Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Lord Dear proposes new amendment to equal marriage bill concerning ‘traditional marriage’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. David Jordan 12 Jun 2013, 4:24pm

    Redundant and insulting, and the amendment isn’t much better.

    1. Redundant indeed. The latest divorce figures are for 2011, and there were 117,558 divorces in 2011. There were 6,795 civil partnerships in 2011.

      Obviously gay marriage will be massively detrimental to “traditional” “for life” marriage.

      I am curious as to why lord Dear is so obsessed with gay marriage, I have never seen his name in the headlines over much else?

      1. On the other hand 12 Jun 2013, 11:48pm

        You missed the Hillsborough disaster then?

  2. Silly old fool.

  3. Am I understanding “Lord” Dear correctly? Is he proposing an amendment that would ban divorce, and make adultery a criminal offence?

    After all, if marriage is “the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others”, then surely, adultery and divorce should be illegal. By his “logic”.

    I still don’t understand why no marriage equality proponents have suggested this type of law. Point out the hypocritical contradictions of the arguments anti-equality activists always bring up.

    1. Just how many members of the House of Lords alone does he think are married in accordance with his strictures? The poor old fool has well and truly gone bonkers.

  4. What a useless piece of meaningless crap…unless it is designed solely to protect those who would abuse it as a reason NOT to fulfill a duty as a public servant to issue licenses and perform civil ceremonies!

    Which I’d bet is his intent.

    What a stupid, stupid, man.

    1. On the other hand 12 Jun 2013, 11:58pm

      Not only that, but designed to try and repeal the equality legislation so hotels would be able to turn away gay couples etc from sharing a double room because they don’t consider them married. In other words revering all the cases the Christian Institute has lost.

      1. On the other hand 13 Jun 2013, 12:01am

        *reversing

  5. No, I think that this amendment is perfectly reasonable, provided that the rights of those of the same sex who wish to get married are not discriminated against in any way. However, I equally think that Mikey’s comment is valid. Mind you, I believe that safeguards are being put in place in the bill to protect those who support traditional marriage. So perhaps Lord Dear’s amendment is redundant after all, and there is a hidden agenda behind his move.

    1. Beelzeebub 12 Jun 2013, 4:54pm

      No. No. No.

      If a registrar, as paid out of my council tax, refuses to perform his/her duties, then this would allow them to “OPT OUT”.

      That being the case I fully expect an annual refund on a portion of my council tax to cover those that refuse to serve me.

      1. Godric Godricson 12 Jun 2013, 5:26pm

        Totally agree. there can be no opt outs for public servants

    2. In my view, it’s another ‘mini-wrecking’ move; to try to ‘preserve’ in aspic; his; and his doddery old mates; anti deluvian and wrong-headed concept of the ‘superiority’ of straight marriage. Looks like he’s trying to stop anyone from even criticising those who continue to espouse ‘trad’ marriage.
      Even when, not if, this is passed; they’ll still be whinging; a la France etc; and so we’ll have to continue to stand firm publicly arguing against their anti- equality stances until they stop.

    3. Dear’s clause “that no person should suffer any detriment because of their belief in traditional marriage” is ridiculously and dangerously vague and ambiguous.

      If a homophobic or bigoted registrar or teacher decides to take action to the detriment of a homosexual couple, or of homosexuals generally, Dear’s clause allows them to do so on the grounds that their not being permitted to manifest their homophobia equates to their “detriment”.

      In other words, Dear’s clause puts “the detriment” of the homophobe and the bigot above the detriment caused to homosexuals who are discriminated against by homophobes or bigots.

      So this amendment is very very far from “reasonable”.

  6. Oh ‘Dear’……….Okay sorry I couldn’t resist :D

  7. Great idea – not!

    *sarcasm on*

    I’m sure some people think “traditional marriage” is that between people of the same race so let’s give racism the green light too.

    And how about those poor people who believe that “traditional suffrage” means only men should vote? Why should the poor dears not be allowed to discriminate against women?

    Not only that, many fine upstanding people think that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. Why not an amendment to make sure that misogynistic, prejudiced bosses don’t have to upset themselves by employing any women?

    *sarcasm off*

  8. Jock S. Trap 12 Jun 2013, 5:22pm

    Oh for pity sake… time for this creature to go.

    If people feel they need protection for what they believe about their own marriage I seriously question why they are married at all. To be so insecure that they feel they need ‘protection’? It’s just pathetic.

    This man and alike will not be happy whatever they get however it surely has to be time to know when you are beaten.

    Fact, we do not live in the 1950′s. Get over it!

    1. Christopher Coleman 13 Jun 2013, 5:40am

      Even in the 1950s there was divorce, adultery, cohabitation, brothels. Gays and lesbians lived together, but were referred to as “friends”.

  9. bobbleobble 12 Jun 2013, 5:27pm

    So much for maturity eh Dear (in my best General Melchett impression). This is another pathetic attempt at a homophobes charter as well as an incredibly poorly drafted and factually incorrect mess of an amendment that would create problems for everyone.

    Hopefully this proposed amendment will go the way of the same one proposed in the Commons.

  10. marriage was the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others (“traditional marriage”)

    OFFS! Does Lord Dear insist that anyone who is not sexually exclusive within an opposite-sex couple (let alone divorced and remarried) is not married? If that’s so, I suggest he clarify this point and put it to the HoL. The resulting gales of laughter will be refreshing.

  11. If C is true, does that mean they can do any of the traditional marriages in the bible (ask Betty Bowers) and it be legal?

  12. “that no person should suffer any detriment because of their belief in traditional marriage.””

    This language is unacceptable because it implies even detriment from any actions they do because of their beliefs.

    Better language would be that “no person should suffer any detriment solely because of their belief in traditional marriage.”

    Best language would be no amendment because no one is ever harmed only because of what they think only what they do.

  13. Lord Dear is an evil monster.

    An evil UNELECTED monster.

    How come there is no way that these ‘peers’ can be kicked out.

    House of Lords reform is desperately needed.

    The House of Lords is unrepresentative, unaccountable, has no democratic mandate, and full of grave-dodgers.

    Get rid of it.

  14. “belief in traditional marriage is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society;”

    What a joke….you can’t make people respect a belief…they either do or don’t…you can’t bully someone into respecting something and I for one will continue to call such people bigotted old homopobes, it’s not against the law to do so now and shouldn’t be after this bill is passed! It’s funny how all these amendements are in the favour of one group only ie the bigots!

  15. I would like to ask a question: can the Lords’ amendements, upon subsequent return to the Commons, be rejected by the Commons?

    1. Robert (Kettering) 12 Jun 2013, 5:45pm

      The simple answer is yes the Commons can reject it and send it back to the Lords – then a game of political ping pong may happen. That’s the intention of the old fart and why he’s put it forward.

    2. Yes!

    3. And Dear being an ex-copper of a certain age knows how to abuse the legal and democratic process.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 12 Jun 2013, 7:52pm

      Yes, but the game is already over for the loons.

  16. Robert (Kettering) 12 Jun 2013, 5:43pm

    The doddery old fool just doesn’t know when to give up does he. Anyway, can’t see the majority of the Lords voting in the amendment and the Commons, when it returns, certainly wouldn’t allow its inclusion in the final Bill. He’s just trying to delay the Bill that’s all.

    A nasty, vile homophobic bigot and a disgrace to the police profession.

  17. This amendment will fail easily because it is factually wrong:

    The amendment states: “prior to the coming into force of this Act, marriage was the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others”.

    Currently, marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life or until they get a divorce.

    Peers hate bad drafting. They pride themselves on their attention to detail – it’s the only argument they have to defend their existence. Lord Dear just lost himself at least twenty votes.

    Needless to say, I utterly reject the spirit of this amendment which either means nothing (religious belief is already protected) or far too much (discriminatory conduct motivated by religious belief should never be protected). But the sloppy drafting is such an insult to the nation’s intelligence that it offends me almost as much.

  18. Michaelandfred 12 Jun 2013, 5:54pm

    Oh dear lord……how about an amendment removing divorce if your traditional marriage is life long? Come on you old bigot, if you REALLY want to protect the decline of marriage, step up!

    1. I suggest we give him a little of what he wants. Let’s say a gold star sticker be sent to every man and woman who marry for life and never get a divorce or violate their marriage vows…when they die. Of course we’ll need proof they didn’t fool around a bit…

  19. GulliverUK 12 Jun 2013, 5:54pm

    Factually incorrect. Same-sex marriages took place up to 342AD…

    “A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#Classical_Europe.2C_Middle_East_and_China

  20. So 50% of Heteros fail through divorce in the very construct that this old fart proposes to the exclusion of all others.

  21. Paul, Southend 12 Jun 2013, 7:28pm

    He needs to check his facts. Marriage hasn’t be a ‘life long’ union for decades. Gay people didn’t change it – heterosexuals did!

    1. If the amendment passes, I’ll be so tempted to go to court for trivial rubbish, accusing random previously divorced, and then remarried people of bigamy and adultery.

  22. Robert in S. Kensington 12 Jun 2013, 7:46pm

    Wreaks of desperation of a dying minority clutching at useless straws.

    Lord Alli is right. We must continue lobbying the Lords. I’ve managed to get 170 done as of now and will continue on past the committee and report stage. We must keep the pressure on them to keep supporting it.I’ve received some lovely responses from almost all I’ve contacted since the second reading.

    http://www.LobbyALord.org

  23. Robert in S. Kensington 12 Jun 2013, 7:50pm

    Not only his absurd amendment but Baroness cumbersome Cumberlege who’s calling for exemptions from contractual obligations for all teachers, registrars and individuals. Imagine the private sector where the majority work demanding similar exemptions for whatever reason. Nobody would work. Another delusional loon. They’re going nowhere with this. They tried it in March and won’t succeed in June or July.

  24. Lord Dear sits in the House of Lords only as he’s an Ex-Chief Constable.

    His last Police Force – West Midlands police has long been held as being one of the most corrupt police forces in the UK.

    Amongst other miscarriages of justice, West Midlands Police stand accused now of serious corruption and incompetence in relation to the Hilsborough where 96 football fans lost their lives.

    When Dear talks of ‘traditional marriage’ and ‘traditional family values’, has it dawned on him that 96 traditional familes lost their husbands, sons, brothers, uncles and nephews – families blown apart by his incompetent, lying, useless police force?

    Both Parliament and the House of Lords have voted overwhelmingly in favour of equal marriage.

    He should respect this and remember quietly his and his colleagues role in the premature death of 96 football fans many of whom enjoyed the traditional marriage he now claims to represent.

  25. “(c) that no person should suffer any detriment because of their belief in traditional marriage.”

    Does this mean a gay-bashing thug cannot be arrested by the police because they say the two magic words “traditional marriage”?

    1. To be fair, it’s a little bit more specific than that: “Any person, in exercising functions under or in consequence of this Act…” Though the wording is still hopelessly vague, and I suspect Lord Dear’s intention is to either try and derail/delay the bill or do a bit of soapboxing – I don’t think even he is silly enough to want this particular amendment to become law.

  26. Commander Thor 12 Jun 2013, 9:05pm

    (d) Anyone claiming one of the above clauses automatically agrees to stop recieving a fraction of their salary that came from the LGBT population (6% according to the government figures).

    Can you imagine a law that says a muslim/jewish butcher can refuse to sell pork even if they work in a shop selling pork? Just claim it’s against your religion, and you don’t have to do your job.

  27. What is this hateful mans real issue with us – it reeks of something really unpleasant to me. No one hates us so much without good reason – Keith O’Brien

    1. Just what I was thinking.

  28. What’s this saying in (a)? That before equality was granted to same sex couples, marriage was unfairly restricted only to mixed sex couples? Well that’s a statement of historical fact, surely not something you can put into law? In (b) he seems to be saying that he’s wants respect for other people’s opinion to be part of the legislative structure – that’s patently undemocratic; In (c) no one should suffer any detriment because of their bigoted belief – well we already have legislation that protects belief so this is redundant. Scary to think this man is part of our law making process when he has such a poor understanding.

  29. ” Prior to this act marriage was between ….blah de blah ….for a lifetime”.
    I suspect there may be opposition to this drivel from a quarter lord dearie-me didn’t even think of ; and that’s the C of E Lords Spiritual who sit in the upper house. After all their sect/cult/whatever was based on the premise that Henry vii could marry and divorce as many times as he liked ! Can’t see them slagging off their founder .
    On a more serious point ;from now on this is where the bigots will try to derail,delay,emasculate the bill

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jun 2013, 12:33am

      They can try but they won’t succeed. Wishful thinking on their part. Lord Dear’s amendment was blown out of the water last week and so too will all the others as it moves ahead. They’re amendments are getting more desperate by the day. The inevitable is coming and they just don’t like it. Tough titties I say, get over it and deal with it. They’re all a bunch of loons.

    1. Gays are their own worst enemy (….sometimes). Keith O’Brien and his crowd are prime examples of that.

  30. Meanwhile, while everyone is looking at this high-profile cretin’s amendment, one of his colleagues has sneaked in with another idiotic idea: remove reference to marriage and call them civil unions instead.

    Yup, another wrecking amendment. And one that almost nobody seems to have spied, because Lord Dear is busy misdirecting folks’ attention.

    1. On the other hand 12 Jun 2013, 10:55pm

      Dear Lord….

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jun 2013, 12:30am

      That was Greg Mulholand’s position during third reading in the Commons. If Civil Unions were ever the norm for eveyone in the UK, there would be no portability for them outside of the country. Civil Unions or Partnerships are not recognised as marriages anywhere. That’s how loony this lot are. They’re desperate and this is proof of it.

      1. I’m thinking this Mulholland you’re speaking of here, Robert, is the same one who behaved like the most extraordinary steamroller on BBC Newsnight last night. He’s an astoundingly confident man, and he has a voice that cuts through the air and rides over those of his opponents. His opponent last night was understandably floored by his behaviour. Formidable person. I didn’t warm to him in the slightest! I wonder if anyone does.

  31. Dear Lord, Lord Dear’s a twit!

  32. Oh dear lord Lord Dear.

  33. “The former Chief Constable of West Midlands Police” – proof positive of homophobic attiudes in the police force when the top head honchos is this homophobic.

  34. HE OLD UNELECTED BIGOT, I WONDER HOW MANY GAY AND NON-WHITE PEOPLE HE PUT AWAY WHEN HE WAS TOP PLOD?

    HE WOULD BE TOO OLD TO DO JURY SERVICE, YET HE IS ALLOWED TO BE AN UNLECTED BIGOT AND HE HAS THE CHEEK TO TALK ABOUT DEMOCRACY!

  35. …and what this really is just another attempt to find a different word for their “superior” relationship to the detriment of gay people…you only need one name for marriage unless you mean to make something ‘not marriage’

  36. James Butler 13 Jun 2013, 4:57pm

    I’m not sure that this is even legally viable. The phrase “that no person should suffer any detriment because of their belief in traditional marriage” seems to me incredibly vague and imprecise.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all