Reader comments · Maria Miller rejects claim by Simon Hughes that equal marriage has been ‘fast tracked’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Maria Miller rejects claim by Simon Hughes that equal marriage has been ‘fast tracked’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The shame of having to have a tory minister justify and explain to a lib dem MP the need to finally make some progress on equality.

    Perhaps he is trying to placate groups within his constituency?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2013, 6:58pm

      Seems that Clegg has his own coterie of agitators. About time he stepped up and had a word in his ear, ditto Cameron and his rabid bunch on the back benches.

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 15 May 2013, 6:39am

      I think possibly Mr Hughes didn’t feel the LibDem Zeplin was careering towards the ground fast enough already.

    3. Ever since Mr. Hughes declared he was a bisexual, I have always accepted that to be a face.

      Now I’m thinking that maybe he is simply just screwed up!

      (When was the last time you had some pussy, Simon?)

  2. Simon I think you should keep a low profile

    1. You, back to the bottom of the pond you crawled from Simon!

  3. Simon Hughes engaged in the most viciously homophobic by-election campaign in British history, despite being a closet-case bisexual himself.

    There is nothing more depressing than a self-loathing closet case.

    And sad to see that despite coming out, he remains so self-loathing that he would delay equality for his own community.

    He’s a LibDem – therefore his seat is marginal.

    Can we get rid of him at the next election I wonder?

    1. bobbleobble 14 May 2013, 6:59pm

      It’s certainly possible. Labour are the challenger and certainly came close to unseating him in their 1997 landslide. Back then of course the Lib Dems weren’t toxic. The Lib Dem vote appears to be holding up in places were the Tories are challenging but where Labour is in second place they collapse.

      1. Good to hear.

        Hopefully he will be kicked out at the next election.

        I’d rather be represented by a straight ally than a GLBT Uncle Tom like Hughes.

    2. Uhm, no, according to Tatchell the truly vicious homophobia came from the Independent Labour candidate whom Tatchell beat for the official Labour nomination.

      1. bobbleobble 14 May 2013, 9:06pm

        Hughes was hardly blameless though and given later revelations he opens himself to accusations not just of homophobia but also hypocrisy.

      2. Michael 2912 15 May 2013, 8:45am

        I think that was Bob Mellish

      3. Well, I can’t recall the exact details but many years ago I read Tatchell’s account of the entire business, “The Battle for Bermondsey”, and I seem to remember it was clear to me that Simon Hughes was in overall charge of the other side, and it could not have been that he did not know what was going on, such was the horrific homophobic abuse that Tatchell suffered in that by-election.

        Maybe someone who has just recently read the book can enlighten us. For those who haven’t read it: do! It’s an excellent read, and you can still locate a copy quite easily online. Try abebooks for a start.

  4. CH Brighton 14 May 2013, 6:59pm

    It’s his religion’s masters he’s trying to speak for and keep in with. As a bisexual (gurumph) he needs to be careful of the company he keeps or those people at Anglican Mainstream will be chasing after him with a rolling pin.

  5. Jacob Dugan-Brause 14 May 2013, 7:01pm

    Oh, good grief, Simon. Stop posturing for Conservatives; it doesn’t suit you.

  6. bobbleobble 14 May 2013, 7:04pm

    France passed SSM in five months, Denmark in four. What exactly is it that Mr Hughes thinks makes us so special that we need to take longer than we have?

    Simon if there’s a problem with the bill then speak up but don’t whine on about the process just for the sake of having something to moan about. But you’ll need to come up with a blooming good reason to postpone given what’s happening elsewhere.

    1. He doesn’t have a reason to postpone.

      Cllearly he is a self loathing bigot.

  7. Chester666666 14 May 2013, 7:11pm

    If this was fast-tracked then i’d love to see what he claims to be slow-tracked, everything is bieng done to slow this down as much as possibe with every homophobe having their say over something that isn’t to do with them and now the self-loathing are whinging

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2013, 7:13pm

    The Contract for Equalities appeared three years ago just prior to the election in 2010. He doesn’t think that’s a long time as well as the lengthy consultation that ensued allowing the public to comment? Why are these people in government?

    The problem with these people is that they demonstrate no leadership in controversial issues even if it means sticking one’s neck out by doing the right thing. Kow-towing solely to religious loons and those of one opinion against equal marriage is not leadership. It’s called caving in to people who are trying to interpose religion on what is purely a civil secular matter. Religion should have NO role in legislation, absolutely NONE. This is what this is all about.

  9. hughes is a treacherous worm.

    1. He has a record of homophobic bigotry (in spite of/because of being a closet case)

      Google ‘Bermondsey by-election 1983’ for starters.

  10. bobbleobble 14 May 2013, 7:18pm

    Incidentally everyone there’s a story coming out of Brazil that the top judges panel which oversees conduct of the judicial system for the whole country has ordered all marriage registrars to begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples thus making same sex marriage nationwide in Brazil. Apparently their decisions can be appealed but it appears Brazil may well have just become country number 15!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2013, 7:54pm

      Hugely significant if it is true. The largest catholic country in the world and a major player in the global economy which has surpassed the UK’s by far. Oh what a joyous day it will be if it becomes number 15. Pope Francis won’t be a happy camper. This will make Maria Miller’s recount of the number of countries with equal marriage and far ahead of the UK that more impressive. Perhaps Lord Lester will have second thoughts.

      1. bobbleobble 14 May 2013, 8:00pm

        I noticed it on the Wikipedia page earlier. Unfortunately all of the links backing up this development are in Portuguese bar one which doesn’t give a great deal of info. Hopefully Pink News will pick up on it and let us know what’s going on.

  11. You are KIDDING me?!

    THIS is when the Lib Dems finally find a backbone? Simon, you’ve rubber stamped every other damn piece of Tory crap that has passed through the coalition and NOW you find your damn spine and start playing awkward?

  12. This man really is an odious piece of sh1t!

  13. I suggest that Simon Hughes doesn’t get a job as a MP in NZ and France then. There it took around half a year to get SSM and both countries I think also had to push thru gay adoption.

    We’re only fannying around with the name here , most of the other bits and pieces are already in place.

    1. bobbleobble 14 May 2013, 8:06pm

      It also wasn’t in anyone’s manifesto in New Zealand, it was a private members bill sponsored by Louisa Wall which the government and opposition decided to support when it was drawn as a bill for consideration of this session of he NZ parliament.

  14. Just because it wasn’t in the manifesto or in the coalition agreement it does not mean that it should not be dealt with.

    I am ashamed that this man is my MP, I will be contacting him to let him know i am angry at these comment.

    1. Don’t forget that Simon Hughes is not opposed to marriage equality, and has been a strong supporter of it for a long time. He just wants more time to debate a more radical reform of the marriage system in this country which is more closely modelled on the French system. He has a point – marriage law in England is horribly complex and long overdue for grassroots reform, and the relative lengths of the England and Wales vs Scottish Bills is testament to that.

      Of course we want marriage equality quickly, and it’s long overdue, but don’t think that Simon Hughes is opposed to the principle here.

      1. bobnleonnle 14 May 2013, 9:11pm

        I agree that marriage law needs root and branch reform but from this article gives no indication that is what Hughes is after. He seems simply to want to slow this bill down for the sake of it.

      2. To Dave Page, if you listen to at what Simon Hughes says (link below) you’ll realise that he is speaking on behalf of the constituents who are against marriage equality. I don’t think he can really be defended, and I don’t know why you even try.

      3. Stop defending the homophobe hughes.

      4. We aren’t going to get root and branch reform of marriage, and if we did it at the same time as introducing same-sex marriage, it would lead to even more “marriage is being redefined to suit those selfish gays” whining. The most obvious reforms that I think would make sense would be doing away with all the different kinds of religious marriages recognised by the law and making it so that anyone can register to perform a marriage ceremony instead, getting rid of civil partnerships, getting rid of the archaic stuff like non-consummation and presumption of legitimacy, and simplifying divorce law. This would all be very complicated and controversial.

  15. I’m still interested to know what MPs like Peter Bone think of the claim that the Tories “supported” marriage equality in 2010 – there was a single statement rammed into a poorly-highlighted document, after voting had already started, saying they’d look at renaming civil partnerships.

    I’m glad plenty of Tory MPs are supportive of the move, of course, but I’m not sure Miller’s statement holds up.

    1. bobbleobble 14 May 2013, 9:05pm

      I admit she’s on somewhat dubious grounds but then so are those wittering on about the lack of SSM mentioned in manifestos especially given that so many have voted for changes to the NHS which also weren’t in the manifestos and throttled House of Lords reform despite that appearing in every party’s manifesto AND the coalition agreement.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2013, 9:43pm

        Exactly. Hughes’ and Burrowes lame excuses and posturing are nothing more than red herrings. Both should be booted out of office working. These people have no shame or scruples. The public consutlation was more than sufficient to justify passage of this bill and the vote on February 5th confirmed it.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2013, 9:45pm

      Why would you care what Bone(head) thinks, we already know where he stands? Even if it were in the manifesto itself, people like him still would vote no. I strongly believe Maria Miller’s statement passes muster.

  16. With “friends” like him, who needs enemies?

  17. How anyone could vote for this hypocritical, two faced, self loathing, back stabbing excuse for a man is beyond me.

  18. Has anyone else been paying attention to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ consideration of the bill? From what I’ve seen, almost all of their discussions are on the possibility that some kind of court case might force priests or chaplains or whatever to conduct same-sex marriage. I can’t legally offer services to the public and then refuse them to people of a certain sexual orientation, so it’s not exactly a “human right”, is it? I would have thought the whole point of a human rights committee is to stand up for powerless minorities, not to sit around worrying whether religious privileges might be eroded.

  19. Michael 2912 15 May 2013, 8:56am

    There should be no discrimination by the state against LGBT people in the substance of rights given to us or in the means by which they are given. Substitute LGBT for Black or Disabled or Female and it’s simply obvious. Quite frankly that’s the message that supposedly socially progressive MPs should be promoting. The rest is distraction and risks the impact being lessened and the meaning being lost. Simon Hughes should appreciate that but never fails to demonstrate that he really is nothing more than a shallow sanctimonious hypocrite.

  20. Ever since Simon Hughes vilified fellow-candidate Peter Tatchell for his homosexuality in the Bermondsey election decades ago, I have always had serious doubts about him, despite Hughes’ subsequent admission of his own bisexuality and despite his acknowledgement of the spitefulness of his homophobic behaviour towards Tatchell.

    And now he appears to be feeding and supporting all those who would like to see our Same Sex Couples Bill scrapped.

    I know Hughes has always been “on the fence”, whether during his secretive phase or since he came out, but Hughes’s swinging both ways is getting rather wearing!

    They say a leopard cannot change its spots. Maybe it’s true?

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.