Reader comments · Methodist peer Lord Griffiths: ‘I support gay rights but not same-sex marriage’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Methodist peer Lord Griffiths: ‘I support gay rights but not same-sex marriage’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. bobbleobble 9 May 2013, 3:29pm

    What a load of nonsensical waffle. I also resent the implication that those who want marriage extended to gay couples are not decent and ordinary.

    In any event the use of the word is important or else why were we denied its use in the first place. If this is just semantics then there’s no need to object and he should be voting for the bill. If however marriage means something more then denying us access to it is plain old discrimination and by voting against he undermines his previous support for gay rights.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2013, 4:10pm

      In a hypothetical setting, I wonder if he would approve of abolishing marriage altogether and replacing it with CPs since he and his ilk believe they are equal and just a question of semantics? Now that would really call his bluff and expose the collective bigotry of the opposition. They should all be asked that very question? If I were an MP in support of equal marriage, that would be one of the first questions I’d put to the House on May 20th and 21st.

  2. If you don’t support gay marriage you ignorant fool then you Don’t support gays rights which are the right to equality which means the right to marry –

    It’s as bad a racists saying they support black rights but not the right for blacks to vote or marry whites –

  3. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2013, 3:41pm

    If he sees no difference between civil marriage and civil partnerships, then he should be among the first to extend the latter to straight couples who don’t want to marry, but he won’t will he? I’m sick of these bigots trying to say CPs are equal, they most certainly are not and that’s why they’re not called marriages under the law. The CP registry is bereft of love for one’s partner as expressed in the civil marriage vows. It is what it is, just a register that two same-sex couples sign,
    nothing more. You only have to take one step outside the UK to prove the point. You should see the hurdles a CP’d foreign born partner has to go through to get residency in the UK compared to next to nothing for a straight foreigner intending to marry a British national.

    This bigot should explain why CPs haven’t caught on in the rest of the civilised world, only two countries (UK and Ireland) with slightly fewer rights in Irealnds and 14 countries with equal marriage.

  4. “I support gay rights… well, SOME gay rights.. not all of them.. because gays don’t deserve all of the same rights.. but I do support the few that I do support”

    1. I support the few that I do support because it’s too late not to now.

      1. Exactly. These people push back where and when it’s politically acceptable

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2013, 4:04pm

    Why should blood religion be allowed to meddle in the legislative process? I’m sick and tired of these f_cking bigots getting the upper hand, especially unelected ones who only speak for religious nutters who are in a minority in the UK. Their religious freedoms aren’t being curtailed and nobody is forcing them to acknowledge or participate in equal marriages. We’re talking about civil marriage you idiot, not religious marriage. They’re even against supportive denominations because it puts them in a shameful bigoted light. They have no right to impose a religious concept of marriage on a secular civil piece of legislation that doesn’t affect them one bit. They’ll still continue to marry in churches no matter what. BIgotry in a nutshell.

  6. Jock S. Trap 9 May 2013, 4:05pm

    An oxymoron if ever I heard it….. I support Gay rights, just not All gay rights esp love.

    Get a grip idiot…. Gay right means being treated equally and fairly

    We all pay taxes equally and nobody questions it yet marriage….

    It’s a pathetic statement to make for someone who clearly Doesn’t support Gay right… Just saying you do doesn’t making it meaningful unless you have the action too!

  7. Can anyone recall having the opportunity to vote for or against this man who because of his beliefs can hold back equality?

  8. PRECISELY! And that’s reason enough to fight.

    99% Equality = Inequality and Injustice.

    99.9% Equality = Inequality and Injustice.

    ONLY 100% Equality = Equality and Justice.

    1. I think the reverend’s problem is too many myths lessons and not enough maths lessons.

  9. Peter & Michael 9 May 2013, 4:41pm

    Whilst it is OK for a hetrosexual couple to have their marriage recognised outside the UK, this is not so for a homosexual couple in a Civil Partnership. Further, England and Wales does not recognise Gay Married couples from any country outside England and Wales. So, Marriage does matter !

  10. /moral compass/ 9 May 2013, 4:42pm

    Laws are made for the individual , not groups or demographics
    No individual has extra rights over another individual in law. The law should (and actually does) apply equally to all individuals whatever their colour.
    whether a person is black white gay or straight, they may not marry in the same sex, they may not marry close family, they may not marry more than one person. Therefore, no individual is discriminated against thus we have equality in law on an individual basis.
    If we start fiddling with the law to accommodate communities or demographics rather than the individual, then each group or community must be considered so as not to show a preference.
    It’s not only gays can’t marry same sex, it is also normals. For instance, the ginger haired community could argue that they are discriminated against since they are not allowed to marry the same sex. This is no different than the argument the gays put forward.
    True discrimination would mean the law is different for gays. It’s not!

    1. beelzebub 9 May 2013, 5:10pm

      What a load of convulated illogical sh!te.

    2. ‘…True discrimination would mean the law is different for gays. It’s not!…’

      what about CP’s you cretin?

      1. morals > filth 9 May 2013, 7:53pm

        CPs are available to anyone, gay or straight, idiot.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2013, 8:03pm

          You’re delusional. Straights are prohibited from having a CP, read the law. Provide us with the evidence that such couples can enter into a CP. When was the law changed to reflect that?

        2. bobbleobble 9 May 2013, 9:34pm

          No CPs are not available to anyone, at least not in this country. However, when the law changes to allow people to marry someone of the same sex it will be available to anyone even, as you so quaintly put it ‘normals.’

          1. morality guardian 10 May 2013, 10:16am

            In Britain, you do not have to be gay to enter a CP . Two straight people may enter a CP. as long as they are the same sex. Te law doesn’t change for you if you are gay. Why can you not grasp this simple point? The law does not consider differentiate on sexual orientation.

    3. Ah, another disturbed so-called heterosexual haunting gay sites. Such people have deep psychological problems in that they are desperately trying to deny their real desires. This usually means that they want to be buggered. Is that what you, Miss Moral Compass, really want. After all the very nature of a compass is that it revolves. This is what you really intend ‘compass’ to mean – a quick swivel round and your legs in the air. A good example of denial along similar lines to you is that of the Scottish cardinal.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 May 2013, 8:05pm

        I wouldn’t be so sure “it” is heterosexual. Sounds more like a very deeply disturbed closet case to me. Maybe Adrian Hilton who we all know is one sick individual.

    4. “normals”

      Your word choice exposes your bigotry

    5. bobbleobble 9 May 2013, 9:32pm

      You clearly don’t understand what the term discrimination means. If any law impacts one group in society disproportionately to another then discrimination occurs. The inability to marry someone of the same gender impacts an LGBT person disproportionately. It doesn’t matter to straight people but it does to us. Therefore there is discrimination on me as an individual who wants to marry another man. The next question is whether or not that discrimination is justifiable. I have yet to hear anyone come up with a genuinely good reason to justify my and my partner’s exclusion from marriage.

      Your analogy about ginger haired people makes no sense. Not that I expect any of your arguments to make sense.

      1. morals > filth 10 May 2013, 12:43pm

        You clearly don’t understand what the term discrimination means. If any law impacts one group in society disproportionately to another then discrimination occurs.
        It is you that does not understand. Using your logic smokers are discrimnated against due to the smoking ban. It is not actually discrimination, it is protection,or innocents. It impacts the perpetrators more because they are the ones that are the wrongdoers.
        My analogy about ginger haired people merely demonstrates that it is not gays that are discriminated against due to current marriage laws. The law covers everyone including the ginger haired community, the left handed community, the ingrowing toenail communiy etc etc.The law will always impact one group more than others. Discrimination on the other hand seeks to bar a particular grou whilst allowing others. Which group do you think is allowed same sex marriage in order for your claim of discrimination to be true?

  11. beelzebub 9 May 2013, 5:13pm

    “‘I support gay rights but not same-sex marriage’”


    You DO NOT support gay rights.

    What an asshat….

  12. So he doesn’t know what more marriage gives. So all his straight congregation are forcebly divorced every time they go on Holiday abroad are they?

  13. Grandma Leslie looks like such a really bootch heterosexual though doesn’t she, and I bet she goes like a jackhammer in the bedroom too.
    Doesn’t bear thinking about.

    Marriage will still mean the same thing when marriage equality is introduced but it will be expanded to include any couple regardless of their gender instead of restricted exclusively to only opposite sex couples.

  14. OK – so it’s all just words, your reverence.
    You say you are a minister of the Christian gospel. I say you are the superstitious adept of a crackpot cult about a dead 1st century prophet. You can’t mind that, can you? It’s only just words, isn’t it?

  15. Contradiction in terms

    You support our rights, our equality, or you don’t. There’s no “I support your rights but not these rights” it doesn’t work

    And if you don’t support our full equality, you are a homophobe. Simple as. Either you think we’re a person with all the rights and respect due every other person in society or you don’t.

    And people who don’t think gay people are people due the same respect and rights as straight people are homophobes. End of.

  16. “I’m not sure what marriage confers on gay and lesbian people that they don’t have already, except the word,” said Lord Griffiths.

    It’s the universal acceptance of the word ‘marriage’ and the status it confers to that relationship. To say, “I just civil union-ed my husband/wife” not only sounds ridiculous, it indicates a ‘lesser’ value to the same-sex relationship.

    1. He knows that of course which is the reason he is opposed to equality.

  17. The HoL are there to scrutinse bills only. In what way is the bill wrong? It’s doesn’t matter what he thinks the word marriage should be, what matters in the HoL is that the legislation is correctly drafted.

    As for “decent and ordinary” people then I suggest that the UK is big enough for us all to have our own opinions and yet allow all of us to have the same and equal opportunties and rights.

  18. self hating, cellibate religious fags do not matter when discussing civil law

  19. In other word, Griffiths is a sanctimonious snob. He would help Uncle Tom build his cabin next to his “property” but he’ll never recognize this AA equal as a farm owner let along marry his relatives.

  20. barriejohn 10 May 2013, 8:41am

    So “advocate for gay rights” is a complete misnomer, then. More weasel words from “the godly”, who can NEVER be trusted!

  21. Such a contradiction, Lord Griffith I suggest that you look the word up in a dictionary!

  22. Gary Potter 10 May 2013, 1:33pm

    No listen, no listen I am not racist but……..same old crap and from a man in a dress…Thailand that should be his place of destination. Go and become a Lady Boy, cause you certainly like to wear a dress, albeit a very dull one, or better still, keep your bloody mouth SHUT.

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.