Reader comments · Lib Dem Deputy Leader Simon Hughes: ‘Marriage should be between one man and one woman’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Lib Dem Deputy Leader Simon Hughes: ‘Marriage should be between one man and one woman’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. This article is misrepresenting Simon’s position.

    What Simon has called for is legal equality for same-sex and mixed-sex couples, by abolishing civil marriages in favour of civil partnerships. That would determine the legal status and rights afforded to all couples. Then religions can choose to bless those unions as marriage if they see fit.

    I don’t agree with everything Simon has said on these issues but he is consistent in calling for legal equality for couples regardless of gender.

    1. If what you say is true, and the author knows so, then the article is a quite a serious misrepresentation which is owed either a defense or should be retracted (with an apology forthcoming).

      1. The fact that Hughes mentions ‘god’ when civil marriage has NOTHING to do with ‘god’ or religion is a strong indicator that Hughes is a homophobic bigot.

        He’s a self-hating snake and an enemy to our community.

        I know he pretends the grotesque homophobia of the 1983 Bermondsey bye-election was not his doing.

        I don’t believe him,

        This snake has no principles and no character and is a pathetic, spineless wimp.

      2. If that’s true, then it’s still disingenuous. Het couples can quite freely marry at the registry office if they don’t want all the religious flummery, so there’s no practical need for the the bill in question; except to allow spiteful dissenting registry officers to opt-out.

        Sorry, if you’re a state employee, you do what the state tells you. This is not even like anti-abortion health workers who are allowed to opt-out of procedures which, arguably, are killing living creatures.

        As for an apology, get a grip. Hughes is a senior Government minister and has access to all the organs of state and print/broadcast/online media.

        “Apologize!”, libel, all muchness of a muchness with old Tories whining about “ungentlemanly behaviour”… a sign of a truncated, conservative worldview which considers the matter closed immediately after declaring their position.

    2. Ah, downvoted for stating facts. Great way to stifle debate.

      1. You are not stating facts, You are making excuses,

        Simon Hughes offers no viable alternative to equal marriage,.

        He simply spouts self-hating garbage about ‘god’ and marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman for reproduction,.

        The man is a disgusting bigot and a disgrace to our community (which he hates) and to his party.

        He’s a vile bigoted piece of work.

        Let’s make sure he does not get re-elected,.

        1. when it comes to cofe he is such cocksucker

      2. simon hughes is a closeted ukip fan

      3. I down voted you because you MISSTATED the facts. I provided just one example below but there are a few things that you failed to mention that Hughes said that don’t match up to your defense (I’m American) of him.

      4. No, you were downvoted because people disagreed with you. And you didn’t state facts… you expressed your opinion (some would call it excuses with the pointless – except to construct a simulacrum of reasonableness – caveat that you don’t always agree with Hughes; on stuff with has negligible relevance to this story).

        Always be wary of someone who tries to present their opinions as “facts”. The only facts are what Hughes said and did. He voted against the bill… fact. He’s going to vote for registrars to have an opt-out… fact. His excuses are pants.

        Far from having your right to debate stifled, you are ridiculing others for doing so.

    3. Where does that position leave trans people who transition while married?

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 21 May 2013, 7:05pm

      Hughes and Mulholland haven’t considered the implications of abolishing marriage and having civil unions for all. They would NOT be recognised outside the UK as marriages creating another inequality.

      1. Don’t be fooled by Hughes and his weasel words.

        He opposes equal civil rights for same sex couples.

        There is absolutely no justification for his appalling bigotry.

    5. Sorry Dave but that’s NOT what he said. He said that GAY COUPLES should be offered something SEPARATE but equal to straight marriage.

      YOU are misrepresenting what he said.

      How’s that for free and open debate?

    6. There’s no conflict between the article and what you say, DP. He would rather abolish marriage than allow LGBT people to have it.

      Personally I’d prefer to have it, if its all the same to the Lib Dems

    7. Hello Dave. Who is a liar, then? The quoted words are extremely clear, so, you’re talking about outright lies. Could you let us know why you say what you do, in flat contradiction of what is quoted as said by Hughes in the PN article. Since you think the writer is a liar, please say so and the writer can defend what’s been published. And by the way, showing disagreement with a comment, even electronically, isn’t suppressing debate, actually. Calm down a tad, man.

    8. Here’s the quote:

      “I also believe that two men or two women can have a relationship that mirrors that between a man and a woman but is not identical. So I believe we should have separate institutions that reflects that.”

      He is most definitely calling for gay couples to have a SEPARATE institution.

      YOU are misrepresenting his position.

      1. Simon Hughes is a self-hating homophobic bigot.

  2. ‘Marriage’ should be a CIVIL contract. End of. Religion should have NO part in it -unless the couple concerned want it. If they do, let them get it where it’s offered. If that is not a service the homophobic CorE or Catholics or whoever want to offer, fine! If a gay couple NEEDS religion, let them find one that accepts them and ignore those that don’t. Leave pathetic homophobic religions to wither on the vine and support progressive, inclusive ones – if you NEED ‘religion’ at all.

  3. Am I the only one who always thought Simon Hughes was against this bill from the start?

    This comes as no surprise to me!

    What has surprised me though is that so many libdems having been voting for the nasty amendments and I don’t even know how many of them have abstained or been absent.

    Does PN have a run down of how the parties voted for the amendments? My gut feeling is that Labour have been the best and most reliable in all this.

    1. You’ll probably have to wait for Hansard tomorrow to get a full run-down of all the votes. Quite a lot of Lib Dems (including Hughes) voted to allow registrars to turn away same-sex couples yesterday, but a few Labour MPs did too. I hope Hughes loses a lot of influence in the party over this – his views and votes aren’t compatible with the deputy leadership of a party that claims to be liberal and accepting of LGBT people – I don’t care if he “struggles with his sexuality”.

  4. there it is again “traditional” a word being adopted by bigots and self loathing closets like Hughes to explain away their hatred of others equality – what a pathetic example of a human being he is.

    1. Yep, you’re right. I call them the Genitalianists.

      1. nixiotemba 22 May 2013, 6:41am

        he better go back to the ‘glorious alcohol’ stupid addict

  5. At least the same-sex marriage debate has revealed the LibDems’ lack of spine. Their equivocations are sickening. They simply cannot be trusted.

    1. I really hope their wipe-out in 2015 is as spectacular as it ought to be.

  6. Hughes really is an awful excuse for a man!

  7. I guess we’ll see shortly which way he votes on the 3rd Reading

  8. The Lib Dems’ answer to Keith O’Brien !

    Time he was de-selected. He’s nasty enough to join the Tories.

  9. “I take a ‘traditional’ view on women’s suffrage.”

    “I take a ‘traditional’ view on inter-racial relationships.”

    “I take a ‘traditional’ view on the rights of children.”

    Dear bigots, stop defending your bigotry as “tradition” and come up with a proper argument based on logic and fairness.

  10. Robert (Kettering) 21 May 2013, 7:38pm

    Hughes is just another of those self loathing bigots and I truly hope he gets booted out at the next General Election along with that Sarah Tether creep.

    1. Here Here!!!!!

  11. “I believe that marriage is ordained by God

    So marriages in pre- or non-Christian societies simply don’t count then? I simply cannot understand how someone who comes out with this rubbish can be the deputy leader of any major party.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 May 2013, 10:18pm

      Civil marriage in the UK, last time I checked, was ordained by Parliament in the 19th century, not the Anglican cult or any other.

  12. And Simon hughes needs therapy.

  13. It’s obviously he’s still struggling with sexuality. No excuse for inflicting his insecurities on others. This is a man, let’s not forget, who ran a horribly homophobic campaign in Bermondsey in the 1980s to get elected. His opposition to gay marriage isn’t much of a surprise.

  14. Simon Hughes in, in effect, arguing for an apartheid system. He should be thrown out of the Lib Dem party, Don’t you agree Dave Page?

  15. Tom (Winnipeg) 21 May 2013, 8:52pm

    I didn’t know parrots could utter complete sentences!

  16. Simon Hughes is a disgusting bigot regardless of how you try to spin this.

    The grotesque homophobia on display during the 1983 Bermondsey bye-election is clearly shared by Hughes.

    What makes him such a pathetic, worthless creature is that he is voting against his own rights (and using that ‘god’ thing as a justification.

    Self-hatred such as that displayed by Hughes is truly pathetic.

  17. ”Should be” but its not going to be that exclusive for much longer!

  18. Seems that Simon Hughes abstained on the final vote

  19. Tom Cotner 21 May 2013, 9:48pm

    Doesn’t this nit-wit know that no one is saying that he will have to marry MORE than one man or one woman?


  20. That There Other David 21 May 2013, 10:00pm

    Religion DOES NOT own marriage. Society owns marriage. Religion does not own society.

    So Simon Hughes can think what he likes, but he needs to learn to keep his self-hating beliefs out of my life.

    God is a lie as far as I’m concerned.

  21. unpleasant, selfish and opportunistic

  22. A, J,Mainland 21 May 2013, 10:17pm

    This man really needs to look up the meaning of Liberal and liberty in the dictionary.Cant believe he’s their deputy leader. Used to vote for them, but never again.

  23. for life and without cheating – other wise straight to jail!

  24. Peter Gregory 21 May 2013, 10:22pm

    I honestly had NO idea that there were so many screwed up insecure guys out there. They really need to sort themselves out; all these mixed up guys with self loathing who fear a queer couple living next door have to ask themselves: is my WIFE/ GF going to run off with them and “Do I believe the sad abuser in the red hat from scotland that queers will destroy civilisation? Well I guess Cardinal O’Brien has his reward for abusing and forcing those young trainees into non-consensual sex- apparently FORCED outa Scotland- no inquiry, no apology, to a villa in Tuscany. It must be terrible for him.
    shame that alex salmond was so DESPERATE for the catholic vote he bitched stonewall for naming O’Brien as Bigot of the year. Looks like the Libdems & the tories have been watching too many John Inman episodes- bitch yerselves into shreds and tear yerselves apart. Stereotypes? Sad & immature and INSECURE- all of ’em.

  25. Robert in S. Kensington 21 May 2013, 10:24pm

    Somehow, I don’t think his absurd notion would work in practice. I don’t think the vast amount of hetero couples would be content to have only a civil partnership. They’d be faced with the same inequality as CPd couples already do when they travel outside the UK. NOT going to happen, thankfully.

    What I am all for is French style civil marriage for all.

  26. Bisexual my ass. What woman would go with that.

  27. Oh dear! He’s in the wrong party. What a self-loathing piece of work.
    This nasty bigot should be thrown out of the Lib Dem party along with fellow bigot Sarah Teather.

  28. Bisexual??? I wonder if he’s had any fanny lately.

  29. Simon Hughes tried to chat me up many years ago. Back then I admired him as a politician.

    I must say that of late (since getting into power) he’s gone down enormously in my estimation.

    He does no favours to the Bisexual cause by being such a lumpy bigot.

    Honesty regarding his own ‘struggles’ with his sexuality do not back up his ridiculous stance in the matter of Marriage Equality.

    He’s clearly so locked up in the prison of his own experience that he’s unable to see the ethical wood for the bigoted trees…

    1. Or more like Keith O’Brien, a slave to the cock.

  30. He also strikes me as a swivel-eyed but due to lifetime of peeping through glory holes. (And drilling them probably.)

  31. Christopher in Canada 22 May 2013, 7:27am

    Amazing how a man with no lips can be so surprisingly pious…

  32. We all struggled with our sexuality this was because of bigots and bigoted views maybe its time you grew a pair a came out of the shadows and be true to yourself !!

  33. George Broadhead 22 May 2013, 9:38am

    Hughes’ Evangelical Christian belief is well known, I think, so this should come as no surprise.

  34. ‘marriage should be for “the creation of children,”’ Yes, marriages are for breeding, that’s why dogs and cats have them, too.


  35. Diesel Balaam 10 Jul 2013, 12:40am

    Simon Hughes has always been a slippery reptile. He exploited anti-gay sentiment to get elected against Peter Tatchell in Bermondsey in 1983, lied about his own shirt-lifting past, and now pontificates about “God” in an attempt to deny all citizens the right to marry. Sick-making.

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.