Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory Lord Mawhinney tables ‘traditional marriage’ amendment for equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 13 Jun 2013, 11:21am

    Strange that they want to have laws to make them different when they have spent centuries making sure any LGBT person has been treated ‘different’ under the law.

    It seems the more we push for equality some just wish to go that step further for inequality.

    Fact is marriage is marriage and if they are so insecure that they wish to continuously divide then that has to leave a mark on their bigoted character.

    No coincidence then that this proposal comes from the religious who continuously wish to remain above any laws of the land.

  2. Traditions change over time, they have done so for many years and will continue to do so.

    You can keep your beliefs and are firmly entitled to them but you cannot and should not hold back change and it is even more important when you sit in an un-elected position.

  3. Correct me if Im wrong but when the SSM becomes law it wont be against the law to refer to man/woman marriages as traditional so why try to make it law?…..answer = to try to stop the SSM bill going through….these bloody Tories and religious nutjobs are really annoying me with their pathetic attempts to stop it…..no doubt we will face the same in Scotland soon

  4. Abolish the unelected undemocratic house of lords.

  5. It’s a free country, so I don’t see any objection to using the terms “traditional” and “same-sex” before the M word. However it obviously should not be lawful to use the terms to discriminate in any legal or official documents.

    His amendment seems to serve no purpose.

    1. No purpose … other than to promote homophobia, I suppose.

      1. Indeed! Mawhinney’s purpose is to ensure he may continue to hate homosexual people and treat us as second-class, or even third-class, fourth-class, or fifth-class citizens.

        Mawhinney’s demand can only be underpinned by a belief that we will only bring “desecration” to what has for centuries been granted only to heterosexual people.

        (I think it’s very helpful in this argument not to refer to “gays” and lesbians” but to refer to “heterosexual people” and “homosexual people”. It accurately suggests the actual situation: two equal peoples, differentiated only by their sexuality.)

  6. a) Religion has no place disctating politics in a free country

    b) Just grow the f**k up. Seriously! There are children out there more switched on than this old gasbag!

    1. *dictating

    2. Putting that aside though, is this moron missing the whole point of this legislation. People want equal marriage because, even though civil partnerships exist, ‘the same but different’ is not EQUAL.

      *facedesk*

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

        No, they’re not the same. Try getting your CP recognised outside of the UK. All of that mish-mash of legal unions for gay couples in other countries aren’t identical andhave far fewer rights and marriage is the only union to remedy the disparity.

        http://www.LobbyALord.org

  7. Pathetic grasping at straws to attempt to waste time/derail with the bill . The only reason I got from his current hate crusade was his admission to being a swivel eyed loon.

    1. Absolutely, he is wasting Government time and money with his own personal crusade. I’m disgusted and appalled that this man would challenge the intelligence of the public or anybody else. It is clear he is trying to undo the peoples’ voice and create a distinction between gay and straight people in marriage. This will not wash. We see clear as day what this lunacy is all about. He needs to crawl into the nearest hole and stay there.

  8. N O.

    There will only be one kind of marriage, legal marriage.

  9. “For 40 years my life has been driven by my Christian and Conservative convictions”.

    Well, I have some news: you have lived a lie all your life. The world has moved on, it’s time to stop the hate and division that religion promotes. Fortunately, the new generations are coming with open minds and these dinousaurs will be extint in the future.

  10. This is ridiculous, it’s already LAWFUL to refer to whatever you want as whatever you want. I could go through life happily calling all dogs cats. No law will stop me. Though people will treat me like a fool – deservedly

    What these amendments really want is to create a distinction between the two so discrimination can follow – so you can have one set of treatment for “traditional” marriage and different for us.

    It’s all about the bigotry

  11. I think we should be more mindful of changes which amount to Section 28. For example changes which affect teaching in schools. I’m fairly sure many opponents will want legal discrimination of that sort enshrined in the Bill.

  12. Godric Godricson 13 Jun 2013, 11:58am

    “Light green people to the front of the bus and dark green people to the back of the bus” …… No-matter how you describe Mawhinney’s remarks there’s prejudice behind the statement. Loon!

  13. These mean-spirited, vacuous amendments will come to nothing.

    Lord Armstrong’s amendment would create two categories of marriage and then give the government power to change laws relating to different-sex marriage without further recourse to Parliament. This proposal is unnecessary and potentially expensive. It undermines Parliament, and it will go nowhere.

    If a future government wants to create two classes of marriage (which would be reprehensible) they should go back to Parliament and make the case for it, including a reason why. “It might come in useful” is a bad reason to keep last year’s unwanted gifts, and a disgraceful reason to create legal inequality.

    Lord Mawhinney’s amendment is jejune and I shall not dignify it with a denunciation. I doubt the Lords will give much time to his foot-stamping either.

    Has any Northern Irelander in either Westminster house said anything on this topic which wouldn’t have a place in the “Swivel-Eyed Loons’ Manifesto”?

  14. homoodeviance causes moral decay 13 Jun 2013, 12:14pm

    Call it what you wish. It will never be biblical or godly marriage since same sex relations are condemned in the bible as is fornication.
    Deviant marriage may be legalised in certain lands (unlikely to be in the UK) but what is legal is not necessarily moral. For instance, many believe abortion to be immoral yet this is legal in many lands, also recreational drug use, sca=t’ and group sex are immoral yet there are legal in most lands.
    In the end, the creator will judge. Jude verse 7.
    The form of marriage sanctioned by God is clear in the book of Genesis.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jun 2013, 12:24pm

      Tradtional (biblical) marriage allows for the killing of wives and children. The book of Genesis illustrates the first known acts of heterosexual incest committed by the fictitious first parents of the human race Adam and Eve and their children to have populated the planet. Loon!

      1. homoodeviance causes moral decay 13 Jun 2013, 12:37pm

        You seem to something against the consensual act of adult incest. How do you square this with your belief that whatever consenting adults do in private is their own business?
        Also, do you accept that just because something is legal does not make it moral?

        1. Stick to the point, lovey.

        2. The biologically related adam and eve had an incestuous relationship, as did their children. Explain the morality behind that….. actually don’t bother, there is no need to explain because your bible is a load of nonsense. The belief system you live your life by is based on fictional stories written a few thousands years ago. It would be like someone living their life based on a harry potter book in 3 thousand years. Dumb idiot.

    2. Hateful Homophobe, you have written, “It will never be biblical or godly marriage since same sex relations are condemned in the bible as is fornication”, and your statement is correct. However, we are not interested in “biblical or godly marriage”!

      Please try to understand, swivel-eyed homophobe-loon, that this Bill is about CIVIL MARRIAGE.

      You and other deluded religionists will still be able to maintain your absurd beliefs in pixies, fairies, angels, spirits, some great unseen god in the sky, goblins, elves, and so forth. You will still be permitted to roam freely in the community.

      1. homoodeviance causes moral decay 13 Jun 2013, 12:59pm

        It is clear that many (not all) homosexuals do not accept the bible yet I am heartened by your concession that same sex marriage is not actually biblical marriage.

        1. One man with several wives (including his close relations) – eg the Patriarch Jacob – is “biblical marriage” isn’t it?

          1. homoodeviance causes moral decay 13 Jun 2013, 1:24pm

            Please show where God sanctioned polygamy or concubaiage then you will have a point

          2. Oh, God didn’t sanction the Patriarchs’, or (eg) King David’s many marriages then? Who told you this, God? And how exactly did he signal his displeasure?

            It must be lonely being the only one who understands the bible as you do, Keith old fruit. But no doubt you prefer it that way.

          3. Well done, Rehan. He’s gone, with his tail between his legs.

          4. Oh, he’ll be back Eddy, he’ll be back: the blessed little cherub just can’t keep away, however hard he tries. I think he feels he can exercise what he no doubt calls his ‘heteronormality’ best by trolling a gay news website (in his parallel universe that probably makes sense).

            In fairness he does sometimes provide amusement enough to enliven a dull afternoon in the office.

          5. hommoodeviance causes moral decay 13 Jun 2013, 4:39pm

            As was the case with divorce, polygamy, while not God’s original arrangement, was tolerated until the time of the Christian congregation. Polygamy had a start not long after Adam’s deflection.
            (Ge 2:21) As Jesus pointed out, it was not Adam but God who said, “That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
            Since God’s original stanard for mankind was for the husband and wife to become one flesh, polygamy was not intended, and it is prohibited in the Christian congregation. . (1Ti 3:2, 12; Tit 1:5, 6)

          6. There, there.

            *pats hand*

        2. Godric Godricson 13 Jun 2013, 1:42pm

          You’re busted mate! Everyone is laughing at you

        3. I can’t stop laughing at this loon.
          Biblical marriage, he says, Hahahaha. Which marriage? Solomon’s marrage to hundreds of wives? Abraham’s marriage to his slaves? The incestuous marriage of “Adam and Eve’s” children? Tell us which biblical marriage do you refer to.
          Get back to school, maybe you can learn one or two things apart from the nonesense fairy tales of the Bible.

    3. LOL. The book of genesis? You mean the one where eve talks to a snake (she was clearly schizophrenic) and where you are told your god created the world in 6 days (and then had a day off because he was so tired), even though we know it took billions of years to form, and during which this god of yours made a woman from a man’s rib (so they were clearly biologically related) and so they then had an incestuous relationship, and their kids had incestuous relationships, and……… the list of nonsense just goes on and on. It would make a great comedy. And you use that as your justification. What a ridiculous joke you are. Religious deviance causes ignorance and stupidity.

    4. I am not bound by your god’s rules. My partner is not bound by your god’s rules. There are over 60million people in this country who are not bound by your god’s rules.
      The only person bound by your god’s rules is you.

      Also, the book of Genesis is pure rubbish. It is the only creation story I’ve read in which “god” both makes humans first, then makes animals. As well as making animals first, and then humans.

    5. Bless you Keith my pet, back again are you? How many new emails did you have to create this time to get in?

      You don’t get it, I know – but we don’t care what your translation of the bible says. I think it’s safe to say most of us think you pitiably misguided in your reliance on this document of yours.

    6. Beelzeebub 13 Jun 2013, 1:18pm

      Genesis contradictions. All 83 of them.

      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/contra_list.html

      You do know that it is all a load of sh!te?

      Well, I suppose like attracts like……

    7. Here’s what the Bible actually says about marriage:

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jun 2013, 12:20pm

    All of the loons are coming out to play. Dear, Carey, loony O’Loan, Hylton, Duke of Montrose, Edmiston, Butler-Sloss, Armstrong and Cumberlege. You can imagine the level of conversation they’ve all been having among themselves.

    They won’t succeed. Virtually everything they’re whinging about is already covered in the current reading.

    Yes, Mawhinney, you’re all a bunch of swivel-eyed loons who should be put out to pasture.

    One amendment they’ve left out…”there shall be no provision for divorce by those who have entered into a traditional marriage which is for life and husbands may take the lives of their wives for adultery.”

    1. Someone should contact a gay-friendly lord and ask him/her to submit the amendment you are suggesting, just for the fun of it, and see the reaction of all these conservative, “highly moral” lords that in their day to day life commit adultery, divorce their wives and marry not twice but several times. Maybe then they will get it.

    2. “You can imagine the level of conversation they’ve all been having among themselves.”

      Indeed. But it must be a bit edgy amongst them all at times, outdoing each other with the hate while trying at the same time to appear to be doing so for honourable and decent reasons. I wonder if one of them has gone a little too far and got the stern eye from the rest, or maybe they haven’t worked themselves up to that level of expression yet. Maybe none of them has yet had the gumption to utter phrases like “Put ‘em all on an island”.

      Interesting report on the BBC today about an island the Italian fascists used for quarantining Italy’s homosexuals. Shocking. But what’s worse is that this lot, in the damned Lords, would probably not say no to the same thing.

  16. Mr Mawhinney and Mr Armstrong, and others, are obviously intent upon fighting right up to the finish line for as great a distinction as they can manage between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions.

    They are clearly averse to the idea of “tainting” the terms “marriage” and “matrimony” by allowing those terms to be applied to homosexual people.

    Their only motive for this is that they hate homosexual people, despite their denials that this is so.

    Mawhinney, Dear, Armstrong, Knight, and others are, beneath all their denials, homophobes who LOATHE the possibility that homosexual people may be treated as absolutely equal to heterosexual people under the law.

    The homophobia of these individuals provides PROOF that the Bill must succeed without such amendments so that homophobia may eventually be wiped out.

  17. He might as well propose an amendment in relation to opposite sex marriages being titled ‘proper marriage’ and same sex marriages being titled ‘pretend marriage’.
    The funny thing is it is he and his like that are accusing us of wanting to redefine marriage, I recall no such reference in the Christian text he refers to that states ‘traditional marriage’.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 13 Jun 2013, 1:30pm

      I for one am strangely attracted to the thought of putting down an amendment to change his Christian marriage into a “Bigot Partnership”.

  18. There’s hot competition for the looniest peer in the House of Lords…amazing how distinguished mps, judges, police commissioners, QCs become raving loonies once they enter the lords!

  19. Also by law homophobic bigots like him shall now officially be known as ‘swivel-eyed loons’

    But seriously that’s just stupid…. Sure ‘heterosexual’ /’opposite sex’ marriage does the same thing… Is equal and doesn’t put one above the other…

    1. When women got the right to vote, people like these loonies must have suggested an ammendment to the law saying: there should be a women-vote and a man-vote, because surely man and women are not the same.

  20. Mumbo Jumbo 13 Jun 2013, 1:24pm

    Some years back when this revolting individual was moved on from his job as a minister at the Department of Transport the civil servants, a normally neutral, quiet, seen-it-all-before bunch, organised a leaving party to which he was not invited.

    It was quite a sight as senior staff rushed over to the off-licence on Marsham Street, willingly opened their own wallets and bought up every last bottle and can before returning to walk up and down the corridors handing the booze out to junior staff who were running around cheering, hugging and breaking into song.

    I kid you not. This man was truly and deeply loathed.

    1. Thanks for that fascinating detail, Mumbo.

      You know if someone (wink, wink) were to remind him of that via the list on lobbyalord.org it might cause him some embarrassment and he might slink into the shadows, where he belongs.

      1. Mumbo Jumbo 13 Jun 2013, 7:52pm

        I can add that when he was a minister at the Northern Ireland Office, the arrival of his flight at Belfast airport was marked each time by the announcement “the ego has landed”.

  21. Jane Baker 13 Jun 2013, 1:31pm

    Pointless Pointless Pointless!!! Which tradition of marriage is he referring to:

    Polygamy perhaps? — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

    Is he talking about the Ming dynasty period? -where females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements.

    Does he mean the same-sex unions of Ancient Greece and Rome-These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

    Is he talking about Boston marriages- during the 19th century in the US there was recognition of the relationship of two women making a long-term commitment to each other and co-habitating.

    Perhaps the kenyan model?-in Kenya it is the custom by which the first month after the wedding, the groom should wear women’s clothes to fully enjoy and understand how hard is being a woman.

    Does he mean the Native American tradition?- In many tribes, individuals who entered into same-sex

    1. Excellent, Jane. Excellent!

      You could copy and paste, with a little remodelling, all of the above to Mawhinney himself by going to:
      http://lobbyalord.org
      and then opening up the page on which there is a list of all the lords
      and then using Ctrl+F to do a search for Mawhinney.

      Tell the stupid old fool.

  22. A better amendment would be to define ‘traditional marriage’ as ‘marriage only between swivel-eyed loons and bigots’, I would think…

  23. Mark Thomas 13 Jun 2013, 1:58pm

    A traditional marriage, ah yes, 2 people get married have children then a few years down the line split up thus leaving the kids in many cases to be brought up in a single parent household along with the problems that often brings with it. Either that or they stay together, living a lie making family and friends think they are blissfully happy while in many cases living separate lives from each other. I feel the percentage of same sex marriages surviving will be far higher than many “traditional marriages”

  24. They’ve already got ‘matrimony’ aka ‘holy matrimony’ in churches where it belongs. Trying to get the state to adminster two forms of the same thing is an open ruse and bound to fail.

  25. Up yours Lord Mawhinney coming from a homosexual Leeds fan – you know the one’s you detest the most! Get lost :P

  26. He clearly is a swivel-eyed loon.

    “It shall be lawful to refer to marriage between two people of the opposite sex as ‘traditional marriage”

    Why?
    Traditional marriages involved more than two people and the women were property. This guy’s argument is pathetic, fraudulent, and the irony is that he’s trying to redefine “Traditional marriage”

  27. Just so sad and dismal. Is this the level of contribution we can expect for funding people like this?

  28. GulliverUK 13 Jun 2013, 4:33pm

    What a stupid and silly amendment – totally meaningless and I hope they don’t spent too long dispatching it.

    It is certainly not anything that “normal” people discuss, you don’t hear “normal” people talking about their “traditional” marriage — if they did you’d step back two paces and wonder what sort of crazy and strange person they were. Invested terms like this have no basis in law and they won’t in this bill. Clearly Lord Tosser has been sniffing the permanent markers again ! :D

  29. Sorry mate but traditional “marriage” was two people bound by ropes or what ever, rather pagan really. Tradition was nothing like it is now!! So on that score the only traditional marriage are those performed at Stonehenge and are called “Hand-fastings”

    One word…Prat!

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