Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland: I would rather be called a ‘s**t’ than a homophobe and the equal marriage bill is flawed

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good for him. Now then about those Labour MP’s who put the criminal organisation the Catholic Church, / the vast landowning and homophobic Church of England and other loony ‘beliefs’ before my and your equal rights, what about those not so little s…ts?

    1. Excuse me? If it wasn’t for those Labour MPs the bill would have never been pasted, Just remember all those nice equality legislations that we have, I wonder which party was responsible for that?

      1. Try reading Rolo’s post a little more carefully. He’s not lambasting all Labour MPs, just the Catholic ones who, in this particular instance, voted as per the Bishop of Rome’s orders.

        1. Yeah but why only labour MPs who are catholic?

      2. Should have gone to Specsavers eh?

    2. Pathetic

  2. A true idealist! It is worth commending him for this. Unfortunately, however, we do not live in a world where idealism can be truly practiced, without playing into the hands of those who are opposed to the idealists’ principles. I wish the bill was tabled like Mr Mulholland hoped for, yet politicising got in the way, and so the best scenario out of worst scenarios had to be voted for yet again. The worst thing that could be said of Greg Mulholland is that he was incredibly naive, almost akin to a conscientious objector when it comes to war. However, it is a war of principles we are fighting here and we need soldiers, not those with their heads above the parapets abstaining from the battle.

    1. It’s ridiculous to call Greg Mulholland an idealist on marriage equality. He has a record of abstaining from votes on gay equality, voted in favour of an attempted wrecking amendment, and put forward an amendment that would have denied the institution of ‘marriage’ to anyone who wanted to do it in a civil, rather than religious, context. He also is a keen propagator of the myth that conservative Christians are a persecuted minority in need of protection from gay equality. There’s nothing idealistic about it.

      1. I agree. There is nothing ‘idealist’ about Mulholland. He used the same references to ‘equality’ as his anti-gay Tory friends to try and defeat the Bill. At Second Reading he failed to vote (his usual tactic on gay rights issues), then he supported the Tory wrecking amendment, then he was forced to withdraw his own ridiculous amendment which would have deprived every heterosexual couple married in a civil context of their marriage (he withdrew this when MPs rightly laughed at him), and finally (perhaps because he acknowledged that the historical record would be unkind to him) he voted for the Bill at Third Reading. I was particularly disgusted in his speech at Report Stage when he bleated about the ‘names’ people had called him (something he again repeats in his statement to Pink News). How dare he use this moment to complain about having his feelings hurt by gay men and lesbians who have dared to complain about and challenge his attempt to deny them access to marriage. Idealism? No.

        1. Wait, this is the same guy who spent much of his speech whining about having being called “anti-gay rights” and “a bad Catholic”, and yet he said to a constituent “I am very glad I have never met you Jonathan as you are a disingenuous, manipulate, illiberal little sh*t!”? I think I might be able to imagine why he gets called names.

        2. I agree with everything Terry says.
          I am a 64 year old married women . I am appalled at the comment made to a student by Gregg Mulholland .
          Does Mr Mulholland not understand that our gay and lesbian people have been suffering name calling since the playground?
          I sincerely hope with all my heart , the same sex couples bill is passed in the Lords.
          Maybe then our gay and lesbian couples can marry, and be happy loving someone as they deserve.
          These man made laws that our gay and lesbian people have had to live through have been a disgrace. So lets put an end to it. The same sex marriage bill will be a start , and will help to stop people being bullied and suffering. Even Mr Mulholland may learn a thing or two. Would Mr Mulholland like his children to be treated like this? One day he may be glad of the same sex marriage law for one of them.
          I believe that he should be sacked ,we don’t need people like him representing us. What message does he send out?

  3. You cannot use words like S…ts in full on this site or other “swear” words because the nanny censor won’t allow it.

  4. GulliverUK 22 May 2013, 1:34pm

    He said it himself he wanted to make a “much more radical change”. It was ideological and would have abolished marriage. If we were starting from scratch it’s probably what we would do, but given where we are it was fanciful, divisive and would have probably scuppered the bill completely if passed. He had little support other than his himself and it was an ill-advised amendment. But he’s right there are deficiencies – but they spend over 3 hours discussing Humanist marriage and only 30 minutes discussion pension, then dumped both amendments – at which point it became just marriage, not equal marriage. It’s welcome, but not equal.

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 22 May 2013, 1:56pm

    Abolishing marriage would serve no purpose. Calling for civil unions/partnerships for all wouldn’t carry any portability for gays or straights once they stepped outside of the UK since marriage is universally recognised and 15 countries, 12 American States allowing us to marry. It’s an ideal that I don’t think will gain any support or ever come to fruition in the UK. Mulholland needs to concentrate on reality, not fantasy.

    If he’s supporting civil marriage for all, then I would wholeheartedly support that and…I’m sure there would be a lot of support among Labour and Liberal Democrats and a few Conservatives although I suspect the CoE would balk at the idea because it would mean a dimunition of their power. The likes of Burrowes and Loughton would be leading the charge to defeat it.

  6. Sister Mary Clarence 22 May 2013, 2:06pm

    I can to a certain extent see his point a bit (oooooohhhh look at me the diplomat for a change), however, we live in the real world not some fluffy little ideal reality, and sometimes you have to weight up the pros and cons and act of the balance of good against bad.

    On balance I think he got it wrong. He’s brought all the name calling upon himself, and really I think if you’re in a political party with ‘Liberal’ in the title, you’d probably do well to always err on the side of being that little bit extra liberal.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 May 2013, 3:09pm

      I agree. No bill is perfect but I’m glad he voted the right way in spite of his religious or political views which many on the back bench could learn a lesson from. Even if for the sake of argument it were a perfect bill and the amendments Loughton and Burrowes introduced were adopted. they would still have voted against the bill. That’s why their opposition has more to do with their religious beliefs than anything else first and foremost.

      I’ve no doubt both will be now be concentrating in getting the Lords to wreck the bill along with the rest who voted no last night.

  7. I can see both sides here but an MP should never swear at a member of the public. Look at the trouble Gordon Brown got into for calling someone a bigot. He should argue his case professionally or ignore the student altogether. His local party chair should be hopping mad with him over this – but it’s the Lib Dems…

  8. Mulholland didn’t vote for SSM on the 2nd reading so it sounds like Jonathan Pryor’s tweeting worked.

    I honestly thought the guy would vote against the bill or abstain once again.

    I found his amendment a load of nonsense and it came across as though he would have rather got rid of marriage completely rather than allow SSM.

    His other points are irrelevant to this bill. The Bill was about SSM and he knew that it was going to be a fist fight to get it thru and his continual rubbishing of the bill is unhelpful . Even Lynne Featherstone criticised his amendment.

  9. He is correct the bill is deeply flawed it does create two different definitions of civil marriage and doesn`t solve the pensions issue for same sex couples.

    Half soaked equality is not true equality there should be ONE definition of civil marriage not two and equal pension rights these two things make the bill unequal and flawed.

    The way I see it if the government can`t make and grant full equality then they simply shouldn`t bother at all.

  10. This guy is a bit embarrassing for the lib-dems. After looking at his voting record and his history of roman catholic inspired political thoughts, I don’t trust him.

    1. I honestly don’t think the Lib Dems, as a collective whole, have any sense of shame left, which would probably discount them from feeling embarrassment.

  11. catholic priest 22 May 2013, 7:41pm

    one suspects Greg was having too many ales as usual at the OLAS social club with his parishioners !

    1. yes wouldn’t be surprised its where all his decisions are made – hypocrite

      1. Oh really, that’s good to know. Jonathan pryor’s is not the only story I have heard about Gregg Mulholland. Liberal . He really shouldn’t be an mp.

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