Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Baroness Deech: If gays can marry, cohabiting sisters should be allowed civil partnerships

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Nonsense. And we know it is nonsense because heterosexual marriage never lead to these family-based paranoid fantasies these bloody fools seem to be harbouring.

    Her remark about “preferring” sexual relationships over blood relationships clearly demonstrates her facile bloody bias since heterosexual relationships are also sexual relationships.

    Just another clown tumbling out of the clown car to make a fool of herself.

    1. You’re right!

      Old dragon Deech could stop talking nonsense.

      1. Metsän poika 25 Jun 2013, 2:55am

        Don’t be unkind to dragons.
        :-)

    2. Sacre bleu 25 Jun 2013, 2:50am

      This woman is a major, major hypocrite.

      *’Deech was placed at no.26 in Channel 4’s “The God List”, which ranked “the fifty people of faith in Britain who exercise the most power & influence over our lives”. ‘

      Just another religious loon trying to impose their religious views on the rest of society. Her speech is evermore astounding when you consider that she is reportedly a ‘bioethicist’.

      She is also the daughter of an Jewish historian who fled Vienna, then Prague & finally to Britain in order to escape certain death by the anti-semitic policies of the Nazis. Other members of her family died in the Nazi concentration camps, along with homosexuals who were equally hated & targeted by the Nazis. You would think that as an ‘ethicist’, the daughter of an historian & a person that has demonstrated her intellect in other field that she might have made the clear connection & parallels between anti-semitism & homophobia. She has absolutely no excuses for her homophobia. Shame!

      1. Sister Mary Clarence 25 Jun 2013, 5:27pm

        “Just another religious loon trying to impose their religious views on the rest of society.”

        In my opinion its just some twisted b1tch who is looking for state approval to marry her own sister.

        (Again) in my opinion the dirty old mare wants to get a yard broom and some bleach and give that filthy mind of hers a good scrub.

        That’s just the sort of behaviour that will lead to kids being born with webbed feet and tails.

    3. She also knows it’s nonsense. But they have lost so they are now just being nasty and spiteful as christians always are, when their shouty voices are not listened to any more.

      There are issues about family carers and tax but they are nothing to do with this bill, and she knows it. If she is so concerned about these issues why has she done nothing about them before now.

      She is a bigot pure and simple.

      First of all marriage is an exclusive club, then when we get it, suddenly everyone should have it, even the family pet? Get real Deech, just admit you hate us and be honest about it. You have fooled no one.

      I can live with your hate, just not with your lies.

      1. “She is a bigot pure and simple.”

        No, she is a disingenuous bigot.

      2. Actually, she’s not a Christian, she’s a Jew.

        It doesn’t affect the premise of your argument though, that religion is more about temporal power than spiritual life.

        1. I stand corrected. I thought I had read she was catholic, but it was actually that she is 26th in Channel fours God list of the most influential people “of faith” whatever that means.

          To me there is no difference what religion they are. To them, I know it makes a huge difference. Hence all the wars.

          The one thing that brings religion together seems to be an anti gay agreement.

  2. Chester666666 24 Jun 2013, 11:33pm

    And she witters about short romances – as if heteros don’t have any
    Why is it so many homophobes suddenly admit to obsess over incest like they have thought about it and fantasised over it

    1. Siblings don’t always come conveniently in two’s, what if there are more than two cohabiting sisters?
      How will civil partnerships address their situation?

  3. Now that Civil Partnerships can be celebrated in church, will religions be happy to carry one out for two sisters, or a father and his daughter, knowing that these may not be loving relationships but rather ones for tax purposes. This isn’t what Civil Partnerships were for, nor what marriage is for. This was not the right place to introduce this amendment, what is being discussed here relates to tax law, and welfare rights.

    1. In addition, a man who married or had a Civil Partnership with his daughter, will have to divorce her if she wants to get married to another, thus any tax benefit would be lost, so really she’s best marrying her dad, waiting for him to die, getting the tax benefit, then getting married to the person she loves.

      This particular amendment, which keeps coming back, is primarily concerned with inheritance tax and could be resolved with a higher threshold or some other way.

      1. CH Brighton 24 Jun 2013, 11:55pm

        This particular amendment – along with nearly all the others – comes from religious zealots clutching at any straws in an attempt to sink the Bill. What a waste of time!

    2. I agree, Im in favour of sibling civil partnerships but it should be discussed along with the hetero-partnerships bill, not the gay marriage bill. This is clearly a ploy to sink the marriage bill

      1. GulliverUK 25 Jun 2013, 8:21am

        I’m not, as they are not romantic and sexual relationships – the very essence of both Civil Partnerships and marriage. There is a major concern raised with these that they may be involve coercion, and there is sufficient evidence of relationship abuse with families to justify that, by which I mean one person have power over another, for example a father marrying a daughter. The problems they seek to remedy all involve not love but tax liability – in most cases these people wouldn’t even be living together. If inheritance tax needs to be reformed, fine, but they are not anything like Civil Partnerships or marriage, and those are rewarded because they encourage stability – which is why society rewards them.

        1. Absolutely. Plus those couples are already next of kin and have rights in the event of death.

  4. Many of these Members of the House of Lords are mentally ill! Why do the British people persist with this undemocratic institution? Should be scrapped! It is beyond me!

    1. If we had an elected House of Lords it would be the same as the House of Commons and therefore be pointless, as they’d be under the control of the party whip. I’d like to see an end to all hereditary peers and bishops in the House of Lords, an end to PMs choosing peers and a non-party affiliation, no ex-MP should ever become a Lord. We need a house that’s a congregation of the greatest minds of our time, from all walks of life. A council of humanists, who can see reason and cannot be wavered when it comes to equality and human rights for all people. The Lords should really be a house of independents, not affiliated to any party, religion or strict school of thought. There are many people out there who would be perfect for the House of Lords, but unfortunately, unless we see change for the better, it will never happen.

  5. MS Deech is unelected.

    Her opinion is irrelevant.

    Scrap the House of Lords.

  6. Inheritance Tax is theft, pure and simple. You’ve paid all your income tax, council tax, VAT etc so the little bit that’s yours should then be yours to do with as you like. No-one should have their misery multiplied by losing their home when someone dies.

    However, the injustices in the cases of the ‘two sisters’ or the single daughter that’s looked after elderly parents for half a lifetime should be remedied by abolishing IHT, not by tinkering with CPs.

    Baroness Deech has a strongly anti-gay voting rights record, and this was clearly designed to be yet another cynical wrecking amendment. Well done Lord Alli in helping to reject it !

    If she tries to introduce it again, it should be rejected again.

    1. Usually taxes are payable whenever any large sum of money is transferred from one person to another. I’m not sure why inheritance should be different. You only pay any if your estate is worth more than £325 000 (and there are various significant exemptions), so the vast majority is paid by the very wealthy, which helps to stop wealth becoming concentrated in a few wealthy families over time. If anything, I think council tax and VAT make less sense than inheritance tax.

      1. D’oh !

        Do get real. In many parts of the South East £325k won’t even buy you an unmodernised semi, so you’re not even comfortably off, let alone ‘very wealthy’ !

        1. GulliverUK 25 Jun 2013, 8:30am

          The government should look at exactly what the purpose of inheritance tax is, what’s its goal? I would say that it’s more designed to prevent rich people passing on massive sums of wealth creating a more unequal, less egalitarian society, and if you are concerned in that area then perhaps set it with a starting rate of £1m, or even £5m. A good point was also made that when joined in a Civil Partnership or marriage you are both responsible for each other in terms of welfare, so a couple are disadvantaged in terms of welfare payments. If two sisters married they wouldn’t be eligible for the same levels of job-seekers allowance or income support or housing benefit as two separate individuals, which might be even more problematic if they lived in separate houses.

          They do also already have trusts which they can set up, and that is what many rich families do. These proposals won’t mean much to the average person because they don’t have the wealth to make it relevant.

    2. St Sebastian 25 Jun 2013, 3:11am

      I disagree. The accumulation of wealth during a lifetime by the very wealthy is often aided by tax devices/vehicles (that only they can afford) and this is a way of recouping fair contributions that the very wealthy have evaded during their lifetime. So take the silver spoon out of your mouth and earn your own fortune.

      As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr said, ‘(t)axes are the price we pay for a civilized society.’ So, if you want the benefits of living in a civilised country, pay your taxes with gratitude or go and live in a place like South Africa where you have to pay a fortune to private security firms to protect your assets from thieves. Paying tax is a lot less traumatic than having your assets stolen, often violently.

  7. Thanks for sharing your opinion, Baroness Beech, but I’m afraid everybody will agree it is absolutely irrelevant. Just like you ;-)

  8. She has a valid point .But hey those who talk about ‘equal’ marriage are after all sibling-phobes since they deny sisters or brothers , not to say granny and grandchild the right to marriage. What harm can it do – if two people or three people love each other? – why should the so-called ‘LGBT’ community not add ‘S’ at the end for siblings and be inclusive .This is the 21st Century, attitudes have changed and it’s time the dinosaurs left their prejudices behind and their religious definitions of marriage .Marriage has always changed through the ages.Just as they stopped black and white people getting married , now it’s siblings! Just as same-sex ‘marriage’ cannot be consummated , is not complementary, is not unitive or creative so is sibling-equal- marriage .Equality is equality .

    1. Commander Thor 25 Jun 2013, 6:30am

      This is the Marriage Bill (same-sex couples).

      Go make your own bill, and let’s talk about it again.

      1. She has gotten “same sex couples” confused with “same sex siblings”… poor old dear.

    2. Siblings are already related. Marriage, amongst other things, is about establishing a new family relationship where there is none.
      Why don’t homophobes like you go away? Most of you are as ancient and out of touch as the parade of deathbed loons on the House of Lords. For there was an age divide between the supporters and opponents of this bill.

      1. Sorry, but since when could gay people produce children? SSM has nothing to do with forming family relationships -leave children out of it.

        1. It’s not that difficult with the old turkey baster. Otherwise adoption is a legitimate way of forming a family.

        2. And marriage in it self is NOT about procreation. You argument is completely invalid when you factor in couples who:
          a) Choose not to have children
          b) Are beyond child bearing age
          c) Are infertile and therefore unable to conceive

        3. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2013, 10:26am

          Er hello… I have a child.. thank you.

          Besides when we’re seeing the planet being over populated and riots and wars starting because there is not enough food, fuel etc I think two men or two women getting married because they love each other is hardly going to add to the problems of the word but more help ease the problems of the world.

          Perhaps if you concentrated so much on the real issues/problems of this world, like the above, you could make a difference instead of nit picking about a couple of the same sex loving each other.

          1. You have a child because of a third party. As a gay person, you went out of your way to do this-not like some heterosexual who it happened to by accident. OK I AM assuming that you didn’t have a fling with a member of the opposite sex. In which case, fair enough.

            So did you use the turkey baster/ivf method.

            If so, you’ve a cheek to talk to me about over population.

    3. Sacre bleu 25 Jun 2013, 9:03am

      Rubbish, with all due respect. The discussion here about umion/marriage between siblings is about fiduciary/tax matters, it is not about love as is the argument for equal marriage. These fiduciary/tax issues need to be dealt with separately in another bill, with the protagonists running their own agenda, not piggybacking on ours. In saying this, I am not commenting on the worthiness or otherwise of these extraneous issues, rather I am saying we should keep our agenda clear of all these red herrings that are clouding / saboataging our goal of equal marriage.

  9. Stan and Ollie on ‘equal marriage’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ1YmU1nYdQ

    It’s a topsy-turvey world indeed !

    1. Sacre bleu 25 Jun 2013, 2:53am

      Thanks for that laugh Ray. A bit of humour certainly helps us get through the day.

  10. bugger off am not marrying my sister & I live with her. One of the few things that gets me through the day, is that am safe in the knowledge I will not marry her but I will feel blooming sorry to the guy she will. Besides which surely that is incest anyways and that is illegal? This woman is tapped in the head…..

    1. GulliverUK 25 Jun 2013, 8:38am

      I love my sisters and brothers very much, but even the thought of living with them brings me out in a cold sweat. And I don’t have any romantic or sexual feelings for them, which is the very essence of why you make a longtime (they say “lifetime”) commitment to one person in a CP or marriage.

      Also, to be properly effectively, I’m afraid it just wouldn’t be one would it … it would be the whole bl**dy lot.

      Ray might want to marry his grandmother, or nephew, or daughter, but then that’s the sort of perverted sick nonsense you now get as the last desperate gasps of the anti-gay movement wind up their hate campaign.

      Wouldn’t be surprised if Ray was really Dr James (Mrs) incogneto :-p

      1. OMG incestuous polygamy scare!
        Baroness Deech… really!

  11. JackAlison 25 Jun 2013, 4:58am

    ….and dogs and cats and goats and my great great grandmother…YAWN YAWN!
    yes weve heard that line so many times before
    SILLY BITCH
    (I think il email her now and tell her i wanna marry my goldfish)
    funny isnt it that the church will bless animals on st francis day
    but not loving human beings

    1. GulliverUK 25 Jun 2013, 5:31am

      Does your goldfish have a substantial portfolio that you want to inherit?

      Please note I am not a financial advisor and you should disregard any advice I give :D

      1. JackAlison 25 Jun 2013, 2:29pm

        lol
        IL get ‘my ppl.’ 2 talk with my goldfishe’s ‘ppl.’
        (so glad I did that pre-nup agreement) r we could b in 4 a messy divorce

  12. Are spinster sisters going to want to have to go through divorce processes should one of them find a prospective spouse and wish to terminate their “civil partnership” with their sibling?

    There are valid tax and financial reasons for non-romantic co-habitating people to have some kind of legally-recognized relationships. But neither marriage nor civil partnerships is designed appropriately for such arrangements. Such relationships, by their very nature, assume that the door is always open for one or both participants to marry and perhaps cease the co-habitation. Obviously, that is not one of the expected goals of marriage or civil partnerships, hence the need for divorce.

    Some kind of “civil partnership lite” would be needed for the spinster sisters of society. Something that allows for rapid exit if some gentleman (or lady) sweeps one of the sisters off her feet and takes her away to marry.

  13. “The state should not prefer sexual relationships, which may be short-lived and serial, over blood relationships that have proved to have endured decades.”

    Which is why you’ve spent the last few decades trying to remedy the inequality of an unrelated man and woman being able to marry while a devoted brother and sister can’t…

    Or is this just some crap you’ve made up to justify your prejudice, promote hatred and demean LGBT people’s relationships?

    Vile, hateful woman. I wish someone would verbally jump all over her and show her up for the fool and bigot she is.

    1. “I wish someone would verbally jump all over her and show her up for the fool and bigot she is”

      I think you just did Iris

    2. Frank Boulton 25 Jun 2013, 4:59pm

      Nobody needs to “show her up for the fool and bigot she is.” She’s already doing a better job of that than most others could.

  14. Mihangel apYrs 25 Jun 2013, 7:05am

    so why the total inaction since the CP Act in 2005 (and Tebbit’s “elderly sisters” scenario)?

    It is clear they don’t care about the “elderly sisters” only about wreaking this Bill, and someone should confront them on it

  15. What infuriates me is the sneaky assumption that gay relationships and/or civil partnerships equate to sibling relations — ie “very close and warm friendships”, not “proper relationships like marriage”.
    The reason why these people keep rattling on about sisters in civil partner ships and other nonsense is quite simple — they don’t believe or want to accept that our relationships are real.

    1. The other side of this coin is that if a brother and sister were living together then because opposite sex couples can presently marry then they should be able to marry to avoid inheritance tax, why is Baroness Deech not plumping for that?

      1. The brother and sister should be able to form a civil partnership rather.

      2. Sacre bleu 25 Jun 2013, 8:37am

        why is Baroness Deech not plumping for that?

        Because she has a religious, homophobic agenda. If this is of such a great concern, then she should go and organise her own bill. This bill is about equal marriage, not fiducial relationships.

  16. Sisters already have a legally recognised familial relationship, they do not require marriage to form a family relationship.

    If the tax laws are disadvantaging a pair of sisters who have been living together for many years then perhaps the tax laws should be reviewed.

    1. “Sisters already have a legally recognised familial relationship, they do not require a civil partnership to form a family relationship.”…rather

  17. “IF STRAIGHTS CAN MARRY, A COHABITING BROTHER & SISTER SHOULD BE ALLOWED A CIVIL PARTNERSHIP”

    1. The previous comment only if as Baroness Deech suggests…
      “IF GAYS CAN MARRY, COHABITING SISTERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED A CIVIL PARTNERSHIP”

  18. And what exactly IS the problem with civil partnerships for sisters?

    Seriously, they weren’t good enough for those pro-same sex marriage as they were too ‘cold’, ‘clinical’ and unromantic and ‘JUST’ a legal contract.

    Well, then, if it’s ‘just’ a legal contract let sisters have it!

    What exactly business of it of the dissenters here? Doesn’t affect them.

    1. The House of Lords are supposed to be debating the gay marriage equality bill, civil partnerships for siblings is outside the remit of this bill and is quite separate.

      The Baroness is not being serious, she is wanting to waste time.

    2. GulliverUK 25 Jun 2013, 8:45am

      sab, you’ve totally and utterly missed the whole point of the bill – it’s to is stop denying one single group of people the right to marry, to allow them equality in the law. It’s got nothing to do with whether the name is too clinical, although it can be a clumsy title to use sometimes. In some ways Civil Partnerships are better than marriage, because they don’t have the patriarchal nonsense, the inequality of roles, subjugation of women, the historical properly / women owning aspects, and today’s modern couples do want their relationships to be free from that baggage and very much more equal. We made Civil Partnerships equal because we live as equals in them – no baggage, no pre-defined template.

      But to deny marriage to couples based on their gender is discrimination and this is an attempt to put that right – because it doesn’t stand up to moral and legal scrutiny.

      1. But this is not about ssm- this is about civil partnerships.

        Those pro-ssm have claimed civil partnerships are 2nd class, unromantic and most definitely not marriage.

        So, given this, why NOT give this ‘lesser’ legal agreement to siblings.

        Won’t affect your marriage, will it?

        1. bobbleobble 25 Jun 2013, 10:06am

          Civil partnerships just as with marriage are about creating a legal relationship where non currently exists. If I were to die tomorrow intestate it would be my brother who inherits my possessions. If I’m in hospital undergoing emergency treatment my brother would have no problem being present. My boyfriend on the other hand has no such relationship with me until such time as I enter into a civil partnership or hopefully marriage.

          While I do agree that they are second class, unromantic and definitely not marriage, the purpose of civil partnerships is also not to help people avoid inheritance tax which is the only reason a sibling pair might want a civil partnership. What you want is a reform of tax law which is fair enough but siblings do not need civil partnerships.

        2. “But this is not about ssm- this is about civil partnerships.”

          However the Baroness is scaremongering about the Marriage (same sex couples) Bill, see below.

          “The eventual passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, could lead to cohabiting relatives, or carers, being given the same legal status as married couples, the House of Lords has heard.”

  19. Colin (London) 25 Jun 2013, 8:38am

    Simple get rid of all the tax benefits!

    We want equality and our relationships on par with others. If it’s to do with inheritance tax etc then get rid of all the incentives, being able to pass taxes between people etc. That would be fairer to the state and to single people. Not difficult really.

    Green getting in the way of equality…mmm

    1. Colin (London) 25 Jun 2013, 8:39am

      Sorry GREED…no Green

    2. Mihangel apYrs 25 Jun 2013, 12:53pm

      To explain the practicalities:
      The issue of tax (etc) benefits is that 2 people integrate their lives and finances to the extent that on the death of one the other could be faced with the need to sell a home to pay the taxes (making that person homeless), and would break up everything built together. They also take some financial and othe responsibility each for the other. A singleton doesn’t have these claims on them or a “joint” life.

      If we want to recognise and protect those partners who cannot marry or CP, then the French system of “PACS” is an acceptable example

      1. CH Brighton 25 Jun 2013, 5:30pm

        PACs don’t cover close relatives despite such arrangements being proposed by the French antis trying to water down the original PACs legislation in the same way as Baroness Deech and friends. Interestingly those proposals were baulked at by the catholic church who while wanting to wreck the PACs proposals, couldn’t countenance partnerships of close relatives. A PACs can only be entered into by same sex or different sex couples and is, if you like, ‘marriage lite’ from which some couples go on to form a full marriage while others prefer to remain with the PACs status.

    3. Colin (London) 26 Jun 2013, 9:11am

      Sorry there should be no tax benefits to married people. Single people have to purchase a house, maintain repair it, and provide for old age without tax benefits. Tell me that is fair. Couples have double incomes and still want tax allowances……….

  20. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2013, 8:43am

    Not getting the logic there but they they’re not on about logic. They just want to divide and discriminate.

    Shameful.

  21. All this really says is that some people have no respect for us and never will

    They see us as beneath them and irrelevant with no worthy emotions or dignity

    All this nonsense about extending civil partnerships is just about showing their disdain for us being allowed to take up their right to marriage

    I doubt they’d give two hoots about the two spinster sisters if it didn’t let them have a dig at us

    Black hearted homophobic bigots

  22. What if there are three or more sisters cohabiting Baroness?
    will only two of them be allowed a civil partnership, and if so how then will civil partnerships address the rights of the third, fourth and fifth cohabiting sister?
    Or are you proposing polygamous civil partnerships for siblings?

  23. There’s a non-sequitor if ever there was one. She sounds awfully progressive, except that she’s being vindictive.

  24. If she wants same sex sinlings to be legally partnered and thats her only objection I say allow it.

    I know some are a bit AHHHHH with incest and when it comes to reproduction then uea theres issues but in this case of same gender theres no issue there only two people in love.

    It would spread equality and shut her up as if she said anytjing youd just fire back well you asked for this lol.

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

    Clearly an wrecking amendment which will fail to be carried.

    What I find so revealing is that all of the opposition who support her views have never bothered to campaign for sibling CPs since the consultation, let alone for heterosexual access after they were introduced in 2005 and up until 2010 when the Marriage Bill was in its infancy. I’m surprised nobody has put it to her.

    Do they take us and all who support the Bill for fools?

  26. davevauxhall 25 Jun 2013, 12:41pm

    she quoted the line god Help the mister who gets between me and my sister, but forgot the next line which emphasises the priority with a sexual relationship “and god help the sister who gets between me and my man” LOL

    1. And even Baroness Deech’s choice of song lyrics to quote comes from the 1950’s when she was alive, her opinions belong way back there too.

  27. Makes me feel sick.

    She was the principal of my college at university. I had to go to her office once. I sat there and she told me that women lack confidence compared to men and to have confidence when doing my examinations. No thanks. Maybe she’s the one who uses ‘confidence’ to cover up that she’s lacking in intelligence.

  28. Why must people like Ms. Deech hatefully seek to demean us, to demean our love by take away its sexual exclusivity?

    Why must she lessen our love by diminishing it to the bond that exists between two siblings?

    Answer: deep-seated HATRED.

  29. Opponents of equal marriage have accused LGBT people of seeing it as a stepping-stone towards legal partnerships between close blood relatives. Now we see an opponent arguing in favour of the very same thing! All I have seen from the anti-equal marriage lobby in this debate so far is hypocrisy, smears and intimidation. Not a single convincing or rational argument. They’re making utter fools of themselves.

  30. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Jun 2013, 1:19pm

    So she traduces the Marriage Bill with an amendment that is clearly designed to delay it and pretending that sibling CPs are nothing to do with sex, yet here she is in 2010 railing against incest. Bloody hypocritical bigoted loon.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259401/Baroness-Deech-Rise-marriages-cousins-putting-children-risk-birth-defect.html

    1. CH Brighton 25 Jun 2013, 3:27pm

      Yes. And not only is she wanting to preventing cousins from marrying yet advocating civil partnerships between close family members, the logic of her proposal is that three or more brothers and sisters living together would need to form a ‘mènage à plusieurs’ in order to keep the family money in their own hands. And her fellow-travellers think same-sex marriage is a step too far. Ha ha ha.

      1. She really is good at playing a daft ape isn’t she.
        Perhaps Baroness Deech is successfully fooling herself but she’s not convincing many others with her deliberate distortions of logic.

      2. Hey lady my parents were first cousins – it ain’t too unusual in country folk LOL – but funny my uncle was the first gay contact I had – so I’m like you doll Deech big on keeping it in the family.

  31. who is this daft old tart ? Is she the “Brother” Tebbit finds so attractive ? …similar politics i see !

  32. I for one hope that for Lady Knight tomorrow indeed will never come.

  33. But the go’vt should still make a “domestic partnership” category for people who live together without it needing to be anybody’s business but theirs whether they are having sex or not.

  34. What she is doing and the oponents clutching at is a valid point in the sense that maybe something needs to change in the law regarding siblings/carers etc.

    But she doesn’t really care it just suits to throw in with the quagmire of nonsense being used to oppose marriage equality.

    A couple (2 people, not more) of the same sex are equitable to a heterosexual couple in a vast number of ways. And despite the vocal opposition while not capable of genetically creating a baby it has been proven that gay couple make very good parents, often providing homes to those desperate for adoption.

    If she wants rights for siblings etc, and really cared, she would be bringing it up in the proper context. Instead she shows she is nothing but selfish in raising it purely as an attempt to scupper the same sex marriage bill.

    In other words she is a selfish bigot.

    1. You forgot to add vindictive, a selfish and vindictive bigot attempting to block same sex couples from pursuing their happiness in marriage.

  35. As this silly woman is chair of the Bar Standards Board [ a post she probably won’t have much longer ], and therefore a Barrister, you’d think she would know that a] your Next of Kin has the same rights to inheritance and power of attorney ect as a spouse and b] marrying your blood relations is incest [ or has she been reading Jeremy Irons? ]

    1. Is anyone going to make a formal complaint to the Bar about her? I’m sure her comments must already breech the Equality Act.

  36. Art Pearson 25 Jun 2013, 4:46pm

    It’s amazing the many subtle ways homophobia exposes itself eh.

  37. Christopher Coleman 25 Jun 2013, 4:58pm

    If one accepts that any one thing can lead to another, we might have to consider banning breastfeeding (for example). Breastfeeding an infant could so easily lead to some women breastfeeding puppies and kittens and god knows what else.

  38. She has a point, but is trussing it up and throwing it out in an effort to get her bigotry across. Perhaps there does need to be some form of relationship that should be recognised by the law for cohabiting vulnerable family members, which give them protections under the law in the forms of inheritance and medical care?

    She is however once again fulfilling the stereotype of most bigots who are against same sex marriage by reducing it all down to one thing; Sex.

  39. To be honest the only person i would have a problem with marrying and reproducing would be you !
    just so you know …THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS god
    have a good day ! XX

  40. you and Dirty Filth would make a lovely couple
    check him out im sure he is on GRINDR

    1. Yeah, like the Reverend Graham Capill, leader of New Zealand’s defunct Christian Heritage Party, who served prison time for serial rape of three little girls, guys? Or doesn’t the sexual violation of female children or women matter to you ratbags? Or Stephen Green’s spousal abuse of his ex-wife Caroline? Or Aussie fundie Richard Madden’s sexual addiction while married?

    2. What majority would that be ?

  41. CH Brighton 25 Jun 2013, 8:25pm

    Well that’s what your chum Baroness Deech is advocating.

    1. Natural conclusion perhaps of the impulsive mind. Face validity has however been demonstrated to be full of inaccuracy. This is her naturally going off on a tangent. In the UK there is already recognition very close to marriage. I do not see sisters being allowed civil partnerships at this moment, do you? How can someone match equalising the rights of couples with two people not related to each other(!) to the marriage of those related? You can’t block rights based on ‘what ifs’. However, considering it, what is wrong with recognising platonic relationships regardless of the couple? I for one am asexual, the person I may want to marry will be unrelated to me, but it will be an asexual partnership all the same.

      So how many complained when marriage was redefined to the current state? It hasn’t always been defined as this.

  42. This isn’t an argument against marriage equality or civil partnerships. Personally, I’m in favour of non-sexual significant relationships receiving equivalent legal recognition, but that will have to wait relevant amending legislation.
    Let’s call their bluff.

  43. Um, the Bible is against homosexuality, Nature is FULL of that behaviour as well as other crazy variations to humans. We can clearly break God and Nature away from each other. If you’re arguing for Yahweh, if homosexuals are seen as offensive, who cares? I find some passages in the bible abhorrent – they shame the god they talk about worshiping. Seriously, look at it all.
    One example:
    And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:15-18 Homosexuals are dirty but paedophilia isn’t? Slavery isn’t? misogyny isn’t? No, just gays. :) See your lack of logic?

    Judging things on how they make you feel doesn’t really make them right or wrong. If you are disgusted by something it doesn’t mean you can claim it is unarguably wrong.

  44. reported

  45. Not all feel that way. It is pretty much up to cultural relativism. If you’re surrounded by bad imagery you will feel bad. It’s a taught emotional association through various ways. People are plagued with negative emotion more in the USA than in Europe. Not all cultures are plagued with that rubbish. Homosexuality seems natural all the same to me, if we are going on what is present in Nature. It’s there in nature. How is it not natural? I, however, am asexual, I’m probably a lot more abnormal. I don’t feel the least bit ashamed despite going against Evolutionary and alleged Godly functions. No one said being asexual was bad, it is for the best part, simply skipped over.

    1. Christopher in Canada 26 Jun 2013, 2:32am

      I think you’re both out to lunch, but hey, so long as you are not forcing your ways of life on anyone else, who cares what you do about what your are or aren’t doing with others?

  46. The Bible is contradictory on its support of incestuous marriage. It is both approved and condemned. The contradictory nature of the Bible is common.
    Genesis 20:12
    And yet indeed, she [Sarah] is my [Abraham’s] sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
    Marrying his half sister.
    There are other references in favour: Genesis 17:16 (Sarah to be pregnant basically, it’s just following on), Exodus 6:20 (Amram took his father’s sister as a wife and blessed her with children).
    Condemned: Deuteronomy 27:22, Leviticus 18:9, 12, Leviticus 20:17, 19.

    To Christian nations this is problematic. To honour the Bible is incestuous marriage condemned or approved? For Christians should it be allowed or not. Maybe you aren’t Christian. In which case I apologise. If you’re Muslim you are good, only Ibn Qayyim thought incestuous marriage should be tolerated for Mohammed allegedly knew of the Zoroastrians practicing and didn’t forbid it.

  47. What the hell do these people put in their coffee in the morning. their arguments and speeches are getting more and more idiotic every time another one opens their mouth.

  48. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence realises it opens up a can of worms. It’s not (necessarily) homophobia to say this: it’s the simple principle that once something like marriage is FUNDAMENTALLY altered -which is what ssm will do, there’s nothing to stop it being altered again.

    Those pro-ssm know this; hence the urge to dismiss the Baroness.

    Go, Deech, play ‘em at their own equality game. Pro-ssm hypocrites that they are. I mean in what WAY does two sisters having a cp affect them? It won’t.

  49. This grumpy posh old cow once shouted abuse at me for riding through a zebra crossing on my bike in Oxford when she was approaching it on foot. Can’t say I liked her face or demeanour!

  50. Zoe Bremer 1 Jul 2013, 10:33am

    I think the Baroness is right. Many people who live with relatives are treated less fairly than those who live with people to whom they are unrelated but are married. This means that many people lose their homes upon bereavement because they cannot pay the taxes that spouses are exempt from paying. This ridiculous policy is supported by several political parties that purport to protect families. They do nothing of the sort. Everyone should be treated the same under tax law and those who inherit real estate should not risk losing their homes just because they have remained faithful to their own families instead of going to live with unrelated people. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

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