Reader comments · Spectator columnist: ‘Katie Price demeans marriage more than gay marriage ever could’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Spectator columnist: ‘Katie Price demeans marriage more than gay marriage ever could’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. At last, someone is finally saying in print what we have been saying for a very long time.

    He should also have mentioned the 72 hour marriage for Brittney Spears and that debacle of a sham wedding carried out by Kim Kardashian!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2013, 5:35pm

      And Kardashian is pregnant with another man’s baby, not yet divorced from her husband. Why is it that opponents of equal marriage aren’t devoting their time and energy to that if they claim they’re so concerned about marriage and it’s breakdown which has absolutely nothing to do with introducing equal marriage. Hetero marriage has been on the decline for over 30 years, long before any legal unions for gay couples were legal or even a blip on the radar.

      1. Who cares what Kardashian is doing.

        Individual people’s marriages have nothing to do with marriage equality.

        Marriage is a contract – nothing more.

        It is not fair to blame individual straight people for the failure of the institution of marriage

        1. Kardashian is not white and she’s dating a black man this site is full of gay right wing bigots.

          1. Kim Kardashian is “not white”? Seriously? By what reckoning?

        2. I think you have missed the point entirely. He is just pointing out the hypocrisy of those opposed to equal marriage who say it would demean marriage. While none of them ever mention the everyday demeaning of marriage by the same media who oppose it.

          Katie Price is a good example of that media hypocrisy. She has made a career from having weddings. Good luck to her, but she is demeaning marriage and none of the hypocrites and religionists are doing anything about that sort of activity or even care.

    2. Britney only lasted 55 hours. The shame.

  2. Perfectly sensible article of course, the only quite startling surprise being that the Spectator actually published it.

  3. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2013, 4:27pm

    Nicely put and a good analogy from a conservative! He could have mentioned the three Tory arch bigots who voted against EM, i.e. serial hetero adulterer Sir Roger Gale, MPs Blackman and Dorries demeaning marriage, that it isn’t necessarily a generational thing of the Kardashian, Spears and Price ilk.

  4. Jock S. Trap 3 Apr 2013, 4:35pm

    Oh hear, hear!! Well said.

    Guess the bigots will always ignore this though coz it means acknowledging facts.

  5. Kieran is a lovely guy and he was quite active on Facebook. The moment he married the control freak his on-line activity stopped.

  6. Not just Katie Price but some of the more outspoken, blustering opponents of marriage equality.

    They will sometimes refer to the bible but ignore what the bible says about adultery and divorce. Breath taking hypocrisy.

    1. Lest we forget, or for those who missed –

      Only commentary track necessary…

  7. What a mean spirited article.

    Who cares that Jordan has remarried (or indeed that Britney got married for 72 hours.)

    Marriage is a civil contract denied to gay people solely because they are gay.

    Belittling other people’s reasons for getting married is unnecessary.

    When we have marriage equality we can treat the marriage contract how we please.

    I’m getting quite worried about all the rhetoric about marriage equality.

    I really hope that single people, or promiscuous people or anyone other than your average couple, is not going to be seen as ‘lesser’ simply because they have not entered the civil contract of marriage

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2013, 5:44pm

      Well, actually gay people are seen as lesser simply because we’re supposed to be content with CPs which have become a very useful tool for equal marriage foes, many of whom don’t even think we should even have them. That’s why there is resistance to introducing CPs for heterosexuals who don’t want to marry because it enforces a demand for equal marriage to level the field. It could be used as an argument by the opposition that equal marriage is diminishing marriage by allowing heteros to opt for something less which would in fact expose their bigotry, that CPs really aren’t equal when it applies to the heterosexual even though they keep banging on about how equal they are.

      1. True.

        But that has nothing to do with Jordan though.

    2. I think you missed the point, Steve. He’s really attacking the anti-equal marriage lobby, not Katie Price.

      1. he is attacking the anti equal marriage lobby AND Katie price

        totally agree with SteveC – so what if Jordan and Kim K choose to live how they do – live and let live…

        They have been successful in life so good luck to them.

      2. So how would you feel if it was you? I’d feel insulted, she’s no worse than millions who treat marriage the same.

    3. Isn’t it a valid point to make to those who claim the ‘institution’ of marriage will be somehow demeaned or undermined by opening it to same-sex couples?

      1. Jordan has never demeaned same sex marriage equality, so what’s the point in attacking her?

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2013, 6:16pm

          It’s not mocking her per se, but the fact that a heterosexual can opt in and out of marriage as many times as they wish, even on a whim. He’s trying to portray the double-standard and the hypocrisy of the opposition to EM who rarely ever target people such as Price or any other celebrity. They never ever singled out or criticised Sir Roger Gale, Nadine Dorries or Bob Blackman for that matter. Murray’s article was spot on and he’s exposed the hypocrisy and the bigotry of the opposition in doing so as well as debunked their rationale for opposing civil marriage for gay couples.

        2. SteveC. It’s a right wing class thing. Jordan has gay friends and seems a leftish so she’s easy to attack.

        3. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2013, 7:21pm

          He’s not attacking her but what her second marriage represents. She just happened to be a convenient example of the casual approach many heterosexuals regard marriage and divorce. Individuals are indeed responsible for the breakdown of their own marriages, usually adultery in most cases. If the opponents of equal marriage are so concerned about the stability and future of hetero marriage that some take lightly and frivolously, then they should be addressing that, not attacking gays for wanting access. That’s what Douglas Murray was addressing. They should be spending all their time and resources by addressing the the shortcomings of heteros in their own back yard, those who are responsible and actually the threat to the stability of marriage as a result of adultery and divorce, often several times over. Granting marriage to gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with that. We weren’t responsible for the decline in marriage before and we certainly won’t be after the fact.

          1. Prince Charles did worse and he paid to set an example.

          2. You’re wrong, it is attacking her personally. If it were you, how would you feel at being used as an example of the decline of society, especially to defend something you already agree with? Hardly seems fair.

  8. Well said. Two people who don’t love each other have more right to be married than two people who do love each other.

    Messed up.

  9. Hodge Podge 3 Apr 2013, 11:35pm

    This. While I agree with the basic point of the article, he’s picked on what the Spectator no doubt sees as a chavvy slut to make his point, which isn’t good.

    1. Yes, it’s true 3 of the Queen’s 4 children have divorced, and 2 of them have remarried. However, I think part of the point about the writer choosing Katie Price is the trivialising of the ceremonies involved, the ludicrous parodies of “fairytale weddings” that are repeatedly – and very publicly – performed. If you’re to say that there’s something special about male-female marriage and its associated wedding rituals, then it has to be said that Price is, in fact, doing a pretty good job of rendering it all meaningless – as are a lot of other people, less well-known.

      1. Katie price is not paid to set an example.. He queen stayed married to the boorish prince without question. Respect to her. The rest were happy to take our money but do what they want. They have done more damage to marriage that her. She is an easy target

        1. I see where you’re coming from but I’m on a slightly different tack, which is more to do with the damaging effects of shallow and trivialised spectacles – Price has also made a lot of money from her all-show-and-no-substance weddings, hasn’t she?

          And I’m not sure that the terms & conditions of the Civil List are based on staying married any more (though it certainly is arguable that the easiness of divorce in general today does a pretty good job of undermining the ‘traditional’ concept of marriage).

  10. How many more times will Katie be used as an example in ANY conversation regarding marriage? Three marriages isn’t actually that outrageous today (i’m not saying it’s okay, of course) but why attack her yet again!? Will you be writing about EVERY other person in the country to be married 3 times? I personally know at least five!!
    Trying to compare this with gay marriage is a bit desperate and way off the mark if you ask me. Completely unrelated!
    I do see the point you are trying to make, but please, please, please, not another article about Katie getting married! Let’s find someone else to pick on every five minutes shall we! I’m so bored of this subject!

  11. Generally well said but it’s perhaps dangerous to stray into the area of citing named examplars. The point is that any heterosexual couple over the age of consent can enter into and exit from as many marriages as they want without a by-your-leave. There’s no fit-to-marry test or a limit on the number of times you can do it. I don’t say all of that’s wrong but. It serves to weaken the notion that marriage is the exalted institution that its proponents claim it is. If that behaviour doesn’t undermine it then how will we manage to; and why are we so much worse than those whose behaviour screams their contempt for it? As I see it I should have the right to marry and the intelligence not to.

  12. Paul Brownsey 4 Apr 2013, 9:53am

    “With her latest marriage to a 26-year-old stripper, ”

    How many other marriages has she had with a 26-year-old stripper?

    Commas needed after “marriage”.

  13. He is hot, too bad he’s taken!

    All the good hot looking ones are always taken!

  14. @ Paul: Doubtless not for long… ;-)

  15. Gay marriage could not and never will demean marriage in any way.

  16. It’s a fair point, though it hardly seems fair to lash out at her, she probably supports gay marriage. There are loads of people who treat marriage similarly badly.

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.