So what exactly DID he mean with his “Brothers and Sisters” comment? I think I can smell MORE TORY BULLSHIT!
He’s trying to back pedal because I’m sure he’s received some very angry emails from supporters of equal marriage. He’s such a liar. I listened to his rant on February 5th. He made himself look like a bloody raving idiot and a bigot of course. The affrontery of a serial adulterer to stand there and rail against equal marriage was breath-taking.
He’s pretending that he really cares about the domestic and financial situations of siblings living together and not having any protections, but what he’s alluding to while not saying it, is that incestuous relationships might as well be sanctioned under law. He’s baiting the anti equal marriage haters. Does he takes us for fools? The man is irrational, illogical and just a bloody foolish bigoted hypocrite, as well as a serial adulterer and divorcé. He’s not fit be in Parliament and is hardly in a position to make moral pronouncements given his martial behaviour. He’s the epitomy of a bigot.
Forcefully put, Robert, AND you are 100% bang-on!
…marital behaviour… was what I meant.
‘Martian behaviour’ would describe it equally well, he’s on a different planet. :-)
Excellent, Gerry, and Robert!!!
He’s pretending that he really cares about the domestic and financial situations of siblings living together and not having any protections, but what he’s alluding to while not saying it, is that incestuous relationships might as well be sanctioned under law. He’s baiting the anti equal marriage haters. Does he takes us for fools? The man is irrational, illogical and just a bloody foolish bigoted hypocrite, as well as a serial adulterer and divorcé. He’s not fit be in Parliament and is hardly in a position to make moral pronouncements given his marital behaviour. He’s the epitomy of a bigot.
ROGER GALE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING
What WAS he doing, John? It would help if you could elaborate.
He was espousing the same nonsense last year after the consultation. I think that’s what John was referring to. Thanet Council was one of the first to actually endorse equal marriage, ironically which prompted bigot Gale to rant.
I believe it’s known as a Wrecking Amendment.
He thinks it is but I can’t imagine such nonsense would ever be considered for inclusion in the bill. It’s just ludicrous,not fit for print. The desperate rant of a lunatic.
What a totally corrupted and sneaky individual this is! It’s difficult to believe that he was once a pirate-radio disc jockey!
His arguing that a new form of “truly equal” marriage should include siblings is a remarkably, insidiously, and cunning way of making absolutely sure that queers never get to share “our sacred institution of marriage”.
This hateful man’s homophobia runs SO DEEP that he is prepared to introduce legislation and extend extraordinary financial benefits to siblings who live together in order to make sure that queers are kept OUT OF MARRIAGE.
Shame, shame, shame! This dinosaur needs to pass on.
Roger Gale has been married three times, firstly to Wendy Dawn Bowman in 1964, whom he divorced in 1967, in 1971 he married Susan Linda Sampson and they had a daughter – they too divorced in 1980. Later the same year he married Susan Gabrielle Marks and they have two sons.
“Roger Gale has been married three times,..”
So he loves traditional marriage so much he’s done it three times! What’s wrong with that? 3 more and he will catch up with the founder of the Anglican church!
I was hoping a supportive MP during the debate on February 5th would have mentioned the real threat to marriage are heterosexuals who commit adultery and divorce, sometimes several times and banned by the church from having a religious ceremony. It would have killed the myth about gays suing churches and the other myth that allowing us to marry would devalue hetero marriage. I wonder why nobody bothered? It’s not too late, Perhaps someone will do just that for good measure. It would shut this old dinosaur up once and for all and make people like Burrowes think twice before he opens his mouth.
Like Nadine Dorries, who initiated an affair with a married man?
I rather hope we get a full rundown on how is screwing who over the next few months, because I’m sure there’s a lot of it going on in Parliament – all that cheap booze, and the dozens of bars.
Nadine Dorries appears to be screwing us all: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/15/nadine-dorries-investigated-expenses
14:14:35 for Gale.
People were quite clear that what he was saying was quite inappropriate to them. Also a very stupid proposal as if everyone in the UK got a Civil Union how would they fare when abroad, or emigrating? Few other places in the world would recognise such a creation.
Also, this is something put forward by the Roman Catholic Church recently, saying countries could create private civil laws for partnerships, which would not be considered families (in the case of gay couples), by the church, and leave marriage as a church-only concept.
Nice – trying to align our relationships with that of siblings and trying to neuter them of all sexual content.
This is a daft argument that was rolled out when CPs were being brought in. It seeks to undermine our love and our relationships. If Roger cares so much about siblings, why has he not mentioned this civil union idea in all the time we’ve had straight civil marriage? That’s a rhetorical question, of course…
Adoption rights were settled well over a decade ago. What on earth are crusty old bigots still going on about it for. They passed the frigging law.
Do they not accept laws passed by Parliament ?
Look, the ‘civil union” argument has been used since the civil partnership legislation. The idea was that it would be a legal framework for tax avoidance in inheritance. It has nothing whatsoever to do with incest but rather would allow friends, siblings, parent and child cohabitees etc to pre register their status so that death duties did not leave them without a roof over their head.
As I. Understand it the argument ran that there were far fewer gay people who would benefit from CPs than the wider population that would benefit from a CU register.
It is a dead end policy suggestion but nothing to do with incest.
And yes, as Robert said above, it is a wrecking amendment that stands no chance of success
Since the deviant brigade assert that what happens amongst consenting adults in the bedroom is nobody’s business, on which grounds would the homodeviants> be opposed to consensual homosexual adult incest?
Obviously there would be no genetic risk and the old chestnut about ‘power’ which can also apply to any non incestuous relationship yet power is not a legal factor in any adult relationship.
So come on deviants. On which grounds do you oppose consensual adult incest?