Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory Lord True: ‘Relationships should be respected, but I haven’t made up my mind on equal marriage’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. If relationships are to be respected equally then they must be respected equally before the law.

    This is not up for debate.

    Bigotry is the only reason someone can oppose marriage equality.

  2. Blah blah blah “I’m not a homophobe… but”

    Same old pattern. A brief preamble telling us how they’re totally not a homophobe, followed by a statement that makes it clear they are.

    If our relationships should be respected, he would have no doubt or question about respecting ours, but by deciding to treat our relationships as less, it’s clear he’s lying about respecting us

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 8:18pm

      My gut feeling about all this is that it’s going to fail in the Lords. I don’t feel any encouragement whatosever. All of this negative commentary from the opposition doesn’t help. This moron, and those bigoted religious bastards on the back bench will be in raptures.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 8:21pm

      Civil marriage is not biblical, no religious element whatsoever and here he is trying to interpose it by that procreation nonsense, not realising that not all heteros are capable. The second paragraph of his tells you where his vote is going doesn’t it? Bloody hypocritical fool and a stupid one too. How i loathe most Tories.

      1. Colin (London) 15 May 2013, 10:10pm

        I agree I expect it to fall there too…But we must try harder now to convince them. For those of you who are good bloggers try writing to the media, the church, and all HOL Peers.

        I’m in NZ at the moment and it’s been a one week wonder since the Bill was passed. Everyone getting on with life again.

        Someone please tell him it’s about equality……not sex,not religion…..EQUALITY

      2. Not only is Civil Marriage not Biblical – but not all religious marriage is Biblical either. I’m not an atheist. I’m a deeply religious man with deeply religious friends and my husband and I would very much like to have our deeply religious wedding. But for some reason in the name of “freedom of religion” the Christian church in this country gets to chose what weddings my faith may or may not sanctify.

        i join you in that loathing, the exception does not prove the rule. Especially since those exception Tories spend more time chiding critics of homophobia then they do the homophobes themselves.

        1. Well, if the Christian Church doesn’t get to choose what weddings it wants to sanctify, then freedom of religion doesn’t exist, does it?

  3. I’m not a racists but…………..

    This debate is at least highlighting what an insult to democracy the HoL can be.

    1. PS. We are paying good money in taxation to be treated like this.

      1. I think that.

        If I am only afforded X percent of the rights heterosexuals enjoy, can I pay pro rata the taxation and council tax I pay into this ‘society’ that happily denies me those same rights.

        1. Excellent point, Beelzebub. Similarly as a trans person I’ve always wondered why I am paying taxes to a government which I find unrepresentative in that it does not include even one openly transgender person. Yet if a government does not reflect and serve the interests of the people by which it was democratically elected then what on earth is it? Britain is alone in the democracies of the world in that half of its government is not actually democratically elected. Similarly, Britain is one of only two countries in the world that reserves seats in its government for clerics – the other country is Iran. It seems even after some 250 years since they lost the north American colonies that subsequently became known as the USA, the British Houses of Parliament still do not seem to have managed to grasp the principle of No Taxation Without Representation.

  4. If the House of ‘Lords’ rejects the bill then the Parliament Act had better be used to override it.

    The HoL is unelected, and it is undemocratic in the extreme that it may defeat the will of the elected Commons.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 9:45pm

      I agree. I think it will be defeated but last December, Maria Miller indicated that the Parliament Act wouldn’t be ruled out. Let’s hope she sticks to that option. I’m sure John Bercow won’t have any problem invoking it since he’s a very enthusiastic supporter of equal marriage. With a 400-175 vote on February 5th, I don’t think she would do an about turn. That vote was enormously high. The Lords had better take that into consideration.

      1. Surely it’s the government who decides whether to invoke the Parliament Act or not? I don’t know of any circumstances in which the presiding officer (the Speaker or a deputy) isn’t strictly neutral – even when it comes to tied votes, they use their casting vote in accordance with strict conventions.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2013, 12:11pm

          I stand corrected, James. You are right. I’ve no doubt in my mind Speaker Bercow would cast his vote in favour. Let’s hope he doesn’t have to do it although I’m not encouraged by the negative comments coming from the Peers. None in support have stepped forward which is regrettable. I’ve only received one response from Baroness Beverly Hughes of Stretford out of the six I contacted. She is voting yes, thankfully.

          http://www.writetothem.com/lords

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 15 May 2013, 9:49pm

    If you read his second paragraph, I think you can deduce that he’s already made his mind up. Once these religious loons start citing procreation, you know what their vote is going to be. Even then, he can’t even be honest about it. He can’t even figure out that 15 countries have now introduced equal marriage and 12 American states, but doesn’t stop to think why or why they’ve not opted for CPs or some similar union that isn’t marriage. Not too bright in my view and woefully ignorant.

  6. friday jones 15 May 2013, 10:54pm

    Is this what a Hedge Wizard is? A wizard at hedging?

  7. “man and woman are biologically diverse”

    Sigh.

  8. That’s a ‘no’ from him then.

  9. “People elect their own affinities and relationships”. Except when coconuts like you decide who can and can’t get married.

    As for “spontaneous procreation”, perhaps you missed the lesson about where babies come from.

  10. “People elect their own affinities and relationships and should be respected equally (.that goes also for ….. sibling partnerships), ”

    So does that mean he is advocating incest. As far as I know “spontoneous procreation” could happen in an incestuous relationship as well then.

    “spontaneous procreation “…sounds like a Catholic to me or possibly a follower of SPUC..

  11. And there was I thinking the HoL was there to “scrutinise and improve” the Bill

    This guy plainly intends to judge the central principle of the Bill and accept it or, more probably, reject it on his personal whim.

    I find myself asking, who the f*** is this guy and what the f*** is he doing in Parliament. The only thing you can say in his favour is that he at least feels an obligation to reply to an e mail from one of the people who did not elect him, which is a lot more than can be said for most of them in the HoL.

  12. His email on the council is

    Cllr.LordTrue@richmond.gov.uk

  13. “No-one, least of all me, has defined ‘civil partnership’ as ‘inferior’ or ‘second-class’”

    He seems to be overlooking the fact that his own Party and the Government have repeatedly stated that “Marriage” is “the Gold Standard”.

    Only the other day Maria Miller said again that CPs were important, a first step, but that Marriage was more important and meant much more. Which we all knew anyway.

  14. Strong arguments:
    Equality
    Broadening access to marriage doesn’t change opposite sex marriages one bit
    Why should your view interfere with the marriage decisions of anyone
    Broadening access to marriage strengthens marriage as a social institution

  15. “As to voting I will hear the arguments – and there are good arguments – on both sides and decide accordingly”

    There are only good points on our side but the others are hiding behind religion and that marriage is only for procreation rubbish as their arguments. All of which are being rebuffed continually.

    Lord True, I urge you to be on the right side of arguments when the time comes.

  16. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2013, 10:35am

    Er…. respected relationships should include marriage full stop! No if’s and no buts.

  17. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2013, 11:59am

    “The weight of argument for change needs to be exceptionally strong to alter such a fundamental concept.”

    Lord UnTrue, your mind is already made up, you are voting NO. Why can’t you be honest about it? Listen very carefully. 15 countries, 12 American states, Mexico City are the answer to your statement. Ask yourself why none of them support your distorted view that they are equal to marriage?

  18. We’ll take that as a NO then

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