Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Oxfordshire: Anti-gay marriage activists deliver petition to David Cameron’s constituency office

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why do these people insist on wasting their time now. Marriage equality is almost there so they better get used to it and get on with their sad little lives and find something else to petition about!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 May 2013, 1:03pm

      They’re not even gathering a petition to demand jobs, just like their counterparts of Manif pour Tous. They must think we’re stupid to believe they care so much about the economy above everything else. They still wouldn’t be happy if the economy were in a healty position. This is nothing more than old fashioned homophobia rooted in religious nonsense.

    2. OH MY GOD!! not two hundred and eighty eight people???

      Stop the world! 0.00005% of the population disagree!

      my stars!
      what has become of democracy!!!

      1. Lllll5% of the population is gay. Pot kettle and black. Stop trying to shout down democracy.

  2. That There Other David 1 May 2013, 12:52pm

    Why is it that each of these anti-equality people constantly ignore what’s going on internationally? David Cameron isn’t redefining anything, he’s just trying to bring the UK into line with a redefinition that’s already occurred.

    Public services also includes the administration of society’s structures. This includes the legal administration of marriages, which puts what the current government is doing squarely in the arena of what governments are elected to do.

    1. They think they have Jesus (or Mohammed, Buddha, etc) on their side, that’s why.

  3. “Redefining marriage is a vote-loser”.

    ….and they’re going to vote for whom instead?

    If they’re happy to vote UKIP and risk losing Tory seats to Labour, I for one am happy to go along with their cunning plan.

  4. 288!!!! WOW. Now I AM scared!!

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 1 May 2013, 1:00pm

    288? Is that all? Someone should tell the nutters that the NHS reforms weren’t in the manifesto either. They don’t know how their own political system works obviously. At least EM was in the Contract for Equalities and public knowledge prior to the election. So now 288 are speaking for the British people and 550,000 dubious signatures didn’t exactly send the legislation down in flames did it? It passed with a huge majority in favour. How stupid can people be?

  6. 288 people is a derisory number of signatures for a petition to the PM – I’m amazed they bothered. I live in Oxford and can assure Mr Cameron that the vast majority of people in the county support marriage equality. I think he already knows this.

  7. A mere 288 people! Hopefully Cameron will rightly ignore this tiny minority.

    1. In a nation of over 60million.
      I doubt that Cameron will even get to look at it, it’ll be binned by his Admin staff so fast the physics police will give them a speeding ticket.

  8. Colin (London) 1 May 2013, 1:10pm

    I think we need not react to headlines but look deeper and see that there is a world change going on.

    I wrote to David Cameron simply telling my story of my life. I tried to get the point accross we are a minority group who are asking not for something above the masses but for equality. Economically we add more than our hetrosexuals to our country and actually above politics and religion it’s the right thing to do. The world must move on. Let go of it’s past and embrase change.

    I see he supported us fully. Others in his party do not but due to him it is on the agenda and history will be made soon in the UK.

    I hope we will all regardless of politics thank Mr cameron and find our own ways to thank him.

    His party is struggeling with gay marriage but he shows to me great leadership. I have spend most of my life reorganising failing companies accross Europe and North America.

    People of Britain get behind this man please regardless of politics.

    Think about it before you react.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 May 2013, 1:14pm

      I second that, Colin, well said.

    2. Jane McQueen 1 May 2013, 2:56pm

      Indeed, this is the first time a British Prime minister has been pro-active when it comes to LGBT rights, all the other right from civil partnerships, equal age of consent, employment protection and gender recognition LGBT people have had to fight through the courts all the way to Europe to get those rights. But this one we haven’t we have seen pro-active legislating to give us equal rights in marriage.

      We should be applauding him for doing this regardless which party you prefer, as he has done something for us all without being told to do it by a court.

  9. They did vote and the party they voted in are bringing in equal marriage. Why dont you 288 people actually go out and meet some gay people and try to understand that we are not the enemy.

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 1 May 2013, 1:13pm

    What is this I hear that the equal marriage third reading in the Commons has been postponed until later in the year? Why this bill in particular? Do I smell a rat?

    1. Oh dear-are they back-tracking already??

      In which case-it WILL be a 2015 election issue-maybe THE issue-with Cameron permanently procrastinating on the isue.

    2. No, there’s no backtracking on this. Cameron and the Government won’t let this drop.

  11. Mumbo Jumbo 1 May 2013, 1:15pm

    “The voters of Witney don’t want it”

    A bold claim when there are 78,220 voters in Witney and these creeps can get only 228 people to take the immensely troublesome step of filling in their name on a pro-forma postcard.

    It’s rather sad, really.

    1. Which I make out to be 0.368% of the voters. Gosh, they must be so proud.

  12. We must not laugh at the insane. These are people who believe in talking snakes, evil apple trees, men walking on water, devils, a pit of eternal burning fire for bad people, turning water into wine into the blood of Christ, talking burning bushes… . If it was not so horrible what these people do to themselves, it would be funny.

    1. A generous thought, but then these aren’t people who’re insane due to factors beyond their control, these loons choose their demented beliefs. So I think a highly satisfactory laugh at their expense is more than justifiable.

  13. Look John look! see the wife.
    Look Janet look! see the husband.
    Yes John, the husband is a man and the wife is a woman.
    Yes, marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman Janet.
    Yes John, I suppose that means I will never be able to marry my girlfriend Mary when we grow up.
    Yes that’s right Janet, and I will never be able to marry my boyfriend Bob.
    Oh well then let’s never grow up, then we can stay stuck in the 1950’s forever.

  14. I wonder if this item here on PN is the most publicity their stunt has achieved. I hope so, anyway.

  15. Dear Cicely Maunder.
    Thank you for redefining stupid bigotry for me. X

  16. Jock S. Trap 1 May 2013, 2:25pm

    Organised by C4M, 288 signatures?

    Don’t think much about that. A vote-loser? what on 288 signatures? Get real!

  17. Robert in S. Kensington 1 May 2013, 2:40pm

    So, Cicely Maunder speaks for all Britons Just look at the age of those loons protesting. I see they’re adopting some of the Manif Pour Tous tactics, but just like them, doomed to failure.

  18. Why are the Tory faithful so ignorant of their own party manifestos, and keep stating it was never there. Sure it wasn’t in the main manifesto, but that is because there is a separate equalities manifesto. To ignore this is not to be ignorant of just LGBT issues and what Cameron/May set out to achieve in 2010 towards marriage equality, but is to be ignorant of issues around race, ageism, disability and gender.

    Google “tory equality manifesto 2010″ but here’s what was stated…

    “We support civil partnerships and will recognise civil partnerships in the tax system. Our plans to end the couple penalty in the tax credits system and to introduce a new system of flexible parental leave will apply to all couples, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or same sex couples.
    We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and
    classified as marriage.”

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 May 2013, 5:23pm

      Exactly right, Adam. Even many back bencher Tories don’t quite understand what the equalities contract is and what it implies. None of them whined about the NHS reforms not being the manifesto mind you. This is a case of clutching at straws, an act of desperation by a bunch of losers.

  19. I presume these people’s oppostion is religiously inspired? If so, I’d suggest they find a religion which isn’t so selective in its choice of ‘sins’. The biblke is either a rule book … or it isn’t. You can’t pick and choose. So do these people observe ALL biblical rules on ‘sin’ or just those which fit meatly in with their own bigotry?

  20. Only 288? Wow that is pitiful! Why the hell bother delivering that? I really think some people need to get a life.

  21. Today, my husband and I celebrate our 4th wedding anniversary.

    We’ve been together for over 10 years now, and decided to take the big step and get married. It’s been wonderful. It hasn’t changed anything significantly, but, I can say “my husband” now and it’s legal.

    He accompanied me through a difficult hospital stay, because he’s my husband.

    He will inherit everything I own and the rights to my work, after I die, because he’s my husband.

    We share an income tax return, because he’s my husband. Those years one of us makes more or less than the other are compensated by shared deductions.

    I live in Canada.

    We are so happy that our cousins across the Atlantic will soon have the chance to share marriage.

    We love you.
    M & M (yeah yeah, we actually have the same first name)

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 May 2013, 5:19pm

      Thank you, Mikey and congratulations on your 4th anniversary. We will win!

  22. Don Harrison 1 May 2013, 5:39pm

    How marriage has been redefined over the past 500 years.

    Its interesting how marriage has been redefined a number of times in the past, not just in 2013 with our equal marriage legislation:

    Prior to 1856 boys could get married at the age of 14 and girls at 12 (in Scotland at least).

    Prior to 1907 a man could not marry his deceased wives sister. This was changed by the Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Act 1907.

    Prior to 2006 (in Scotland) it was still possible to form a marriage by “cohabitation with repute”. Some of the rules for defining this in law were odd things like whether your clothes were washed together at the same time, whether you ate together etc.

    Prior to 1967 in the USA interracial marriage was illegal in many states.

    Prior to 1857 in England divorce was not commonly available. This was changed by the 1857 the Matrimonial Causes Act.

    In 1836 the marriage laws in the UK were changed to allow non religious marriages in registry offices.

    1. and if you add the changes since biblical times (all those “biblical standards” are pretty awful, if you ask me), marriage has probably been “redefined” more time than any other societal concept in history.

    2. It never fails to amaze me the way these “Christians” who’re worried about “redefining” marriage conveniently overlook the fact that this country’s state religion was partly founded to enable divorce. A man having two (or more) wives living is a redefinition of the lifelong contract these so-called traditionalists promote, is it not? Yet, oddly enough, they don’t appear to get anywhere near as het-up about divorce.

      Nowt so queer as folk.

  23. theGentleWarrior 1 May 2013, 10:46pm

    288 people put their names to a list, that’s great news.

    Now if those 288 names could enter the public domain some how.

    The ship of Government is the only ship that leaks from the top, – Yes Minister

  24. Surely such a feeble petition is self-defeating, since it highlights the lack of opposition to SSM, rather than the opposite?

  25. John Richardss 19 May 2013, 12:05pm

    Not re-defining? Marriage has always been about the union of man and woman. If two men or two women “marry” the definition has to be altered. Many of us don’t want it altered- and we don’t live sad lives

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all