Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Lib Dem MP Sarah Teather tells Catholic newspaper ‘I never went into politics to tackle equal marriage’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Keeping digging yourself deeper Sarah Teather.

    These are the kind of things that you do go into to politics for, to make a difference the country which will enable full equality for all.

    You have failed on this and it will be remembered and hiding behind your religion is cowardly.

    In my opinion, you cannot be a liberal and a catholic.

    1. Nah. You can. You just can’t be very good at both at the same time.

      1. Why does everyone assume that to be a good Catholic you must tow the party line? What happens if the party line is demonstrably wrong, as it has been many times throughout history, particularly with regard to astronomy and human sexuality and reproduction? To be a good liberal and a good Catholic you must simply use your intelligence. If what the Pope or a bishop or a priest is preaching is patently ridiculous, as when he tries to discourage the use of condoms in poor countries, you are under no obligation to follow him. The Church does not belong to the clergy, any more than a country belongs to its government.

  2. Yet again, when it comes to the crunch, someone who puts their own, selfish religious belief ahead of other people’s well being. A coward, aliar and a hypocrite.
    Still, no need to worry. Given the ill will that the Liberals have managed to engender in their supporters, it’s unlikely she’ll be voted in again.

  3. Normally when we say “this MP is a total idiot” it’s simply because we disagree with the feeble, religion-poisoned nonsense they spout.

    On this occasion, though, I speak from first-hand experience. I’ve met her. And I can say, hand on heart, that she’s a) very far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer and b) she makes her fellow LibDem MPs cringe whenever she speaks.

    Quite how this mouth-breather came to be selected at all is beyond me. Mercifully, her re-election is highly unlikely.

    1. bobbleobble 15 May 2013, 12:24pm

      She was selected for The Brent East by-election which was held at the height of the Iraq War but even then I don’t think many people expected her to win. Somehow she’s held on ever since but I suspect 2015 will be her downfall assuming she actually stands again.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 1:25pm

      It’s quite possible many in her constituency are catholics and other god bothering fools. Probably the older generation who bothered to contact her since the consultation.

  4. letterstolocke 15 May 2013, 12:18pm

    So, Sarah opted to deny me what should be inalienable rights because a perverse and selective reading of a 3000 year old textbook on religious observances, told her too? She thinks this is a rational decision?

    One wonders how she would have voted if some other religious pressure group had tabled a bill denying women the right to work, because their religious textbook told them that a woman’s place was in the home.

    One wonders further what profound, society ruining problems Sarah imagines are going to be caused over the long term by letting me marry another man.

    Disingenuous, specious nonsense, Sarah. You should be ashamed.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 1:28pm

      Totally concur. The bible also forbids women to teach too. It also allows husbands to kill their wives for adultery and children for insolence. Of course, they dismiss it, very conveniently but cling to any negative condemnation of two people of the same gender in a relationship. If any group of people have an agenda, it’s the religious loons trying to impose religious beliefs and interpose religion on civil marriage legislation.

  5. It’s called “Privilege” Teather, something you have in terms of marriage by virtue of your birth, but something that many others are denied for the sae of pandering to bigots or serving foolish anachronistic fairy tales.

    Did someone not tell this idiotic bonehead that the duty is upon her to serve ALL people, not the ones her despicable church approves of?

  6. bobbleobble 15 May 2013, 12:21pm

    Weasel words from an MP without the courage of her so called liberal convictions.

    I don’t for one minute believe that she agonised for 11 months, she did as she was told by her Church and she should recognise that she wasn’t elected to represent her Church. Her nonsense statement was far too similar to that of the Lib Dem from Southport whose name escapes me for me to really believe that she had any thoughts on this beyond the RCC’s talking points.

    And putting out the statement after the vote was a true act of cowardice. She has let her party and liberal politics in this country down very badly and I sincerely hope she finds herself without a job in 2015.

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

      Quite right! Just watch when they are jhopefully booted out. They’ll accuse us of abusing their religious freedom, the victim card nonsense.

  7. “I did a lot of reading and eventually I came to my conclusion, based not on any effect it would have in the short-term, but on the change it would mean for marriage over a longer period of time.”

    I’m not sure your reading material gave you a well-balanced spread of opinions, madam.

    And what would the change be over time? The only change, I tell you, is that people will now get married who weren’t able to do so before.

  8. PeterinSydney 15 May 2013, 12:24pm

    Stu[id little girl !!! Why are you there then? Get out if you can’t understand a serious concern like marriage equality.

  9. Oh, so now, she’s playing the little saint and martyr!

    “Poor little me! I never went into pollyticks to tackle equal marriage!”

    EVERYTHING in life is political, Ms. Teather! Time to wake up and grow up!

    Choosing to believe in the mumbo-jumbo of any religion is a political act in itself, for the religious person chooses to have faith in make-believe, to ignore certain realities of life, such as it being impossible for a virgin to give birth to anything, never mind a “god”!

    Ms. Teather, who have succeeded in revealing yourself as juvenile.

    1. bobbleobble 15 May 2013, 12:44pm

      It’s such a stupid statement to make. Did she genuinely think that the political landscape in 2013 would still be the same as it was in 2003 when she was first elected? She’s also incredibly blind if she didn’t notice that SSM was beginning to take off as an issue given what had happened in the Netherlands only two years earlier. The more I read about this woman the less respect I have for her and there wasn’t much to begin with.

      1. Her performance the other week on QuestionTime was not strong. There were times when she had some sound points and she had a much deeper grasp of underlying issues than the other panellists, but there was something “so missing” about her, as if she was “held back” by something. So now I’m beginning to wonder if that something might be the straitjacket of religion, with all its accessories, including pretence, guilt, and so forth.

  10. Teather is an evil religious bigot who chooses her vile cult over her duties

    She is a disgrace to her party and we must ensure she loses her seat.

    She is scum.

  11. Jock S. Trap 15 May 2013, 12:33pm

    So she never went into politics to better the lives of the people in this country.

    So she never went into politics knowing she would be debating issues that effect the whole country.

    So she never went into politics to tackle issues that effect day to day lives.

    Why the hell did she go into politics?

    What is she thinking?

    Stop making excuses and either support democracy or your bigoted religion. It’s clear both cannot mix.

    1. Jock S. Trap 15 May 2013, 12:34pm

      cont…

      These people should stop ruling via their chosen religion and if they cannot then resign.

    2. She went into politics to line her own pockets. Exactly the same reason as most politicians. ‘Stuff the people, show me the money!’

  12. “I did a lot of reading and eventually I came to my conclusion, based not on any effect it would have in the short-term, but on the change it would mean for marriage over a longer period of time.”

    What were you reading? What short-term effects did you conclude? What did you determine that it would mean for marriage over a long period of time?

    Your statement fills a void where there should be some logic, compassion, and understanding, but says nothing more than you’ve taken a stance based on your religion and desire to enshrine your religion into law.

    1. Hmmm, this “I did a lot of reading . . . ” sort of came across in her attitude the other week on QuestionTime. I thought she was trying to play the intellectual, i.e., to set out her stall as “an intellectual”. What she succeeded in convincing me of, however, was that she is not a politician of obvious integrity. Some might say she is, given her refusal to support SSM, but I find her woefully “splintered” in her attitudes. There’s not enough congruity in her beliefs. She seems to want to be a liberal, but at the same time she appears to he happy to be pulled back by the primitive beliefs of the religious.

  13. “I did a lot of reading”

    Well why not share your reading list with us. Does it include any peer reviewed journals, or do you only read pope reviewed journals?

    #deselect

  14. That There Other David 15 May 2013, 12:40pm

    The local Lib Dems need to hurry up and deselect her. She’s an embarrassment to the party.

    1. Indeed, she’s manifested herself to be more a member of the establishment than a member of a progressive party.

  15. Of course not – as a homophobe she’s only there to help straight people. She didn’t go into politics to bother with icky gay people! The very idea. She’s only there for REAL people

  16. Sister Mary Clarence 15 May 2013, 12:44pm

    I assume she will be doing the decent thing and resigning from the Lib Dem party (along with her fellow turn coat Simon Hughes).

    1. Simon Hughes is *not* a turncoat. He is a supporter of marriage equality. He is simply proposing that Parliament consider a ground-up rewrite of England and Wales’ marriage laws, bringing us closer to the French system. That would make this whole issues a lot more simple legislatively – you can see from the relative lengths of the proposed English and Scottish equal marriage Bills just how complex English marriage law currently is.

      Some of what Simon has said has been unhelpful and he deserves to be challenged on that, but to accuse him of being a turncoat is disingenuous.

      1. …..but then does he not see that because marriage law is so complicated he would inevitably be seen as trying to derail the legislation by introducing a delaying tactic. A few MPs have come from this angle – the SSM legislation is somehow ‘incomplete’ – so should not go ahead.

  17. “once a vote became inevitable I spent ten or 11 months weighing up the issues ” ….and she only came clean on how she was going to vote a couples of days before the actual commons vote.

    I contacted this woman for several months prior to the vote and received bugger all from her. Her decision to write something anti SSM a few days prior to the 2nd vote and now a few days prior to the 3rd reading says it all. It’s meant to make a point and get maximum publicity just before a cruical vote….

    She and her lib dem collegues Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland (there an article just out from him as well) have been quiet for a few months and now they decide to open their mouths again……

    I sometimes wonder whether these guys are in the right party ..

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 3:57pm

      I contacted six Lords and only one had the courtesy to replay, Baroness Beverly Hughes of Stretford who informed me she will vote for the legislation and a lovely lady too. They were all randomly selected and surprisingly, Lord Carey’s name popped up. Of course, I wouldn’t expect to hear from him and the remaining four haven’t responded either.

      I strongly urge everyone to contact them because you can be assured the bigots are.

      http://www.writetothem.com/lords

      1. Good to hear Beverley’s improved there, I remember her eagerly throwing schoolchildren under the Section 28 bus when she was trying to become an MP and reckoned she needed to suck up to the bigot vote to win her seat.

  18. Ms. Teather, I’ve been “doing a lot of reading”, and therefore the conclusion has been reached that you are a no-no.

    Good-bye!

  19. I am shocked………that nobody has even bothered to mention that nose yet?? Her higher power wasn’t very kind to her on that one haha

  20. udo schuklenk 15 May 2013, 1:11pm

    life-long liberal and committed Catholic … conradiction in terms, but hey in that party, anything is possible.

  21. If this is the best she can do to legitimize her voting decision then she needs to have a good long hard think about whether she is fit to be a Liberal Democrat politician.

    Clearly she placed her personal faith above her obligation to the people she represented and who voted her into power.

    Her voting record shows she is incapable of separating her conservative faith and politics and therefore should not be in parliament.

    1. As one of her constituents, I’m bound to agree with you.
      Before she became a minister she was a good constituency MP.

  22. Two sips to being a diva 15 May 2013, 1:22pm

    I thought we told her to fook off!

  23. Colin (London) 15 May 2013, 1:27pm

    Well hopefully very soon she will be on the wrong side of history and her electorate will realise she was there to represent them not herself.

    Separate religion from the state please

  24. Snivelling coward, liar and hypocrite. What the hell did you think you would be doing in politics. It is not about you deciding what classes you would like to take.

  25. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 1:36pm

    She either belongs on the Tory back bench or UKIP. You have a choice, Ms. Teather, clearly you don’t support the Liberal Democrat’s official policy so you should resign and defect to either of the other two where you will be a lot happier to practice your bigotry with huge support.

    1. Agreed. She doesn’t belong in the Lib Dems. She has no idea what equality means and she seems to be itching to stamp her faith all over civil matters.

  26. What did she go into politics for? expenses and keeping seat warm at house of commons. On another note my transgendered friend saw her in brent and teather gave her a complete look of disgust . This is a nasty piece of work.

    1. She went into politics because she had neither the talents nor the brains for anything else.

      Interesting too, that people so often throw trans*people looks of disgust when only a few months ago, some radfems complained that all women were expected to look like Brazilian transwomen, implying that Brazilian transwomen are unearthly gorgeous.

      1. Anyhow hopefully she will be dust 2015 and it won’t be because her constituents are obsessing over marriage, i’m sure people in brent are far more concerned with crime, overcrowding, lack of resources, healthcare etc under her watch.

  27. The refusal of the Lib Dems to overwhelmingly embrace equality has disillusioned me entirely. I would not trust them on any question.

  28. I wonder if she would feel the same way if she was sold to a husband and had to “obey”.

  29. This makes me seething and outraged, why the f*ck is this woman in the Liberal Democrat Party.
    Maybe she should have read the preamble to the LibDem constitution and the first couple of paragraphs…. “…not constrained by conformaty…” is one of the bits that should have rung a little bell somewhere in the grey matter! and just when did a liberal and a democrat enshrine their personal religious doctrinal concerns in legislation.
    I know the RCC has a problem understanding the concept of religious freedom (understatement), but most thinking people including most catholics support same sex marriage whatever the Bishops and Cardinals tell them – they do not have a good track record when it comes to sex and sexuality, gender and relationships – do they?
    I hope never to hear of this dullard after the next election. If her constituency has any sense they will deselect her long before then!
    Scheesh!

  30. equality on the one hand and family life and what it meant for the definition of marriage on the other.

    A single-sex couple being able to marry WILL DO NOTHING TO FAMILY LIFE AT ALL – except possibly create more families in the long run.

    (Sorry to shout, but this sort of wilful stupidity does really rile me.)

  31. I remember seeing her on question time about 10 years ago and thought she was great. She turned into a right cnut

  32. Robert Canning 15 May 2013, 3:33pm

    I had a low opinion of Sarah Teather when I read that she’d voted against homosexuals being legally treated as equal to homosexuals. After reading this article, however, and learning how much thought she’d given the issue and how much research she’d done, I have an even lower opinion. If she STILL voted against it after all that thinking and research, it doesn’t say much for her thinking and research. I’d literally have more respect for her if she’d admitted to tossing a coin.

  33. hope her constituents have a list of the few issues she *is* prepared to tackle

  34. “I did a lot of reading and eventually I came to my conclusion, based not on any effect it would have in the short-term, but on the change it would mean for marriage over a longer period of time.”

    Well the only conclusion must be is that Sarah Teather is completely stupid. Where is the evidence for people of the same sex marrying harming heterosexual marriages? Perhaps she can offer up some peer-reviewed studies about the breakdown of social cohesion? No? Thought not. It’s just naked prejudice.

  35. “In many ways I’d rather not resurrect the whole argument again [because it's embarrassing and hypocritical]“.

    Keep your friends close and your Lib Dems closer.

  36. Equal Marriage IS political you silly bitch!

  37. Sarah, you need to have some progressive principles if you’re a LibDem. Stop listening to backward ideas of the Catholic Church and vote for equality.

  38. Barrybear1980 15 May 2013, 8:44pm

    Mmm she is not there to “tackle” anything, she should be in government she is there to represent her constituents and their views

  39. If she’s so conflicted between serving the electorate and her Pope, she should leave politics altogether and become a nun, instead.

    Perhaps everyone could chip in and have a plaque made, declaring her the official drama queen, and presenting it to her.

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