Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Lord Stoddart urges for potential withdrawal from European Court due to equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. GulliverUK 21 Jun 2013, 6:02pm

    I’ve got more chance of being the next Pope than this amendment has of becoming law :-p

    1. Ambassador Sasha 21 Jun 2013, 6:04pm

      And I have more chance of becoming Your Holinesses ambassador to Mars.

    2. Gulliver…you seem a bit chirpier now…enjoy your day off.

  2. glasgow1975 21 Jun 2013, 6:17pm

    can’t we just put the bigots on an isolated island – you know – to stop them from breeding or infecting the general population . . . ;)

    1. GingerlyColors 22 Jun 2013, 8:04am

      Good idea. Send them all down to the Falkland Islands then hand the lot over to Argentina! Whoops! Argentina already has marriage equality, they will love that!

  3. He doesn’t really look up to debating anything in the HoL..these people should consider retiring gracefully ……

    The guy signed the C4M, voted for Lord Dear’s amendment and plainly his only interest is in stopping or wrecking the bill.

    At the age of 87 I don’t think he is now capable of rationally assessing the current and future state of human rights and obviously has a profound dislike of gay people.

    1. St Sebastian 22 Jun 2013, 3:24am

      John, we should not attribute his (or anyone elses) lack of rationality and homophobia to his age. My grandmother who died at the age of 96 (she would be 105 if alive now) was neither irrational nor homophobic. Mt Stodadart would have been irrational and homophobic when he was 30.

      When I came out to her in her late 70’s, she said that nothing really changes, you are still the same person, it’s just that I know a bit more about you now – though I did have my suspicions. My love for you has not changed. Having said that, she then beckoned me me and gave me a big hug and a kiss.

  4. We don’t want to get married in a church, by a cult that has made it clear it thinks we are evil. We simply want the state to separate from religion so it can decay like the rotting veg that it is without effecting us all with its stench. Xxxx

    1. Yeah, you would think but you might be surprised how many gay people would line up to get hitched in a Catholic or Mormon or CofE or Pentecostal church on the very alter where they are condemned to hell on Sunday.

      1. GulliverUK 21 Jun 2013, 6:56pm

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/20/for-religious-lgbt-adults-more-commitment-sometimes-brings-more-conflict/
        17% of LGBT Americans say religion is very important in this life, 34% say religion is less important in their life, 48% have no religious affiliation. Now, straight away, this is not the US, so those figures don’t apply — we don’t have figures for here, that’s I’m aware of, but I’d say that as an entire nation most people believe in something, but no a God, or The God, as such, just spiritual — could be a belief in little green men, more of a wonderment about life, and many Christians are CINO (Christian In Name Only), rather than being devout. We do know most Catholics & Anglicans support full equality – which is great. Many CofE priests & bishops do appear to be supportive also.

      2. Thanks David! I really don’t like the idea of equal marriage at all! I do not want to be equal with a lot of hetrosexuals. They have their culture and I have mine and I do not think gay people should try and emulate a bunch of breeders. A lower age of consent at 14 would have been more helpful.

        1. ‘… A lower age of consent at 14 would have been more helpful…’

          not very good at trolling, are we?

  5. barriejohn 21 Jun 2013, 6:30pm

    He used to be my MP. This doesn’t surprise me one little bit!

    1. St Sebastian 22 Jun 2013, 3:26am

      barriejohn, see my comment above. I think you just proved my point. Thanks :-)

  6. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 6:48pm

    Lord Stoddart isn’t aware that there hasn’t been on case brought before the ECHR from any of the fourteen countries where SSM is legal. The UK’s Marriage Bill is no different. Lord Pannick QC has already given assurances that it complies with ECHR regulations. an organisation which has repeated many times that it is not interfering in the equal marriage debate and is entirely up to EU member states to decide its own marriage legislation.

    I’m sure Lord Lester who is a joint committee member for Human Rights will set him straight as he has Lord Dear and others. If anyone knows the law its Lord Lester.

    This loon should retire to the Natural History Museum where he will be happy with the other fossils. Loony old git.

    His amendment is going nowhere either.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 6:49pm

      …hasn’t been one case…

      1. metsän poika 22 Jun 2013, 3:29am

        I think Stoddart is confused which end of the alimentary canal his mouth is, given the effluent that flows from his mouth!

    2. Christopher Coleman 22 Jun 2013, 1:50am

      The sight of this old peer on display in the Natural History museum might give visiting school children nightmares for years to come. Too unkind. Let us adults tolerate him. People like this are quite entertaining.

    3. Small detail 23 Jun 2013, 10:12am

      It’s great that out of 14 countries where SSM is legal 9 are in Europe (10 if you include the UK), but the other 6 are not in Europe (South American is the second continent in terms of SSM, but I don’t think they’re covered by the ECHR).

      It’s sad, however, that the UK is the only European country where the ECHR is routinely attacked, and not by fringe idiots but by the government.

      1. Small detail 23 Jun 2013, 10:14am

        P.S. The ECHR is not an “EU court” but covers the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, including countries like Russia and Turkey. Britain’s constant attacks on the ECHR undermine its ability to force those kinds of countries to support human rights.

  7. Life Peers should be required to retire from the House of Lords when they reach eighty years of age – they can keep their [worthless] title but senile old idiots have NO place legislating in the 21st century!!!

    1. They should retire at the same age everyone else is expected to!

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 6:57pm

    Who are the many gay people who don’t want equal marriage Lord Stoddart?

    None of these loons has yet provided any factual evidence as to the numbers. I strongly urge them to come forward, perhaps mount their own campaign to let us see who they are exactly? Is it Andrew Pierce and those 10 dinner guests he had over recently claiming the majority of us don’t want marriage, or the 100 or so emails Lord Stoddart and others received? Stupid man. How do they know they’re really gay? They could pretend to be gay and that explains why none have revealed their faces. I also suspect that’s how the C4M petition’s numbers were acquired as well as one person using several email aliases giving the impression its more than one person responding.

    1. St Sebastian 22 Jun 2013, 3:14am

      I think he is confusing ‘don’t want to get married’ with ‘don’t want equal marriage’. I am sure if you pressed those that don’t want to get married, they wouldn’t want to impose their lack of desire to marry on those that do. It would certainly be an interesting poll.

    2. Probably they are C4M enthusiasts posing as gay and lobbying Stoddart with messages like,

      “I am a gay and I am strongly against same sex marriage as cp’s provide all the same legal benefits of marriage and anyway all the other gays I know agree with me that marriage for gays is not necessary”

      that type of thing, you get anti-gays posing as gay people on various comments boards often enough.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jun 2013, 12:25pm

        Absolutely right. I’ve been saying that since the consultation began. ComRes which conducted the C4M poll uses some dodgy methodology to get a desired result.

        http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2013/05/02/comres-polls-an-inbuilt-conservative-bias/

  9. Robert (Kettering) 21 Jun 2013, 7:12pm

    What the hell is this 87 year old fossil doing wading into the debate!? He’s clearly well past his dotage, and probably bedtime, so please Mr Stoddard shut the f*ck up!

    1. WrathOfGod 21 Jun 2013, 8:03pm

      Don’t sneer at the man’s age; you’ll be old and decrepit one day. Oh, wait, no you won’t – homosexuals usually die much younger, due to their promiscuity, drug taking and generally destructive lifestyles.

      1. “usually die much younger”

        Please provide official government statistics to substantiate your claim, or admit you are a homophobe quite prepared to lie in support of your hatred.

        1. WrathOfGod 21 Jun 2013, 8:54pm

          Drug use amongst homosexuals is 7x greater than heterosexuals, according to the Independent, a very lefty-liberal paper.
          My gay cousin died of a drug and alcohol related stroke aged 42 in 2005. Nobody else in my family has died of drug abuse. The gay guy at my college is a heavy cigarette and cannabis smoker and has said he’s used crack in the past. PS a ‘homophobe’ is someone who is afraid of men; Homo (Latin, ‘man’) + Phobos (Greek, ‘fear’) = Homophobia, fear of men.

          1. I always find that the ignorance of bigots is far more offensive than what they have to say. Look at this idiot. Because he knows two gay people he uses them as a standard. I wouldn’t mind , but not one time have I witnessed a viable argument in any of the statements by people like this. If only once I could say, hey fair point , but no. Just clutching at straws. Be a man and just say I hate gay people. But don’t try to hide it under a pile of crap!

          2. A paraphrased claim from an unspecified newspaper article, two anecdotes (bonus points for smearing your dead cousin, if he ever existed), and the good old etymological fallacy? That’s really the best you can do? Most trolls put in a bit more effort than this.

          3. Oh just ignore it.

            It is too stupid to understand anything whatsoever.

            Its the type of thing that irritates when the shopping bag gets too heavy.

            You accommodate for a while, then drop it when it cuts into your fingers.

            This troll has been here for years. He is clearly a self loathing gay indoctrinated by the kiddy fiddling priests.

            In need of help that he neither wants or desires.

            He killed my niece when she came here for help as a young newly self found out lesbian, and this prick was allowed free range bigotry all over this site.

            PS. Benjamin.

            Site owners. I hold you responsible for this.

          4. St Sebastian 22 Jun 2013, 4:18am

            WrathofGod, have you ever considered that your cousin might have taken to drugs and alcohol because of the hate that came from people like you? And on another point, abuse of alcohol and drugs is extraordinarily rife amongst the straight community.

            PS Your comment “Homo (Latin, ‘man’) + Phobos (Greek, ‘fear’) = Homophobia, fear of men” is spurious, akin to a mixed metaphor (of the Greek and the Latin). You are right, the Greek for fear is phobia, but the Homo part is not taken from the Latin, it, like phobia is also taken from the Greek, meaning same (and in this context is a contraction of ‘homosexual’). If you aren’t sure, look up words like homogenous. You should not however confuse the prefix homo with homosapien meaning the human species, the etymology being from the Latin Homo – meaning ‘man’, and sapiens from the Latin meaning ‘intelligent’ (something you have clearly demonstrated you are not).

          5. Jock S. Trap 22 Jun 2013, 9:24am

            With an Uncle like you I’m not surprised he had drug and alcohol abuse.

            You must feel proud to know you have blood on your hands being responsible for his death.

      2. St Sebastian 22 Jun 2013, 3:33am

        I doubt you’ll make old age either given that you seem to be a pressure cooker of hate and corrosive cortisol.

      3. metsän poika 22 Jun 2013, 3:49am

        I’ll stop sneering at the man’s age (and you) when Stoddart and you start accepting the equal rights of homosexuals and the message of love that is the primary message of your religion.

      4. metsän poika 22 Jun 2013, 3:52am

        Even your name ‘WrathofGod” exudes hate – you have issues and need to see a therapist.

  10. Thanks for telling me what I don’t want.
    Now let me tell you, I don’t want you speaking for me you bigoted old fool.

  11. Tax evaders and still get legal protections by the government. All for superstition of all things. Talk about an upside down world.

  12. It would be very strange for the UK to withdraw from the Convention. Especially as it was the UK that was one of the prime movers in the drafting of the convention and in the establishment of the court.

    It would be like setting up a club and then leaving it. We would look extremely foolish as a nation and what does it say about the UK’s commitment to human rights?

    The Tories don’t like the ECHR because it takes away what they regard as their divine right to do as they please as members of what they still see as the ruling class.

    Time old duffers like this Labour peer to be consigned to the dustbin of politics. The SSM debate has highlighted just how out of touch some members of the house of lords (and over half of current Tory MP’s) are with the rest of society.

    1. ‘… It would be very strange for the UK to withdraw from the Convention…’

      and join the coutries who are not members such as belarus, kazakhstan and vatican city

  13. It has been very interesting to see who emerged as the bigot and who as the hero in this whole political process. It seems that party affiliations are no longer a guarantee of sanity or a sense of fairness. There are people who will stand up for us everywhere. And others – like this miserable rooster – who will scorn and obstruct, even while pretending to be with the movement for equality.

    1. The common denominator is their “religious” affiliations.

      Party politics and sanity goes out the window when that little misnomer appears.

      I think the time has come whereby anyone standing for public office should publicly state their religious affiliations.

      Clearly some of our so called “public servants” take their orders from their god and not their constituents.

      1. St Sebastian 22 Jun 2013, 3:38am

        Isn’t it curious that those followers of religion are so full of hate, yet their religion is based on the concept of love? Never mind Denmark Shakespeare, there is definitely something wrong in the state of ‘religion’.

  14. Yes.

    Lets bugger the UK’s entire ability to flog its wares based on this old corpse disliking gay people.

    Dear Lord Stoddart, there is a grave or an urn awaiting your presence.

  15. Is he still alive, if so why does he want to limit the rights of people in a world that he will soon be leaving?

    1. Metsän poika 22 Jun 2013, 4:30am

      Perhaps Stoddart is the living dead.

  16. Frank Boulton 22 Jun 2013, 6:11am

    Lord Stoddard’s comments are only likely to win support for LGBT rights. What he has said boils down to denying everyone their basic human rights, if it’s the only way to block LGBT rights.

  17. Jock S. Trap 22 Jun 2013, 9:21am

    It’s disturbing that this kind of language is used clearly because bigots do Not trust the democractic elected house And the public in their support of the Marriage Bill.

    It’s pure ignorance to think the majority of the electorate are wrong, let alone he being in an unelected house that really has no right to question the public nor the majority in the House of Commons.

  18. Craig Nelson 22 Jun 2013, 11:32am

    Not only is the European Court of Human Rights not going to rule in any such way (because the ECHR has said it is down to individual member states to decide on matters relating to marriage – the largest number of Council of Europe members do not afford equal marriage and because the ECHR gives strong protections to religious bodies from state interference) but there isn’t going to be a case.

    To take a case you would need a couple who want to get married in a church. The UK government is not stopping them from getting married – it will have passed a law expressly allowing them to do so (much more than many European states which don’t even have civil unions); but they wanted a church wedding – in which case churches will be permitted to marry same sex couples if they wish and some will.

    So the government isn’t (i.e. won’t be) preventing the couple from getting married or even getting married in a church that wishes to marry them merely not forcing churches to marry.

    1. Craig Nelson 22 Jun 2013, 11:43am

      A future case would have to persuade the ECtHR to rule that member states had an obligation to force religions to marry irrespective of their teachings. This is of course ridiculous and would never happen.

      If it did happen it would be such an absurd ruling that it would be the end of the ECHR in any case as they would no longer be an international court of human rights because they would have ruled against the freedom of religion. In such circumstances Britain would not be the only country to leave the ECHR.

      The important thing is however that there would be no case to start with because – unlike the majority of European states (I hope that changes soon) – same sex couples will not be prevented from marrying (including in a church if the church wishes to).

      1. GulliverUK 22 Jun 2013, 1:38pm

        Good points. Worth also noting that the vast majority of straight couples who get married have zero religious element to their marriage – over 70% of those getting married don’t do it in a church, and that’s changed from 70% getting married in a church when my mum got hitched, and it’s all going one way. Less and less people want anything to do with “organised” religion, and don’t have any interest in a religious marriage, yet 90% of the time spent on this bill has been devoted to soothing the religious savages (or leaders). Organised religion has been devalued and marginalised by people opposed to basic equal rights, the very leaders and driven fundamentalists and traditionalists who now are doing all they can to stop equality.

        1. Craig Nelson 23 Jun 2013, 12:33am

          I agree that the inordinate time spent ‘protecting’ the religious has been ridiculous and it does not promote equality. The religious opponents of the bill are busy creating a parallel society where gays exist, have families and are married out there in the outer zone but they are allowed to erect a parallel space where none of this exists and they can live undisturbed in the 1950s but with computers, colour TV and affordable air travel.

  19. “Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, the vice president of the Law Society, said in June 2012 that it was unlikely that the European Court of Human Rights would rule against a religious organisation in a same-sex marriage legal case.”

    This almost makes it sound as if religious organisations are privileged with Mafia status.

    …oh hang on, I guess that might just be because they do.

  20. with views like that he should have been made honorary president of ukip long time ago

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