) A separate law to recognize relationships within a group who have until very recently been subject to extreme prejudice, can only be seen as discrimination.

    (ii) Civil partnerships are contracts. Marriage is a covenant, a life commitment and a vow of fidelity. Marriage in a religious setting acknowledges that God is part of the couple’s relationship, which is essential for religious LGBT people.

    (iii) There are real legal differences. Few countries that legally recognise same sex relationships have gone down the civil partnership route. This means they are not recognised abroad. There are real financial differences with survivor’s pension rights.

  28. Angela S. 5 Feb 2013, 2:46pm

    I guess an implication of her view is that people should only be allowed to marry in the CoE, and in that obviously only if they are members……
    So, that would mean banning catholics and other religions from marrying people and from people that have not married in a CoE facility to call their union a marriage………

    Stupid idiots!

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.