Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Top family lawyer: The government should stop ‘faffing around with gay marriage’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Perhaps Baroness Butler Shloss and the likes of Burrowes and Loughton should stop faffing around with stopping SSM. Perhaps she and the govt should stop faffing around with tax breaks for married couples ..

    I don’t know where this article got her voting record from but she’s down as voting strongly against LGBT rights. She and Shirley Williams (LibDem) raised an amendemnt to exclude catholic adoption agencies and old people’s homes from offering services to gay couples, she’s part of the anti gay marriage foundation charity and her first line in the prayer to scupper religious CPs was that she had been inclined to vote against it.

    It really gets me why a 79 yr old granny is still in the HoL , ponitficating about marriage rights for people mostly in the 20 to 40 yr range.

    Lets all start writing to this old fogies and tell that we want SSM. The battle has obviously shifted to the HoL and it looks like it’s going to be an uphill struggle…

    1. Can we not resort to ugly ageism? Prejudice against older people is just as unacceptable and unpleasant as homophobia and racism. “A 79 yr old granny” has just the same right to express a view as a 29 or 49 year old. We can agree to disagree with her views but not by sneering at her age. I am half the baroness’s age but find the ‘old fogie’ name-calling as offensive as an anti-gay/jewish/racial epithet.

    2. @john

      Reading your first two paragraphs, I was about to upvote you.

      However, when you descended into crude ageism I changed to a downvote.

      It’s her views that are unacceptable, not her age. And why dismiss those who wish to marry but happen to be over 40?

      Sadly, you are every bit as prejudiced as the Baroness.

      1. theey gto togetehr. In the old days it was called hardening of the arteries.

        its really hardening of the human spirit

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Mar 2013, 12:19pm

      I agree. The thing is, nobody in the House will counter her ridiculous statement. None of them ever do. They just let them rant without as much as a challenge to come forward with any evidence to support their spurious statements. I just don’t understand it.

  2. “She said that there was an urgent need for a new look at the law in order to prevent unmarried mothers being left with no home, income or rights if they are left by their partners, which she said was “profoundly unfair”.

    I thought it was the likes of her and Baroness O’Caithian who were the ones so strongly against any kind of partnerships scheme outside of marriage. For people like Baroness O’caithian its marriage (straight!) or nothing.

    Isn’t there a bill already out there in the HoL set up by Lord Lester looking at partnerships schemes which people like Baroness O’caithian have already spoken out against.

    “She went on to say that that Marriage (same sex couples) Bill could lead to “immorality”

    Is she bonkers? How does she define “immorlaity”, being gay I suppose. Does she thing that the only thing that stops people from committing adultery is the fact that it is in the divorce laws. No, I’m not going to suddenly start being immoral becuase the SSM doesn’t have adultery in it.

  3. “I think it is a destruction of the word ‘marriage’, which has been understood for many years to mean what the Christians say it does”

    She’s hit the nail on the head there. It is because of what traditional Christianity said about homosexuality that we were persucuted, imprisoned, alienated & excluded from ‘marriage’ for ‘many years’. It is traditional Christianity that is the problem. That is why 9/10ths of the SSM Bill is taken up with protecting them from being contaminated by us.

    Fortunately organised religion has declined rapidly & many denominations are coming to a more rational understanding & do not want to perpetuate the old ways.

    It is no part pf the job of the Government to impose one religious view of marriage on evryone else. They have their opt outs and it ill befits them to seek to damage our lives further.

    This article really throws the spotlight on the HoL – nobody elected this person, she is answerable to no-one. Why is she (or any of them there?

  4. I also note that the Telegraph’s newpaper friends at the Daily Mail have an aritcle out from another bigotted peer , Lord Carey. Here’s what Sky has to say about it

    http://news.sky.com/story/1071641/lord-carey-attacks-david-cameron-on-religion

    That makes the third peer in the last week to start criticising this bill , the other being Lord Dear. Forget the commons , C4M have start on the Lords and we’re yet to get a third reading on the bill.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Mar 2013, 1:22pm

      You’re right, C4M have started a campaign aimed at the Lords. Lord Dear’s could well come to fruition and there’s no guarantee that Maria Miller will invoke the Parliament Act even though she alluded to it. Unless she confirms it, although I suspect she won’t be unable after the vote. There’s every chance the bill will be rejected. I wonder why we haven’t heard from any peers who support EM? We’re always hearing from the opposition, never the supporters.

  5. As a “Christian” she is laying claim to marriage.
    This is plain old religious bigotry with all the usual excuses trying to dress it up as something else.

  6. To keep young and beautiful,
    put a Marcel-Tidal-Wave in your hair.
    That’s quite a tsunami really.

  7. It is people like Butler Shloss who are causing so much “faffing around”. The usual bigotry disguised as concern.

  8. ColinJones 30 Mar 2013, 7:40am

    George Osborne said recently that the Tories had to go ahead with gay marriage or they’d end up like the U.S. Republicans so this is all really about the Tories’ image and that’s probably why Cameron isn’t worried about other issues around marriage, just saying.

  9. Butler-Sloss and her ilk can reduce the amount of time being spent “faffing” by choosing not to oppose marriage equality in the Lords. Otherwise it is she who would force the matter to be the subject of Parliamentary ping-pong, wasting – in her eyes – more time.

    “Know when to hold ‘em, know when the fold ‘em” always seemed sound advice for unelected peers.

  10. Many idiots bring this up constantly. It’s beyond their comprehension that there is no such thing as “gay rights”, “gay marriage”, etc, there are only HUMAN RIGHTS, ffs. And if they get it, but still argue, I mean if an adult person tells me there are more important things then human rights, then it’s just pathetic. Luckily the world (by that I mean a few civilised countries) seems to be moving forward and understanding this and calling the morons on it, even though it’s at an agonisingly slow pace.

  11. dorset bob 30 Mar 2013, 8:19am

    the one positive aspect to take from the rantings of these christians, Butler shloss, carey widdecombe ect is that they are all ancient and will be dead soon , hopefully their bigoted views will die out with them.Its time that myth based moral views were forgotten.

  12. People have been having non religious marriages in register office for years, where has she been?

    1. The majority of people have non religious marriages, and have done so for some time now.

      1. But apparently they’re all OK with her (and single mothers too). So all those ‘reasons’ she gave are rubbish, and she has only one true reason for opposing us – bigotry.

  13. GulliverUK 30 Mar 2013, 8:32am

    Dreadful homophobic person.

    You said “Top Family Lawyer”, I think I’d have prefaced that with “Former”, in which case I’ve no interest in what homophobic mutterings she has to say – she speaks only for herself.

    It’s comforting to know she can no longer damage families with her nonsense views, but obviously she would have a vote in the House of Lords :( As far as I can see she hasn’t been involved in the judiciary since 2005.

    1. de Villiers 31 Mar 2013, 7:45pm

      I am not sure that she is dreadfully homophobic. She seems to have spoken out in support of gay adoption.

      1. She was a judge at that time. What else could she do. She had to act within the confines of the law. As a peer she raised an amendment to the equality act to allow opts out for catholic adoption agencies to not serve gay couples . Thankfully her amendment failed.

  14. What an unbelievably nasty, cruel and prejudiced statement! :(

    She can only think allowing LGBT people to marry is “attacking” marriage if she believes that we’ll somehow ‘pollute’ it. What a disgusting thing to imply.

    And then she goes on to ‘immorality’. Well, in my opinion, the most immoral people are those who need a bl**dy book to tell them what’s right and wrong, and don’t have the humanity to work it out for themselves!

    Every word that oozes from her lips tells me that she thinks I’m a lesser person simply because of my sexuality. I find it completely outrageous that someone who held such a high position can think like that. And to think she has any say in our rights is shocking. Reading cr*p like this is depressing.

  15. And I used to think she was so sensible.
    Sheesh.

  16. She’s not that bright really. equal marriage neither redefines nor attacks marriage. If she’s worried about the meaning of a word rather than the lives of people, she is indeed bigoted. Also, it’s not for her to decide what benefits within society I should have, and again she demonstrates her bigotry by claiming otherwise. Her definition hasn’t been around for millennia either, and Christianity has been around far less than 2000 years. Marriage equality will only effect those to whom it applies, people currently denied the right to marry. She is also ignoring the fact that many christians would like to see marriage equality, as well as jews and muslims, and there are gay jews muslims and Christians, so again she’s demonstrating not only her bigotry, but her lack of intelligence too. Also, governments can tackle more than one issue at a time, how dumb is she to think that they can’t? And, the ban on equal marriage is also a wrong, so once again she is showing her bigotry.

  17. For a judge, she seems to have a poor understanding of marriage law.

    People have been getting divorced on the grounds of their spouse’s same-sex affairs for years. This is known as “unreasonable behaviour” and has precisely the same implications for a marriage as opposite-sex “adultery”, i.e. the non-cheater can demand a quickie divorce. (There is one significant difference – the person with whom the spouse is having the affair need not be named in an unreasonable behaviour case).

    The idea that extra-marital relationships will be permitted in same-sex marriages is absolute nonsense.

    Gay spouses will have exactly the same rights to divorce cheating spouses as straights do.

    And married gays will have no more – and no less – right to ignore the extra-marital sex and remain happily married if what Lady Butler-Sloss calls “immorality” is their idea of a fun Saturday night.

  18. Maybe she could just “faff”off.

  19. It so disappointing – and depressing – that even a person of Butler-Sloss’s obvious intelligence and enormous experience with allow her religion to derail her into nonsense.

    1. Exactly my thoughts too!!!

    2. de Villiers 31 Mar 2013, 7:47pm

      It is odd – particularly when she has spoken out in favour of gay adoption.

  20. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Mar 2013, 12:17pm

    Same sex marriage could lead to immorality? Laughable! She ought to have a word with Sir Roger Gale about that one, a serial adulterer as well as Tory MPs Blackman and Dorries.

    She can’t even provide one shred of evidence as to how equal marriage attacks marriage. Does it prevent heteros from marrying in churches and elsewhere. Will it prevent any of them from marrying in the future, will it prevent them from procreating? I urge her to come forward with the irrefutable evidence which I’m sure she has. Stupid twat.

  21. “destruction of the word ‘marriage’” – so two loving people who want to publicly commit their lives together will destroy marriage? I think the Kardashians and Britney Spears of the world are doing a fine job of that on their own.

  22. “She said that she spoke partly out of her own Christianity, but that her stance on the issue went beyond religion.” BULLSHIT! The psycho in the sky does not own marriage, it is a social, civil, contract administered by the government, it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, whereas your opposition is entirely religiously based.

  23. The focus on ‘procreation’ always makes me laugh- what about straight couples who can’t or choose not to have kids? And really, with the problems overpopulation is causing in the world, do we need even MORE babies?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Mar 2013, 1:19pm

      They’ve come up with a new response to that one. They now use ‘sexual complementarity’. It’s the obsession with the sexual ‘plumbing’ while stating that it’s not a reason to deny a hetero couple a marriage. It’s a recent m.o. they’re now employing and are now saying that procreation “may” result from such a union, not that it must always do. Cunning and convenient.

      1. Ooh, I think my partner and I complement each other just fine. We even compliment each other, once in a while! ;-)

  24. It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling just knowing that 99% of these anti-marriage equality twits have one foot in the grave and the other on a greasy slope!

    It’s clear that the future of the homophobic, anti-marriage equality movement is bleak and very near death in the UK and the US. France, for some reason, seems to have a lot of young bigots.

  25. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Mar 2013, 1:15pm

    Adultery is unreasonable behaviour. They have the gall to say that CPs and marriage is a question of semantics, really both the same? Yet they get into a hissy fit because adultery might have to be altered to reflect someone’s behaviour? Talk about double-standards and hypocrisy. Semantics again, you sillycow?

  26. Like the dreadful, Roman Catholic Shirley Williams, the woman is a bigot.

  27. Her definition of marriage must be of a very low standard if marriage itself will ‘destroy’ marriage.

  28. Quentin Crisp

    1. Yes, that’s exactly what I thought when I commented earlier about the big wave this Quentin Crisp impersonator has set in it’s hair, though several people have thought it worthwhile to give my comment a thumbs down, but then they probably don’t have a clue.

  29. Paul Essex/London 30 Mar 2013, 2:11pm

    Such a shame to read this. I have a lot of respect for this women r.e. her views in many other areas, she fought hard to oppose some of the more idiotic things the government was trying to push through on the recent Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment Offenders Bill for example. She is very much in touch on a great deal of social issues surrounding family life but alas on this she is woefully ignorant (possibly by choice). I am inclined to think that this is very much due to the generation she’s from, and it’s so disappointing that she isn’t one of the group of her piers who have the integrity in dealing with the this issue that she’s shown in so many other areas. Unfortunately this just shows how narrow minded she, like a great many otherwise liberal thinkers, can be on issues that have never affected her.

  30. Here’s the problem, lady; my getting married doesn’t destroy marriage and your statement that it would is filthy, vile and disgusting. Thank you for your support of some of my civil rights, but now you’ve gone too far. Divorce and infidelity destroy marriage, not me getting married.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Mar 2013, 7:01pm

      Divorce and serial divorce are overwhelmingly heterosexual phenomena. Last time I checked, it was that which is a threat to marriage and has been since marriage as we know it has existed. Hetero marriage has been on the decline for over 30 years. Why is it I wonder that heterosexuals haven’t suddenly stopped marrying altogether if equal marriage in eleven countries has changed the meaning of marriage? Carey needs to provide evidence. Someone should ask him.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Mar 2013, 7:02pm

        Oops, I meant Lady Butler needs to come forward with the evidence.

  31. Top lawyer 100 years ago –

    “Government should stop faffing around with Women’s voting rights and equality when there is so much more to be done.”

    Bigoted bltch.

  32. Oh here we go again… that familiar phrase! ‘Lead to the destruction of the definition of marriage’…

    Listen. Marriage is being redefined. It is as simple as that. Get used to it.

  33. Craig Nelson 30 Mar 2013, 7:49pm

    I agree 100%. Stop faffing around and get it passed and then we can move to more important matters. Technically it is not actually the government doing it as it was an all party majoriy on a free vote pn botth sides of the aisle. It is the Parliament that is doing it.

    The House of Commons has considered the Bill at second reading and voted by a hefty majority to pass it, following which it has passed its committee stage. There only remains report and third reading left. It would be a strange subversion of Parliament to withdraw its Bill now after so much work has gone into it and it has a significant cross party majority.

    As to the Lords, they can do as they please. We are always told how wonderful the Lords are because they are an amending and improving chamber and don’t challenge the supremacy of the Commons. If they block this Bill they will simply tarnish their own reputation and lead, eventually, to the Parliament Act being invoked.

    1. Mark van Fistenberg 30 Mar 2013, 8:05pm

      CAN SOMEONE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TELL THIS BIGOTED BITCH TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT, BECAUSE HER WORDS STINK WORSE THAN HELL, IF YOU ASK ME. I PROPOSE 2 ALTERNATIVES FOR HER TO CHOOSE BETWEEN (IN NO SPECIFIC ORDER): either MARRIAGE OPEN FOR ALL as they desire (MM|FF|MF|FM|TM|MT|FT|TF), or alternatively DECLARE MARRIAGE A THING BEING HISTORY FOR ALL. Leaving aside the whole church matter, I still do tend to view it on a much broader|wider basis, also in relationship to immigration reform for same-sex couples (not only in the USA and UK, but on a global scale).

  34. For a moment I thought she was going to say something constructive and positive and then I hit “she said legalising equal marriage would not give gay couples any significant new benefits, but would lead to the destruction of the definition of marriage.”

    I stopped reading at that point! Not interested in reading yet another bible thumping bigots opinion!

    1. And if it doesn’t give gay couples any benefits..why do straight people marry?

      stupid woman!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 31 Mar 2013, 3:19pm

      I wonder if the tables were turned on these bigots. What if gays were the only ones allowed to marry and religious cults supported it but straights were relegated to CPs. I don’t think they’d be prepared to live as second class citizens and subject to the same discrimination as we are. It’s hypothetical, but needs to be put to them and the same question, that equal marriage wouldn’t give straight couples any significant new benefits.

  35. just look at the picture of that old witch. Time and the maggots will solve her problem.

  36. Just say NO to religious tyranny

    1. de Villiers 31 Mar 2013, 7:52pm

      She is hardly for religious tyranny – see below.

      1. As a committed Catholic yourself you are no doubt too close to see it.

      2. de Villiers 1 Apr 2013, 12:03am

        And you are too far from it to focus clearly.

        1. Can’t get far enough away unfortunately, your fellow Catholics and other Christians won’t stop interfering in my life.

  37. de Villiers 31 Mar 2013, 7:51pm

    Throwing words such as “bigoted bitch” really are simplistic.

    This judge seems to oppose gay marriage because she considers that civil partnerships are sufficient. However, she spoke out publicly in favour of gay adoption – when she said, “We should not close our minds to suitable families who are clearly not within the old fashioned approach.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/476112.stm

    For this she was criticised by the Christian group “family focus”.

    Her position is more nuanced than people are have allowed.

    1. She a retired judge who is now in the HoL. She is a retire family lawyer. She spoke out in favour of gay adoption in line with current British law. What do you expect a judge to do. As a peer she has been quite different though. What proof do you have that as peer she supports LGBT rights. She is down as voting vert strongly against all LGBT legislation. Can you distinguish what she has to do a judge in her previous role and what she does now?

    2. de Villiers 1 Apr 2013, 12:07am

      She didn’t have to say anything in favour of gay adoption. She could have kept quiet. In any case, I did not say she supported LGBT rights – merely that she was not black/white, good/evil in the manner of so many people here (a failure also of George W Bush).

      1. Nuanced anti-gay discrimination?

        Does that really sound so much better than just anti-gay discrimination …to you I guess it must do but to me it just looks like dressing anti-gay discrimination up in drag to make it look a bit like something else.

  38. The Kitty Channel 5 Apr 2013, 12:48am

    Marriage has been redefined many times by the laws that allowed women to own property, retain their own earnings, vote, and petition for divorce. Henry VIII, while still married to Catherine of Aragon, had an affair with and then married Anne Boleyn (1532-33), then obtained a ruling that his marriage to Catherine was void. That happened long after he had married Catherine in 1503 expecting to obtain a dispensation from the Pope allowing him to do what the Old Testament and ecclesiastical law forbade, namely marry the wife of a deceased brother (in Henry VIII’s case, his brother Arthur, Catherine’s first husband). The matter was so scandalous that Henry VIII promoted the Act of Succession (1533) which validated the marriage to Anne Boleyn and called on everyone in the kingdom to swear an oath recognising the marriage to Anne. Anyone refusing could be imprisoned for life, and anyone alleging that the marriage to Anne was invalid was to be deemed guilty of high treason and executed.

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