Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory MP David Burrowes: ‘I’m not anti-gay; I’m just pro-marriage’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Not “anti-gay” just anti-equality.

  2. Liar.

    There has never been so much as one single credible evidence-supported argument put forward for this imaginary “harm” same sex marriage would do to anyone or anything. Those who espouse his slack-jawed idiocy, when challenged to give actual proof, always fail (see Prop 8 trial – people like Burrowes knew it would be tantamount to perjury to make such arguments under oath).

    He is a bigot. With an argument based in bigotry. Anything else is just another bloody lie.

  3. Sorry David-just don’t buy it.

    I am gay and have seen you speak several times- and you ARE anti-gay.

    You can’t have your cake and eat it-just accept who you are—–anti-gay.

  4. Can Pink News please stop putting this bell-end’s smug tory face at the top of the front page, it makes me feel violent.

  5. He’s pro-marriage…. this must mean he wants it for as many people as possible, surely? ;)

  6. Guaranteed Self Loathing Closet Case – mark my words

  7. I’m sure prior to women being able to vote there were men out there who weren’t against women, they just thought that traditionally only men should be able to vote. No, maybe not anti-gay, but definately anti-equality. In years to come you’re children and grandchildren will be ever so proud of you…

    1. OMG, has he bred, save us all!!!

  8. Oh shut up Burrows, your a waste of space, I shall help to vote you out when I can.

  9. Translation: “I’m not anti-gay, I’m just pro heterosexual privilege.”

    Which is akin to, “I’m not a racist, I’m just pro white privilege.”

  10. “It is that kind of intolerance which encourages me to stand up on behalf of the majority of constituents who will not have the freedom to uphold a traditional view of marriage.”
    Same-sex marriage won’t damage anyones right to uphold a traditional view of marriage. It won’t even stop them practising that traditional view of marriage. I’m don’t understand why he thinks that this Bill will take that freedom away?

  11. Jock S. Trap 15 May 2013, 2:07pm

    ” It is that kind of intolerance which encourages me to stand up on behalf of the majority of constituents who will not have the freedom to uphold a traditional view of marriage.”

    Er, how exactly?

    Can those people not think for themselves. Do they need you and your homophobic views to tell them what to think?

    Disgusting. Another one who conveniently turns it around to suit them esp as he has already stated he wants to stop no matter the majority support is against democracy and he clearly has no interest in really what the majority of his constituents think. He’s just assuming they all think like him.

    So Very wrong on too many counts!

  12. “I’m so pro-marriage I want it restricted to opposite-sex couples only.”

    Twit. [Another vowel could be substituted there.]

  13. “My personal view is shared by an overwhelming majority of constituents who have contacted me.”

    That doesn’t mean they are the majority of the people in your constituency — just the noisiest lot.

    “point which is understood by many of my gay friends and constituents”

    I don’t believe for a second if you asked your gay “friends” if they were in favour of equality or not. Because they’d have said yes if they’d had half a brain.

  14. He is a Homophobe and anti marriage and makes his constituents in southgate/enfield seem grotesque in claiming they are fascist too and support his views.

  15. Nothing undermines the institution of marriage than divorce, so if Burrowes is so ‘pro-marriage’ how about making divorce amongst the heterosexual majority illegal. Oh, but doing that would be a colossal vote-loser, so it’s much easier to scapegoat a minority for the sins of the majority. Burrowes is just another politician who chooses the lazy and cynical option of gay-bashing to bolster his so-called pro-marriage credentials.

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

    So bigot Burrowes says the majority of his constituents support his views and beliefs? Well then, Burrows, what if the majority of those in your constituency supported equal marriage. Still vote no? Of course you would. Sorry to tell you but you are a bigoted hypocritical homophobe and so too are you imaginary ‘gay friends’. They all say they have gay friends who never come forward to defend him. Who are they, Burrowes? Delusional fool.

  17. ANYONE who has to defend themselves with “I’m not anti-gay…” has already lost the argument!!!!

    As for Marriage Equality not being in the manifesto – a totally spurious and disingenuous argument. All Governments introduce Bills which were not in their manifestos, and anyway his party had clearly stated their intent to introduce marriage equality legislation BEFORE the Manifesto was published.

  18. I just had a look through this “not anti-gay” MP’s voting record since he entered Parliament in 2005:

    – he voted against outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 2007
    – he voted to prevent lesbians from having access to fertility treatment in 2008
    – he voted against outlawing incitement to homophobic hatred in 2009
    – he doesn’t appear to have voted on the Equality Act (which consolidated and extended the various bits of legislation on discrimination) in 2010
    – he voted against same-sex marriage in 2013

    So he doesn’t want LGBT people to be allowed to get married or have kids, and he thinks discrimination against us is fine, and he expects us to believe he is “not anti-gay”?

    1. Presumably because all those are *special* things that the likes of LGBT people shouldn’t have access too. But he’s not anti-gay, remember – he simply thinks we should be treated as second class citizens.

      1. What a relief he is not against me -but only ants me excluded from socierty and life ! A total twat !

        Hope Enfield voters vote him out in two years time.

    2. Victoria Munro 15 May 2013, 2:43pm

      All of the above shows he IS homophobic and anti gay and is being hypocritical and false to say otherwise. I am going to email him and give him a piece of my mind…however I am gay and that means I have a ‘gay’ mind, so therefore it is second class and not as intelligent, loving, superior or deserving of marriage as a straight mind.

  19. I love those nasty statements. Reminds me of a few others : ” I’m not racist…I’m just pro white !” or ” I’m not anti-semite, I just think jews should be excluded from positions of power” or ” I have nothing against women, I think their place is best in the kitchen “… and the list could go on. Different masks same hatred, same bigotry !

  20. seems to me that he wrote a good letter

    1. You know I’m going to say this, JohnB, but what if he’d been writing about interracial marriage? What if he wanted to deny people of certain races as civil rights, but asserted that he wasn’t racist?

      Can you not see the contradiction?

    2. I found the last 3 paragraphs of his letter in particular nauseatingly sanctimonious. And, as has often been wearily pointed out, his understanding of marriage having ‘always existed as a distinctive relationship between a man and a woman’ is ignorant in general, and displays scant knowledge of the OT in particular.

    3. @Iris: (you probably know I’m going to say this) but inter-racial marriage and gay marriage is not the same thing. The former is well within the traditional definition of marriage; the latter is (unless you choose to redefine marriage, which of course is what is being proposed) an oxymoron.

      @Rehan: I’ll downgrade my “good” comment to “good with reservations”. On further reading I agree there is an element of “nauseatingly sanctimonious”. As for the OT, it seems his view is consistent with the OT understanding, when comparing with the marriage redefiners.

      1. Yep, I guessed you’d say that, JohnB :D But to me they’re exactly the same – YOU are saying same sex marriage is wrong based on YOUR belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. So a man from one race and a woman from another would be fine, you’re saying, but not two man or two women.

        BUT the people who argued against interracial marriage were just as sure that marriage could only be between two people of the same race therefore, according to their belief, interracial marriage was wrong.

        To me, you’re BOTH wrong! There is no reason that marriage has to be between people of the same race, and there’s no reason why it has to be between a man and a woman.

        And the “traditonal definition of marriage” is what? Polygamy? Women marrying their rapists? All in the bible. There’s NO bit in the Bible where God says marriage can only be between one man and one woman. You infer that, but that’s all.

        Civil marriage has nothing to do with any religion anyway.

        1. @Iris
          You may recall, I wrote a book based on my experience as a community activist and in it a chapter I called “the gay conundrum”. It is difficult to condense the salient points given word limitations but I do intend to complete an update of that chapter and make available in the web. I really do appreciate you challenging my views even though we disagree. You may be interested to know that I got kicked of a Christian forum as a result of my challenging the homophobia I saw there and making statements like you can be gay and Christian. I agree that explaining positively polygamy (after all David a man after God’s heart was a polygamist), or rape victims marrying their rapists, is not easy but having looked at the scriptures I believe it always was God’s intention that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

          1. Your irrational beliefs about the intentions of an invisible spirit based on your readings of a mish-mash of ancient writings are utterly irrelevant to the rights of others to civil marriage in a secular and pluralistic democratic state.
            Just thought that needed clarifying.

  21. It’s his use of the word intolerence, that for me highlights his hypocratic ignorance.

  22. Marriage for straight people only

    He is anti-gay. You can’t be in favour of excluding us from the basic institutions of society and not be anti-gay

  23. So Burrowes who are your friends?

    Here are some countries that allow Same Sex Marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay.

    And here are some countries that do not support SSM (they imprison or kill gay people instead): Iran, Sudan, Uganda, Cameroon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Burma, Libya, Ghana, Gambia, Nigeria, Uzbekistan.

    Which lot do you sympathise with more?

    I know which lot I prefer to be associated with!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 2:49pm

      Don’t forget, New Zealand 12 American states and yesterday, Brazil.

  24. “…many of my gay friends…”

    or, “some of my best friends are gay”.

    #pineapple

  25. Victoria Munro 15 May 2013, 2:46pm

    You can’t be pro marriage but not anti gay. To say you are pro marriage means you believe marriage is best, therefore best for everyone. How is excluding gay people from an institution that is designed to show two people’s love and commitment to each other for life not ‘anti-gay’?

  26. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 2:47pm

    Sorry to keep bothering anyone, but I implore all of you to contact the Lords. Don’t let the bigots such as Burrowes influence them any more than they might have.

    http://www.writetothem.com/lords

  27. Victoria Munro 15 May 2013, 2:57pm

    So you don’t want LGBT people to be able to get married or have children and you think discrimination against them is fine but you are still somewhat not ‘anti-gay’?

  28. Chuck Anziulewicz 15 May 2013, 3:05pm

    Uh, Gay couples to want to get married are “pro-marriage” also. Otherwise, why would they want to marry?

  29. He keeps harping on about that the equal marriage not being in the manifesto but what he needs to remember is that bills will always be brought before parliament that was not in the manifesto.

    Just because something was not in the manifesto doesn’t mean that it should not be brought before parliament.

    I don’t recall the Pol Tax being on the manifesto years ago and yet they still brought that in didn’t they? Was section 28 on any manifesto? I doubt it and yet it was still brought in.

    Burrowes it nothing but a small minded, homophobic, anti equality arse!

  30. Blinded by hate.

    How common is this today?

    Just join the UKIP/BNP already!

  31. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 3:18pm

    PN, could you please remove this ugly bigot from the top of this page. His face is beginning to nauseate many of us.

    If any of you have heard him speak, it’s like chalk on a blackboard, irritating and as for his annunciation, the mumbling idiot is in dire need of elocution.

  32. Everyone who has a civil partnership considers it equal to marriage anyway. I think people should be more concerned about places in the world where it is illegal and punishable by death rather than getting all over excited by semantics. Marriage is the legal union of a man and woman and civil partnership is the legal union of people of the same sex. Just what is the problem?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 4:38pm

      The problem is that civil partnerships are NOT universally recognised once you travel or live outside of the UK. There are now 15 countries, 12 American states, and Mexico city with equal marriage. Why aren’t there 15 countries with civil partnerships. Who are this “everyone” about whom you speak? Nobody outside the UK considers them marriages, so please demonstrate with factual evidence to support your claim?

      Considering them as marriages means diddly squat. Under the 1973 Matrimonial Causes Act, they are NOT regarded as legal marriages. This isn’t a question of semantics otherwise they’d be the norm. Are you that stupid?

      1. This is exactly what I don’t like about this debate – whay do you have to be rude and call me stupid? Next you’ll call me homophobic even though I am in a civil partnership. Do you think that a marriage between two women will be recognised if I get a job in Dubai or any Arab country? I really can’t see the difference and quite frankly this debate always brings out the name calling and nastiness on both sides

      2. What do you mean – this isn’t a question of semantics otherwsie they’d be the norm? That doesn’t make any sense

    2. Tim Chapman 15 May 2013, 4:47pm

      They’re not equal, you thicko. Christ, how many more times?

      1. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities similar to those in a civil marriage. Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner’s children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. There is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a civil partnership.

        And please don’t resort to personal insults – you don’t make youself look very dignified

    3. Separate isn’t equal, Genevieve. There shouldn’t be a separate institution for gay people any more than there should be separate drinking fountains for black people. The fact that it’s the same water isn’t the point.

      Civil marriage should be gender neutral as it is in other countries eg Sweden. In Sweden, marriage is most definitely NOT only “the legal union of a man and a woman”.

      We don’t have separate mortgages-which-aren’t-called-mortgages for LGBT people; we don’t have separate doors for LGBT people to enter shops – and we don’t need a separate form of civil union.

      1. Thanks Iris – so it is really about making a point rather than the actual legality of the union. I am clearly out of sync with most people on here as I just don;t seem to feel the equality issue so passionately and think the debate actually is divisive for both gay and straight people. There are many people like myself living happily in civil partnerships that actually feel the whole marriage equality brigade are undermining our union and we feel scared to speak out and have our voices heard for fear of being insulted and abused. Marriage has always been an institution defined by gender so I don’t think it;s the same comparison as mortgages and drinking fountains but I really appreciate your point of view and the fact that you replied without calling me stupid and thicko (neither of which I am)

  33. Not anti-gay Burrowes? The evidence does not support that contention, give it up and attempt a bit of self honesty and introspection.

    We do NOT put human and civil rights up to a public vote by the “mob” in this country Burrowes! Shame!

    This guy offends my sense of decency, just remember the ammendment he tried (with that idiot Loughton and Bigot Shannon) to put in the Bill to basically negate ALL the equality laws of this country and not just sexual orientation and gender id, but would have given bigots and racists, homophobes and mysogonists carte blanche and yes, even have driven a coach and horses through the right to freedom of religion (the same ammendment the homophobes and bigots in Minnesota tried to get into their Equal Marriage Law), there is something seriously out of wack with this guy.
    Pink News, please do not put that picture of that smirking grin at the top of any more articles, it makes me nauseous.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 4:33pm

      You’re absolutely right. It was self-evident during the Committee Hearings, quite horrendous some of the things he and Loughton were advocating. Thankfully, they were all shot down by a vote of 15-4. Both of them are doing Archbigot Welby’s dirty work by default of course.

    2. I love this comment -so apposite. So true.

      I can’t stand his words or his face, either. I sincerely hope he will lose his seat at the Election.

  34. “not anti-gay; just pro-marriage” – so hard to tell apart these days!

  35. Question- Obviously, if one can be pro civil relationships but not full marriage, civil relationship unions do not protect as completely as a full marriage.

    1. I am not anti-heterosexual; I am just pro-marriage.

  36. Pink Politico 15 May 2013, 8:59pm

    He is not only opposed to equality for gay people but is being fundamentally dishonest about it.

    Firstly every single national survey conducted on this issue shows a clear majority in favour – Are we to believe that North London is less progressive than the rest of the country then?! I’m sure support runs far higher in this traditionally socially liberal area. Clearly then the people that have been in touch with a known staunch critic of gay rights are far from reflective of the views of most people in the constituency.

    Secondly he continues to spin the nonsense that people will not be allowed to uphold the ‘traditional’ view of marriage. Marriage has of course changed and evolved over thousands of years so what exactly constitutes ‘traditional’ is open to much debate. But more importantly, people will be free to celebrate marriage in which ever way they see fit but what they won’t be allowed to do is exclude others – which does amount to anti-gay discrimination!

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