Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Lord Dear introduces ‘belief in traditional marriage’ amendment to same-sex marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Tedious bigot – Further epitomising why I have developed a lifelong loathing of religion and absolute contempt to the babbling idiots who believe in it.

    1. Redfern Jon Barrett 4 Jul 2013, 11:04pm

      There are plenty of queer-friendly religions – it’s Abrahamic nonsense that spread homophobia.

      I’d also take this as another example of how broken the system of unelected Lords is.

      1. Godric Godricson 5 Jul 2013, 6:30am

        What are those queer friendly religions?

        1. Spanner1960 5 Jul 2013, 11:29am

          Quakers and some Jewish sects for one.

        2. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jul 2013, 12:17pm

          In addition to the Quakers, Liberal Judaism, include the Unitarians.

        3. Har Davids 5 Jul 2013, 12:46pm

          Many people who cling on to a religion, can still be gay-friendly. Very often it’s the management that’s very homophobic.

          BTW, what exactly does this “belief in traditional marriage” mean? The tradition of the OT, or does Lord Dear (am I only in being remembered of Cpt. Darling?) mean a more recent one?

  2. Slightly confused as to why this amendment would be “fatal”? Unlike the one put forward by Lord Mckay which is to amend clause 1 and call all same sex couples getting married “same sex marriage” as opposed to just married.

    Lord Dear’s amendments are a waste of time since the govt has already said people can have their own beliefs about marriage and that teachers can in a balance way talk about marriage in differing ways. What exactly is Dear’s amendment saying that isn’t already legal already.

    1. “Fatal”, John, because it would remove us from marriage, as it would define marriage as being that union that Dear and other haters espouse and no other.

      Dear’s amendment would make SSMs into just another form of CP.

  3. As an aside the timetable for the remainder of the bill seems to be :

    “The House of Lords will debate the bill again on Monday 8 July and Wednesday 10 July, and finally on Monday 15 July. MPs are likely to consider the Lords amendments to the Bill on 16 or 17 July.”

    Why so many more days going over the same old ground….4 more days of debate and votes… how f”cking annoying!

    1. Craig Nelson 4 Jul 2013, 9:40pm

      The debates are getting tedious, I agree. Generally the committee stage in the Lords hears and debates amendments but doesn’t vote on them unless accepted by the government. In the report stage the amendments that were withdrawn are (if the mover so wishes) brought back and voted on (it may be that they are satisfied with the explanations given). In the third reading there is also opportunity for amendments. Then the Commons has to agree to all of the Lords amendments; the ones they disagree with are then sent back to the Lords to see if they change their minds and so on. If all goes well then the Commons will be able to accept all the amendments that the Lords make because of the majority in favour of the bill. In any case the whole process is likely to be over within two weeks – not a moment too soon. Then the whole thing all over again in the Scottish Parliament…

  4. These wrecking amendments show the dishonesty of their advocates; even if passed Dear would not support the Bill. I hope more brave people in the Lords, like Deben, Fowler, Baker, Alli, Lester and Pannick among others call these out for what they are and refuse to let these people sneak cover behind their so-called moral arguments. Expose and shame them.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jul 2013, 2:06pm

      Don’t worry, they will call them out, especially Lord Lester who is a skilled lawyer and well versed in Human Rights law and the ECHR. He’s shot all of their amendments down and exposed them for what they really are during Committee hearings. This is just a rehash of the same amendments wrapped up in slightly different wording in attempt to make them seem new and palatable which they aren’t of course. In fact they’re more insidious than they originally were. It’s going to continue well into third reading make no mistake about that. They won’t get anywhere in my view.

  5. Mihangel apYrs 4 Jul 2013, 7:11pm

    I’m not sure what Baron Dear has been doing in the House until now, but it sure seems that he’s putting a hell of a lot of effort into screwing LGB people over.

    No doubt, of course, he never let his obvious distaste of us influence his policing policies when he had real power!

  6. This man is sooooo sad. He’s like the guest at the party who doesn’t know he’s not wanted. His whole career and place in history will come down to his failed investigation of the Hillsborough tragedy and his desperate failed attempts to wreck this bill. What a claim to fame for the noble Lord!!!

  7. There’s only one reason why this bigot submits amendments and that’s to thwart the bill as is amply demonstrated by his previous attempts.

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were the grubby hands of evangelical lawers and/or barristers behind this.

    Perhaps Lord Dear would be so kind as to reveal just which individuals/organisations (if any) were providing the wording for this amendment?

    If he acts like a bigot, squawks like a bigot – then he is a bigot. Period!

  8. Mumbo Jumbo 4 Jul 2013, 7:49pm

    Your horse is dead! Dismount!

    1. It looks to me like his dead horse has been flogged.

      1. Metsän poika 5 Jul 2013, 5:46am

        Flogging a horse is such a cruel act, ldob in the Lord, call the RSPCA.

  9. ““For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act shall contradict the principle that the belief that marriage is the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life”

    So he’ll be spearating out remarried divorcees too then, will he? Or maybe he’d like to ignore the Married Woman’s Property Act, or perhaps that annoying little ‘ non-traditional’ law that made rape in marriage a crime?

    What a bitter, vindictive thing to do. Why can’t he shut up and get on with his own life. He can believe what he wants but he should be ashamed to be spending so much time trying to sabotage other people’s lives and happiness.

  10. ““For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act shall contradict the principle that the belief that marriage is the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life”

    So he’ll be separating out remarried divorcees too then, will he? Or maybe he’d like to ignore the Married Woman’s Property Act, or perhaps that annoying little ‘ non-traditional’ law that made rape in marriage a crime?

    What a bitter, vindictive thing to do. Why can’t he shut up and get on with his own life. He can believe what he wants but he should be ashamed to be spending so much time trying to sabotage other people’s lives and happiness.

  11. “Affect the right of teachers to express their personal views about marriage in an appropriate way….”
    1: Define appropriate.
    2: Explain exactly why, in an education setting, teachers’ personal views should be given any consideration that is outside of their own personal life?

    “….or mean that any teacher will be under any obligation to endorse a particular view of marriage.”
    Am I the only one who doesn’t quite get this bit? There are no negative words used here. It doesn’t say “NO teacher will be under any obligation to…” Nor does it say “Any teacher will be under NO obligation to…”
    All I’m reading here is a poor attempt to make it an obligation for any teacher to ‘endorse a particular view of marriage’. And considering it is Lord Dear proposing this, it is pretty obvious what view this would be.

    The way Lord Dear has worded his amendment makes it look like Section 28 in disguise.

  12. Die, C***T!

    Pardon me. As you were.

  13. PeterinSydney 4 Jul 2013, 9:05pm

    Oh Dear!!! Go away Lord Dear!!! You are too cheap altogether! The Lords need to vote against you again you silly old dear.

  14. Tedious old Baboon.

  15. Going by what we now know about this man, perhaps it would be a good time for he himself to be investigated. Given that he seems to think that gay people are subhuman at best, how many gay people felt as if they were ignored by the force he was in charge of at the time? Going by what he is saying, it seems as if, as far as he is concerned, man’s laws are inferior to Natural or God’s Law. Therefore, how many times did he see a way of ignoring the laws of the land in such a way as not to be obvious at the time, unless, of course, it suited him?

  16. Calm down, Dear.

  17. But isn’t that the whole point of ‘equal’ marriage? It’s about REMOVING the exclusivity of marrIage being defined as solely between heterosexuals.

    1. Metsän poika 5 Jul 2013, 5:56am

      Obviously a concept too far for Lord Dear to understand.

  18. Seems like this douche bag is trying to punish someone for not wanting to marry an asshole – him-, or his catching anal warts, or herpes.
    Good grief, deal with it solder and stop your pathetic whining. Your now beginning to look like a sour knob.

  19. Why do we need amendments about teachers’ opinions? Teachers aren’t there to preach, they are there to teach. All they need to do is teach the facts. They don’t need to add their opinions.

    “Right kids. Legally, it is possible to marry someone of the same gender in the UK, however I should just add that I am personally against this.”

    No, f*** that. Just teach the facts and get on with it.

  20. Oh FFS Lord Dear. Give it a break.

  21. Dear Lord, will you sort out Lord dear – he is such a tedious, sore looser.

  22. CH Brighton 5 Jul 2013, 8:12am

    Why is he doing this? Is he driven by religion? Is someone paying him? Is there an organisation encouraging him? Or is he just losing it? I, for one, am at a complete loss to understand where he’s coming from.

    1. … the bar …?

  23. keith francis farrell 5 Jul 2013, 8:19am

    don’t know what this bigot is trying to prove.
    Is it so hard for people to understand the meaning of one word. “EQUALITY” I might be dyslexic but I am not stupid. This idiot is stupid.

  24. An SSM Act prefaced with an amendment differentiating heterosexual marriage from SSM would be nothing other than a reincarnation of the Civil Partnerships legislation!

    I am still in New Zealand and yesterday I spoke with an activist here and got told that people like Lord Dear are simply “subjects of social conditioning”, that there’s no hatred going on. I corrected the activist: behaviour like Dear’s is expressive of hatred.

    Does hatred not exist on this planet?

    Of course it does?

    Where is hatred to be found?

    In lots of places, in lots of people, and right now certainly in the behaviour of one Geoffrey Dear.

  25. It costs the taxpayer MILLIONS to keep this embarrassing symbol of non-democracy going. The House of Lords should be abolished. Stuffed to the rafters with un-elected bishops, landed gentry and government cronies. It’s a disgrace that this expensive fossil farm still exists – especially when we have the nerve to lecture the world about the merits of a democratically elected government.

    1. Spanner1960 5 Jul 2013, 11:34am

      Oh right. The democratically elected ones that buy their way into power?
      The grovel and arselick their way up the greasy pole?
      Like the House of Commons is so squeaky-clean and above reproach.
      I would still trust a hereditary peer long before any career politician.

      This has nothing to do with being hereditary, and everything to do with just being out of touch. The majority of Lords are old people; over time this will change as new blood takes the reins.

  26. Jock S. Trap 5 Jul 2013, 9:15am

    Always separating Lord Dear doesn’t disappoint!

    Trouble is he clearly doesn’t get what we’re trying to do.

    Ever time, we fight for equality and when we get it people like him fight to divide and discriminate.

    Carrying on with this vendetta to keep us down in their eyes isn’t helpful. When will they learn that Marriage is how two people see themselves, together. That’s whether they same sex or opposite sex.

    Why do they feel the need to keep up this divide and fight against equality esp when we pay taxes equally, work equally, provide to society equally.

    He shouldn’t be advising on any law.

    If he is so insecure with himself why should that reflect the laws of the land?

    Shameful.

  27. Repetitive tedious, boring and fixated,
    Lord Dear is a sad figure who displays many symptoms of advanced senility, he apparently does not understand that teachers are not employed to pass on their personal prejudices to the pupils who are in their charge although this has been pointed out to him time and again.

  28. Dear Lord what an arse!

  29. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jul 2013, 12:23pm

    And Lord Singh is tabling an amendment for a referendum on October 24, 2013.

    Looking at who’s tabling these “wreckers”, I can’t imagine they haven’t had help or coaching.

    http://www.LobbyALord.org

  30. JackAlison 5 Jul 2013, 1:49pm

    oh christ.
    Can someone just set up a mobile euthenasia van outside the lords and send half these oldies on the way instead of using the lords as ‘gods waiting room’

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