Reader comments · Tory Faith Minister Baroness Warsi abstains in equal marriage Lords vote · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory Faith Minister Baroness Warsi abstains in equal marriage Lords vote

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. She is a coward, pure and simple.

    A woman who, in my opinion, should have no place in the House of Lords

    1. You’re so right, D. McCabe. Sayeeda Warsi has proven herself to be more an opportunist than a politician of conviction. She does not have sufficient integrity to stand up to those members of the Islamic community who have been lobbying her not to allow homosexual people to get married.

      The Conservative Party has really pushed itself to include her and to give her every opportunity to be involved and at the highest level, but she’s blown it. She’s not up to such responsibilities.

      We must remember her spinelessness from now on, every time her face pops up on TV or wherever.

      No, Sayeeda, no. You’ve had your chance.

      1. Bishop Crusty 5 Jun 2013, 5:16pm

        Stop picking on the poor lass, at least she didn’t vote for the amendment.

  2. How bloody ridiculous is it that we have a “Minister for Invisible Friends” anyway?!

    In fairness, her own personal record of rank bigotry aside, I have no particular problem with those opposed to the bill simply abstaining. It was yesterday’s out-pouring of wretched bile by opponents that really troubled me – sitting it out pales into insignificance when held up against those openly engaging in what I would consider tantamount to hate speech.

    1. Midnighter 5 Jun 2013, 10:58am

      Quite. On your last point I commented similarly elsewhere – why the hell should these irrelevant nutters be allowed to give public voice to such bile, when in the workplace the rest of us are subject to legal and professional standards that ensure you’d be out the door in a flash if you said such things?

      Even a child could see that if you substituted the focus of their hatred for race or the disabled or some other group that it would be completely unacceptable.

      The consolation in all of this is that we are approaching the extinction of such dinosaurs, and yet the concern remains that in the meantime such intellectually stunted and hateful people have power over the country.

  3. This doesn’t surprise me at all given her record on gay matters.

    I think it’s wrong for a poltician to say they are going to vote a certain way then not do it. It’s just like the Lib Dems pledging to vote against tutition fees before the general election and then ignoring that pledge just so they could get into government.

  4. Jock S. Trap 5 Jun 2013, 10:54am

    No surprise there then…. it’s typical of the religious to lie.

    1. Jacob Dugan-Brause 5 Jun 2013, 11:32am

      As if it’s not of human beings? I have my own problems with people of faith, but insulting them isn’t quite where I can join you.

      She is likely abstaining on a bill that champions people she has demonstrated prejudice towards. That’s the problem here, as is the small matter of unelected ‘representatives’ in a parliament whether friend or foe.

      I truly appreciate the titular politicians who speak for us, but I still question their legitimacy, even in the constitutional monarchy we possess here.

      1. Midnighter 5 Jun 2013, 1:47pm

        It may be insulting but it happens to be fact. Most major religions have always claimed to have the absolute truths of the universe. In an era of science that claim has been gradually and painfully exposed as an outright lie, and yet many cling to to their remaining fabrications.

        Why should one trust a person whose belief system necessarily involves intellectual dishonesty over one who does not confuse evidential reality with fantasy? There is abundant evidence in this debate that the rationality – and indeed honesty – of the extremely religious is often severely compromised.

        By contrast I have a great deal of time for the religious who concern themselves with matters of humanity and spirituality without such unthinking and closed- minded attitudes; they are far more honest thinkers.

        1. Jacob Dugan-Brause 5 Jun 2013, 9:46pm

          Thank you and I can agree with much of your comment.

          My contribution, lost as it seems, is that very few can remain in a conversation when they are insulted, just as we become defensive or angry when someone hurls homophobic abuse about. And rightly so.

          So call someone a bigot, over and over again. Great. Feel better? Sorry, but can we not be the rational people we claim to be with our opponents?

          We aren’t when reduced to name-calling. This chat is simple: Keep it civil, maybe witty, touch gloves and don’t come out swinging.

          Which, by the way, is what we Quakers try to do with any and all. I guess it’s that religion-think that gets in my way.


          1. Midnighter 5 Jun 2013, 10:02pm

            I sincerely believe that to be a wise and pragmatic approach which works well in many cases. There are however limits in practice where one encounters a mind that is unwilling or incapable of looking past religious (or dogma (or indeed any strongly held conviction), and in that instance – especially when belief is threatened – simple truths may become insulting, whether intended as such or not.

            In my view one should avoid creating insult, but nor should the fear of giving insult stifle dialogue.

  5. It’s hard to believe this is is the same party that, only three years ago, published Theresa May’s Contract for Equalities that promised sweeping reforms of how schools and workplaces deal with homophobia (not politically feasible now), as well looking into gay marriage.

    It was all big lie. ‘We’ve changed, we’re not Norman Tebbit’s party anymore’. As certain malcontents might put it, there was no mandate for this.

  6. How exactly has this person got into parliament and now the Lords? She’s never won an election. Disgusting and undemocratic.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 5 Jun 2013, 11:11am

      As we remember, she tried to get elected on a homophobic election leaflet and failed.

    2. Tokenism, I fear.

  7. Ms Warsi is evil, extremist bigot scum who is evidence of the desperate need to democratize the House of Lords.

    1. Bishop Crusty 5 Jun 2013, 5:10pm

      Not a comment that is likely to win her, or anyone else, over. You sound too much like a troll to be of any use in this debate.

  8. Mumbo Jumbo 5 Jun 2013, 11:10am

    The Minister for Faith and Communities clearly needs to be renamed as just Minister for Faith.

  9. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 11:32am

    I can’t say I’m particularly surprised, I’d have to check twice if she told me water was wet.

    Still I’m glad she didn’t accept the opportunity to take the bill through the Lords. Given that she’s not exactly a deft hand when it comes to politics goodness knows what mess we’d have found ourselves in. The Baroness who is taking the bill through is doing a blooming good job.

  10. GulliverUK 5 Jun 2013, 11:34am

    Since she is only capable of doing the “Faith” part of her role, and completely ignores the “Communities” she is being PAID to work to bring together, can we please either a) demand her resignation (something most of the country wants to see), or b) reduce her enormous pay packet to half.

    She has been a disgrace to the Tory party since before she even got elected. On all the discussions I’ve had, with many Tories on discussion forums right across, I’ve yet to find anybody who likes her. She is arrogant, pushy, self-centered, seems to lack empathy or EQ, she mades gaffes like no other, and only got in to the HoL to make the Tory party look PC – there are lots of great Muslims out there – replace her with another. And, we already have excellent Muslim MPs who don’t abstain from equality issues.

    1. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 11:37am

      When Cameron demoted her from party chair she apparently begged to be allowed to stay in her role because she was a woman and a muslim. But she doesn’t like to be considered a tokenistic appointment!

      The woman is a walking contradiction. I remember watching her on Question Time when Nick Griffin was on and trying to make it seem like there was a difference between her views on gay people and his. I hope Cameron takes the hint, realises what a talentless hack she is and boots her out of government.

  11. Baroness Warsi, Minister for faith and communities

    “They work for you”… (lol)

    …unless you happen to be the LGBT community.

  12. Robert (Kettering) 5 Jun 2013, 11:55am

    “I have a number of ongoing concerns which have been raised by faith communities……”, in other words she’s been told by one of the “Great Bearded Ones” how to vote, or she faces another “egging”, simple as that.

    A total disgrace and waste of space, time she was booted out of her current role and replaced by someone with half a brain!

  13. A leopard never changes its spots

  14. TheBrutalKremlin 5 Jun 2013, 12:06pm

    “The only way to get people in power, to cede any power, is to show them it is in their best interests” – CB Jones, co-author of MLK Jr’s ‘Dream’ speech.

    WHEN is everybody going ot realise that these people are wholly owned subsidiaries of McCorporations, including The McChurch Companies, and will only act if they’re getting something out of it?

    This marriage thing has become a political ping-pong and diversion.

    1. LittleGhost 5 Jun 2013, 12:19pm

      The poem ‘First they came’ always comes to mind when someone like Baroness Warsi and her ‘flexible’ attitude toward discrimination pops up on the radar. She seems to have a pick and choose approach to recognising prejudice and inequality in society. Give her six months or so, and see how she ‘claims’ unswerving support for marriage equality.

  15. I’m surprised to hear that she’d ever considered voting in favor of it.
    So no surprises that she didn’t. That woman wouldn’t know equality if it hit her on the head. All she cares about is the right for people to impose their superstitious doctrine on others.
    A typical religious zealot. Unlike Lord Alli, a Lord worthy of some respect.

    1. Bishop Crusty 5 Jun 2013, 5:34pm

      She doesn’t strike me as a zealot. Just lacking any empathy with the gay community.

  16. Spinless Bitch

    1. Bishop Crusty 5 Jun 2013, 5:23pm

      Another pointlessly insulting and illiterate comment from a troll. You should be at the Oxford Union.

      I dont like her but your attitude makes me feel sympathetic to her.

      1. whats with your small dog mentality?

  17. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jun 2013, 12:27pm

    She had no intention of voting for the Bill when she refused Cameron’s request to take it through the Upper Chamber. that’s when the red flag went up in my view. She’s a snake in the grass, always has been, to say nothing of her bigotry kow-towing to religious loons which is what this is all about.

    She’s incompetent and should be booted out on her scrawny arse.

    I have a problem with MPs/Peers who abstain. You either vote yes or no, no fence-sitting or expectations of exoneration from being labelled a homophobe or bigot.

    1. Bishop Crusty 5 Jun 2013, 5:40pm

      Scrawny? Are you sure?

      Your multiple posts objecting to her abstaining are getting tiresome. You prefer her to vote against us, I get it. Most people are glad it’s one less vote for the other side.

  18. Pls, sign to support gay marriage in Romania (
    Help to do it:
    Prenume=first name; Nume=family name; Oras=city; Tara=county.
    A message will be sent to you and have to click on the 2nd link to confirm.

  19. Justin Welby, the vile archbigot, said in his speech that he wouldn’t be supporting the amendment but then he did. The disgusting liar and hypocrite!

  20. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jun 2013, 1:30pm

    I just can’t get my around exactly what those ongoing concerns of hers are. The Bill in its current form goes above and beyond delivering full protection for the state cult and for the cult of Wales, teachers, public servants. No denomination is going to be compelled to participate, no law suits will ensue. I don’t know of any case in which a straight divorced couple have sued a church for refusing to officiate a marriage.

    The current employment laws give more than adequate protection for people of faith. Just what exactly is she expecting? Another delusional loon whose time has come to move on and get out a bit more.

    1. Midnighter 5 Jun 2013, 1:52pm

      In my view the silver lining is that by stirring up such daft concerns they are only weakening the position of the state cults; their irrational attempts to get their own way on everything is merely highlighting the inequalities and differences between sanctioned religion and the rights of other religions and atheists.

  21. Minister for Faith and SOME communities then!! Utterly spineless worse than voting against

    1. Bishop Crusty 5 Jun 2013, 5:28pm

      She certainly seems conflicted about her job, which includes our equality, but to say that it would have been better if she voted against us is ridiculous.

      Seems you are astroturfing with this “spineless” meme.

  22. At least 9 Bishops voted the same way – couldn’t see any voting ‘for’ the bill. Once again the C of E on the wrong side of history – and so much in a minority.

    Apparently quite a few peers who don’t support gay marriage voted against the amendment because it was felt to be an incorrect use of Lords power and procedure. So the bishops are politically and constitutionally ignorant as well bigoted homophobes?

    I still find it astonishing that in the 21st century our parliament has in it a group of people representing an organisation that formally bans women from its rank (House of Bishops), with the power to vote against our freedoms and rights.

  23. The ONLY “safeguard” that these religious asshats will be satisfied with will be trashing the bill completely and making sure that it never sees the light of day again.

  24. No surprise from the “Minister without portfolio” She doesn’t want to upset her fellow islamic extremists again.

    1. Bishop Crusty 5 Jun 2013, 5:14pm

      Exaggeration is unhelpful.

  25. You only have to see the bitter old dinosaur faces of those who voted against and those who abstained to realise, as David Cameron must do, that they dont have a place in a 21st conservative party. Good riddence I say and as for Baroness Warsi – well I hope she enjoys her company of religious nutters and bigots.

  26. She always was a mealy-mouthed coward. I recall her stating on Question Time that she would vote in favour of SSM provided religious freedom would not be impinged.

  27. Christopher Hobe Morrison 5 Jun 2013, 3:30pm

    Who was it who said “When the going gets tough the tough get going.” Oh yes, Richard Nixon. Wheenever the far right takes over the Tory party, she should have a future. Unless they decide she isn’t consistently enough on their side, which is likely.

  28. If she truely had concerns about small matters in the bill, then voting for it to pass to the next stage would have been the correct thing to have done. But she didn’t.

    Conversely, voting for the wrecking amendment would have lost her her job, so she abstained. So she didn’t do that either.

    What a character!

  29. as we have seen in commons and in lords you can be muslim or christian and vote for the law, she is such embarrassing failure

  30. Like most religious people, she is a liar. Her word simply can’t be trusted be trusted about anything.

  31. She doesn’t give a sh*t about us. All she works towards is a good seat in her heaven, so all her decisions are based upon on how she could please her allah the most.

  32. Colin (London) 7 Jun 2013, 1:41pm

    A “good willed” traditionalist who lives in the past.
    We only have today (which we can change little) and tomorrow (which is under our control)
    She chose the past and so be with her…Can we have people in Politics who want to create a better future PLEASE..

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.