Reader comments · Lord Pannick: Forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings would be ‘more difficult than parting the Red Sea’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Lord Pannick: Forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings would be ‘more difficult than parting the Red Sea’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments



  2. what rubbish harder than parting the Red Sea, Our GOd and Father is an Awesome God very wise too.

    Once it has been given a Royal Assent that is it the Churches has to abide by it as their Supreme Head – the Queen has said Yes.
    Miracle no 2: other Churches who if they are truthful in saying they are Christians MUST OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND.Its the Word of God.

    1. ‘Wise’? Seriously?

      1. you missed the point – the Law maker Royal Assent giver a.ka the kween is also the Supreme govenor of the C of E, if she gives it the royal assent ( as she can refuse to do so within her rights) , anyway if she does give a royal assent the churches have no say anymore

  3. Has anyone been successful in forcing the churches that don’t allow the remarriage of divorced people to marry divorced people? No.

    Has anyone been successful in forcing the sects that don’t allow women priests to ordain women priests? No.

    Has any form of equality legislation forced Muslims to not segregate women in mosques? No.

    And yet the message that religious bodies are sort of clubs that can set their own rules appears not to have sunk in, even to the religious bodies themselves.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Feb 2013, 1:37pm

      Has anyone in committee raised those very questions? I haven’t heard anything from what I’ve already listened to. No amount of safeguards, guarantees or protections even from the ECHR would satisfy the religious nutters like David Burrowes. I don’t know why he bothers to attend the hearings, he has nothing positive to contribute and keeps banging on about the one man one woman crap every chance he gets. There is no way he will support any of the changes to the bill and I suspect the majority in opposition won’t either. Their minds were already made up on February 5th to vote no.

  4. Jock S. Trap 14 Feb 2013, 1:25pm

    Oh for pity sake… who is forcing?

    Expect of course, these idiots forcing their anti marriage propaganda on us all. We get it they don’t want it but they go by so called morals yet spew continuous lies to back up their bigotry.

    All it shows up is that religion is underhanded and devious in how it goes about ways to get what they want.

  5. Why is anyone even bothering to buy into the lie that this is about religious organisations being scared they will have to perform same sex marriage. It’s about denying ANYONE access to same sex marriage based on their bigoted and homophobic superstition. Church organisations are not forced to employ Muslims as priests, or Christians as Imams, or ordain women as clergy or even ordain gay men as clergy. This is purely about denying us equality simply because they don’t like us.

  6. Robert A. Cuthbertson, M.D. 14 Feb 2013, 2:21pm

    Why would you want the religious organizations to be involved in this at all? Seriously! The religious organizations have forgotten their history. They once sanctioned marriage equality and they recorded for history those marriages. Some time around 1327 the RCC along with La Palud decided to change how they did business. They victimized same sex couples, made marriage a sacrament based on having children and rewrote history. Now it is our turn. Remove them totally from the equation. Forbid them by law from performing same sex marriages without special training and license.
    That will wake them up in a big hurry. There is no need to argue with them on how this is to be done…you just remove them from the law.

  7. I want it. I look forward to the day churches are dragged before the European Courts and have to defend legally their ‘right’ to discriminate. I make no bones about this and absolutely see gay marriage as the first step towards it. And rightfully so.

    1. I would rather see them buried with their martyrs and saviours with their charitable statuses cut from under them.

      On the first part, they’re doing a good job to themselves already.

      1. Certainly, that is what the catholic church is afraid of, their legal adviser at the committee as much as said so, referring to councils cutting grants, etc.

    2. But don’t you feel as strongly about their discrimination against women?

      Personally I don’t care: I think a club or venue should be gay-men-only if it wants to, so I don’t see why another sort of club (admittedly one with rather more explicitly coded rituals) shouldn’t be able to do the same. And, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I certainly don’t want to be a member of a club that doesn’t want me as a member.

  8. That isn’t what some wanted to hear.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Feb 2013, 3:08pm

    I dare say this will come up again in the Lords in spite of any modifications to the bill. What needs to be done now is to make sure the Lords aren’t overwhelmed by the hateful C4M group’s agenda to the exclusion of all others and are probably at this moment getting ready to bombard the upper chamber with the most spurious nonsense to vote against the bill. We musn’t forget, many of them are a lot older than those in the Commons, many with that old mindset that change is bad.

  10. Don Harrison 14 Feb 2013, 4:10pm

    What is wrong with this man? In the bill, same sex marriages will not forced on any faiths.

    1. Nothing! Pannick is on our side – he was trying to make it clear to the idiotic religionists that they’re not going to be in any way endangered by the introduction of equal marriage.

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.