Reader comments · Tory MP John Glen criticises Bishop of Salisbury for voicing support for equal marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory MP John Glen criticises Bishop of Salisbury for voicing support for equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Matthew 19? So Glen is against divorce, is he? Why hasn’t he made a conspicuous effort to outlaw it then?

    1. Nevermind divorce, what about civil or Muslim or Jewish marriages? If you follow this “our interpretation of Christian marriage, not agreed with by more progressive Christian denominations, is all that should be allowed” line of thinking, then presumably you should only allow marriages to be conducted in a CoE church, by a CoE priest. Divorce is a much later contradiction than who conducts your marriage in the first place!

    2. Well, wasn’t the CoE established around a divorce issue……
      O, so nicely hipocritical to then talk about that marriage can not be redifined…..

      1. The synod agreed that stoning adulterers was no longer sensible in a modern society. Interesting how these very subjective decisions can be applied as and when it suits the church…. Makes it all look a bit of mockery really, but that’s religion for you!

        1. ‘ it all look(s) a bit of mockery really, but that’s religion for you!”

          Love it :-)

    3. John Glen was my hero when he was the first man to land on the moon, I’m so disappointed with the way he’s turned into just another homophobic Tory politician

      1. You’re an N out, Pavlos (and he was the first to orbit the earth, not land on the moon – nerd, moi?)!

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jun 2013, 1:32pm

    Mr Salisbury claimed that an increasing number of congregations in Salisbury objected to same-sex marriage “not because they object to homosexuals, but because they believe marriage should follow the biblical pattern affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19”.

    Yet he finds the Bishops statement using the the Bible to oppose slavery and uphold apartheid was a thoroughly misguided one and one that doesn’t sit well with most people’s understanding of history.”

    So that would mean then that historical facts should be re-written to not offend bigots’ understanding of history? Bigoted loon.

  3. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jun 2013, 1:43pm

    The good bishop knows a great deal about scripture and its application throughout history. Not one Anglican bishop in opposition has refuted anything he has said.

    John Glen is an extremely ignorant man who has no grasp of facts. Obviously, ignorance is bliss not only for him but especially for many of his elderly constituents.

    So I suppose if they supported a move to reinstate Section 28, he’d support it? Of course he would because he must always obey the wishes of his constituents but only if they’re fellow Tories opposed to something he is also against. He has no concept of what full representation means and is ill-equipped to be an MP.

  4. That There Other David 19 Jun 2013, 2:06pm

    They really don’t like it when someone calls them up on their bigotry do they? John Glen needs to wind his neck in. The debate in the Commons is over. He’s had his say.

  5. LeatherNun 19 Jun 2013, 2:09pm

    Matthew 19 is not only about divorce, in verse 21 we find Jesus telling the young, rich man who has asked him how he can find eternal life:

    “Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

    1. Fantastic, what a great response.

      These religious fanatics are always selective about the what parts of the bible they chose to follow and which they ignore. They ‘religiously’ follow the bible because they like the limited parameters in which they have to exist. Anything outside which requires intellectual vigour, intellectual curiosity, flexibility, adaptability, imagination, empathy, consideration, etc etc. They can’t imagine a world where they would have to find answers from within and from the WHOLE of the rest of the world in order to resolve their issues and problems facing them and the community in which they exist.

      I refuse to to allow these self-limiting people to limit my world – the only limitation I impose upon myself is respect – respect for myself, others and the environment. This ensures that I tread lightly on the earth, have a positive (or at worst minimal negative) impact on others and maintain my self-respect.

  6. CH Brighton 19 Jun 2013, 2:12pm

    I doubt anyone in any Salisbury congregation really wants to forget all the changes to marriage laws over the last 2000 years and return to stone age marriage.

  7. bobbleobble 19 Jun 2013, 2:13pm

    Matthew 19 doesn’t actually preclude gay couples marrying anyway. At no point does anyone say that opposite sex marriage is the only allowed relationship. In that passage Jesus is replying to a specific question about divorce and since gay people couldn’t marry in Palestine back then they weren’t included in Jesus’s answer.

    I’m constantly told that if I criticise the Bible I should consider the context of what is written. Perhaps Mr Glen should follow that advice too.

    1. marshlander 19 Jun 2013, 5:11pm

      I am neither fan nor follower of the bible, many ideas are not as simple as some would want us to believe. In this context verse twelve of Matthew 19 adds another layer to the argument where it states that, even from birth, some men are simply not cut out for marrying a woman. I don’t know what the Greek version would say, but this verse in the KJV seems to suggest that marriage between men and women should only be undertaken by those who feel drawn to it. As bobbleobble noted, a lot of things are left unsaid.

      If an MP is going to start quoting so-called scripture, he might be advised to ensure he has been properly briefed first.

  8. “But for many across my constituency they remain mystified as to why this was necessary and why it was brought forward at this time, and I fear they will punish my party nationally at the next election.”

    This is the language of the religious loser whose only recourse is to paint himself as a “humble” martyr!


    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jun 2013, 2:31pm

      True, but at least he concedes he’s lost the argument.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jun 2013, 2:30pm

    I just sent him him a firm but polite email. I reminded him that representing the views of the majority of one’s constituents doesn’t always mean their views are right. I put it to him what if the majority in his constituency supported the Bill, would that mean he should have voted ‘yes’? Of course it doesn’t and he wouldn’t have anyway.

    The Bishop if absolutely correct and his references to the CoE are also correct. I reminded John Glen that his constituents may choose to ignore facts but the CoE also up until recently vigorously opposed the right of women to vote.

    Claiming they are not homophobic is unrealistic. Some of them most definitely are, many of them I would say and I bet almost all of them claim they have gay friends. BIGOTS!

  10. An MP that only represents the rights of heterosexual people to get married is unfit for office. This will the school of thought in a few years time.

  11. Is “Mr Salisbury” a pseudonym for a Telegraph reader, or are we now referring to MPs as “Mr [constituency-name]”?

  12. Jock S. Trap 19 Jun 2013, 3:13pm

    Oh typical.

    I remember the comedy from the like saying the government by going through with the equal marriage bill was like a dictatorship.

    So here we actually have a elected member telling a bishop what he should and shouldn’t say. It’s a shame he’s no forth coming with regard to homophobia instead of dictating it.

    The Bishop was absolutely right but I remember MP David Lammy being put down because of highlighting this.

    It’s a typical religious ploy… scream to hate, then change history to suit.

    They can never change history here and it wasn’t just the same for slavery or apartheid but also women suffrage too 100 years ago.

    I’m guessing it doesn’t feel comfortable being on the wrong side of history but he can change that, can’t he?

  13. The anti-equality side really don’t like to be reminded of their unpleasant homophobic prejudice do they.

  14. Gary Potter 19 Jun 2013, 3:24pm

    Bigot Bigot Bigot. Take no notice of this irrelevant arse he means nothing to no one and is of little importance to any one. Vot him out and then he can go and cry in his own sh@t

  15. “He said: “While I have made my case strongly I now have to have the humility to recognise that I have lost the argument and we will have to move on.”

    Yes, you have totally lost the argument so move along now and stop whining.

  16. Spanner1960 19 Jun 2013, 4:00pm

    “…people opposing same-sex marriage should be compared to those who in previous eras used the Bible to oppose slavery and uphold apartheid was a thoroughly misguided one…”

    Yet he does not offer the slightest explanation as to why.
    I do not doubt that many people do the wrong things for the right reasons, and I can fully understand their motives at the time, but in hindsight that doesn’t make them right.

    People like the Archbishop of Canterbury should be very wary of voicing their opinions lest the future judges them in much the way as we now view 18c sugar plantation owners.

  17. vic codling 19 Jun 2013, 4:12pm

    “…..doesn’t sit well with most people’s understanding of history.” Hardly surprising given history is written by the majority with the ‘hard to swallow’ bits left out. I reckon the Bishop was simply expressing one of the many deleted examples of Christian bigotry. He asks, why the Bishop chose to say this now. The answer to this begs the question – I thought MPs were intelligent – was I wrong? Mr Glen although entitled to his view, is a disgrace. Vic

  18. Sandgroper 19 Jun 2013, 4:26pm

    What a self satisfied, arrogant prig – it shows in his behaviour, his words and even his looks. He needs to go on a strict diet of humble pie.

    1. It’s depressing to think he’s not even 40. I know old age isn’t an excuse for bigotry, but the nonsense Glen comes up with could only be potentially excusable in someone who grew up in a different era.

  19. To quote Glen “I now have to have the humility to recognise that I have lost….. (then wait for it)… But….”

    What a surprise! Another from the I’m not ‘racist/homophobic/classist club.

  20. What I find weird is he thinks he outranks a BISHOP when it comes to talking about christianity.

    1. That’s his version of “Christian humility”, I expect.

  21. Barry William Teske 19 Jun 2013, 5:49pm

    And he gives up his game…
    “…our experiences.”
    Like their the only monkeys to walk on two legs and throw things…lol.

  22. Kevin Thomas 19 Jun 2013, 7:57pm has my letter to Glen explaining to him why he is so wide of the mark.

  23. Just an other pick and chioose idiot who clearly did not evolve like the bishop did…

  24. Deanna Joy Hallmark 20 Jun 2013, 12:57am

    The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a bigot as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” So tell me, who is the bigot, MP John Glen or the Bishop of Salisbury?

    1. It’s obvious that John Glen is the bigot because the Bishop of Salisbury clearly is saying that Christians sometimes need to rethink
      “Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience.”

      I hope this helps.

    2. @Deanna: ones own opinion is neither here nor there. It is what God thinks on the matter what really matters and it is this that the bishop should be beholden to.

      1. Except that believing in a God and asserting what he/she/it ‘thinks’ is also an opinion. Don’t expect others to share your unprovable supernatural beliefs.

  25. Like John Glenn, I was disappointed with the bishop’s remark. The issue is not one of homophobic bigotry or lack of charity but that the bishop has failed to uphold the principles of biblical fidelity, which as a bishop one should expect he should be taking a lead.

    1. So if your bishop insists that you sell all your goods and give the proceeds to the poor in accordance with the principles of biblical fidelity, will you go along with it?

      1. first of all, I am not beholden to what any bishop might say I need to do unless I believe it is from God.

        However, I agree with your implication that Christians have a tendency to cherry pick from the Bible e.g. condemn homosexual activity and fail to feed the poor. By not doing so, skeptics like yourself remain – well – skeptical – while I can only apologise, I would still invite you to let Jesus into your heart.

        As for opinion, we all have opinions, without which it becomes difficult to decide what to believe / do – the important thing is to have the right opinion and as for me this is based on the teachings of the Bible, which I seek to discern in an even handed way and still have learning to do!

        1. 1 – So stop being so slippery. You appear to claim that your beliefs are ‘Biblical’ – OK. The
          bishop tells you to sell all your goods and give the proceeds to to the poor. Do you do it or not?
          Shouldn’t you have done it without being told?
          2 – I’m not skeptical because Christians are notorious (on many more subjects than these) for cherry-picking. I’m skeptical because their beliefs are implausible nonsense. There is no justification for believing that Jesus was a
          divine man a la pagan (not Jewish) tradition of the Graeco-Roman world, or that a motley
          bunch of texts cobbled together by the early church are infallibly true.
          3 – More slipperiness. Jesus is not held to have told us to feed the poor. He is reported as telling us to sell everything and give them the proceeds. Do you obey this imperative or not? Or are you circumspect and vague about everything except arbitrary authority for your hostility to people of the same sex going to bed together?

  26. Back bench gobs#$te pontificates without engaging with the arguments. Well, I never.

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.