Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Lib Dems’ Baroness Williams tables ‘opposite sex marriage’ amendment to equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Seems like the concept of equality doesn’t register in that empty void perched above her shoulders.

    Separate but equal never is, and there is no reason to create such a distinction, other than to pander to the snivelling christian whelps who’ve been throwing their teddy out of the pram since this debate began.

  2. Such a disappointment – a woman I had previously admired – fails us all by being governed by her Catholic superstitions over evolution & equality – shameful!

    1. Agreed, I used to like Baroness Williams, but her cowtowing to the Cult of Rome on this issue is disgusting. How can she call herself a Liberal Democrat and introduce such an amendment?

      1. Another one of el papas little minions burrowing away under the fabric of our democracy.

        Amazes me how it is considered OK to work for a foreign power while in parliament as long as that foreign power is also a head of a fantasy death cult.

        If she was taking orders from Putin there would be a scandal.

  3. so if they pass a bill how will it be different from lawful marriage ?

  4. David Skinner 5 Jul 2013, 11:36am

    Indeed the word equality has become void and empty of any meaning, just as everything that the gay hordes touch. Indeed not just empty and void but absurd and nihilistic. Out proud gays will if they were in their right minds feel not just shame but guilt before a Holy God whom Jesus Christ taught us to fear- for only He has the power to throw us all into hell.

    1. why should I fear something that doesn’t exist apart from in the minds of the gullible and terminally stupid?

    2. Thank you for making me glad I am NOT a foolish Christian – but a secular Jew who just happens to be gay.

    3. Get well soon David xxx

    4. Jock S. Trap 5 Jul 2013, 12:12pm

      It’s only “void and empty of any meaning” to the religion fruitloops like yaself because it threatens your control over society.

      Why are you forcing people who have no wish to believe the same as you to believe like YOU? it’s pathetic!

      If you want to life your life living in fear that’s your problem, your choice… You choice that lifestyle.

      I prefer to just get on and enjoy live to the full. I don’t need to question life I just get on with it.

    5. justusboyz 5 Jul 2013, 12:35pm

      If you believe in God David then you should let him be the judge,not you or Shirley Williams. I’ll see you both in hell then!

    6. That There Other David 5 Jul 2013, 12:48pm

      And next week on Children’s Story Hour we have a reading from The Gruffalo.

    7. I have nothing to fear. Your concept of God is but an outdated ancient religious ideology put forward at a time when human knowledge and understanding of the world was simplistic, and the vast majority of people illeterate. Thus allowing religious cults to gain power over such people, and oppress. It is only time and knowledge that separates Christianity from modern religion you would deem a cult.

      If God should exist, and is of any worth it would be the man made concept of religion and it’s followers that are deserving of hell and damnation. For it is religion that has caused and continues to cause the most conflict and harm in society.

      Of course if you put reason forward, all God is, is a definition of what mankind is yet to understand in the universe we live in. Hence as knowledge expands religious myth and ideology contracts.

    8. David Rimmer 5 Jul 2013, 2:38pm

      How’s Mr Tumnus and Narnia?

      Just assumed you would know from all the time you spend in the back of that closet David

    9. I absolutely love these comments from people like David and Keith (Moral Instructor). They are absolutely hilarious and make my day ^_^

    10. Take your pills and piss off, David. You are a singularly loathesome individual.

    11. Still obsessing over your gay ex-boss, David? I find it really sad that you let your dislike of one man push you into very UNchristian hatred and a slightly worrying obsession with LGBT people.

      Sort out your own issues and you’d feel a lot happier.

  5. Poor, mentally ill David! Is it not time that he was incarcerated in a lunatic asylum along with others suffering from religious mania.

  6. Yes – and lets have different licences for same sex marriages – and different registry offices for SSM and different people presiding (she has already supported this!)- and then different waterfountains and different seats on the bus etc etc.

    No way.

    She wants to build into the legislation the very discriminatory view that it is aiming to remove. She said “Equality is not the same as sameness”. True – but segregation is not equality.

    1. Just BRILLIANT reply rubisco!

  7. Once again a member of the UK parliament is dancing to the tune of a foreign power – namely Rome. It never ceases to amaze the high regard political failures are held in!?! Firstly, she was a central part of the disaster that was the Labour government of the late 70s and the winter of discontent that lead to 11 years of Thatcherism. She then dumped her party and became one of the Gang of 4 founding members of the defunct SDP. Yet somewhere along the line she’s supposed to have wisdom and for some reason was elevated to the upper house? Of course when her amendment fails it will take it’s place alongside all the other failures in her career.

  8. davevauxhall 5 Jul 2013, 11:57am

    Go back to ranting on Anglican mainstream David Skinner you are a vile prejudiced deluded fool with no manners or human decency

    1. Btw – has anyone noticed Anglian Mainstream’s home page is encouraging its readers to use the lobbyalord site to lobby lords to reject the SSM bill?

  9. bobbleobble 5 Jul 2013, 12:00pm

    ‘Equality is not the same as sameness’ without a doubt a mantra of which the proponents of Jim Crow laws on segregation in the Southern US would wholeheartedly approve.

    A total betrayal of her party and her liberal values in the name of her religion. And given her own experience of marriage how she can claim straight couples are more stable is beyond me.

  10. Jock S. Trap 5 Jul 2013, 12:03pm

    Separate, divide…. either they’re fighting to keep us unequal so they can feel superior.

    It’s just disgusting and not one of them thinks about how they’re seen by the public esp the young and vulnerable!

  11. *shrugs*

    Who gives a feck? Won’t get passed.

    Utterly bored by these time-wasting old fools. Not worth getting irritated by them

  12. CH Brighton 5 Jul 2013, 12:04pm

    I used to support this woman. Now I feel totally let down by her. She clearly hasn’t been a social democrat all these years at all! She’s been selectively picking on issues that will advance an agenda that pleases her religious masters. Boooo!

    1. Paul Brownsey 5 Jul 2013, 7:37pm

      She can’t be entirely in thrall to the RC Church because she married her second husband while her divorced ex-husband was still alive…

  13. Jock S. Trap 5 Jul 2013, 12:05pm

    Allowing registrars to ‘opt out’… I’m sorry do Gay people not pay taxes? Or is she gonna put an amendment through to divide the taxes we pay too.

    Somehow I doubt it.

    Absolutely shameful.

  14. Jock S. Trap 5 Jul 2013, 12:07pm

    Baroness Williams argued that, as well as biological differences, men and women approach relationships differently – making opposite-sex couples the most “stable” parents.

    er… based on what, exactly?

    She clearly needs to read the recent Australian study… Oh no wait they don’t like facts, just assumption.

    1. bobbleobble 5 Jul 2013, 12:12pm

      In any event the issue of gay parenting has been settled in English Law for years. This bill has nothing to do with parenting and so her comments are irrelevant.

  15. More time wasting on semantics. Two people – regardless of their sex – should be able to register their love for each other under the law. Who gives a flying f*** what its called so long as it’s called the same thing for both gays and straights? If it’s NOT called the same thing, then it is NOT ‘equality’. Geddit? Phew! These old, unelected crunts are just so brainwashed by religion they simply cannot grasp the concept of ‘equality’.

    1. What it’s called is precisely the issue. Semantics ARE the point, and it’s worth fighting for.

      She understands the semantic issue completely, which is why she wants to give our relationships a different name.

      When Catholic divorcee Williams remarried, she was married, not divorcee-second-time-around-married. Perhaps she’d like to put this forward for consideration in the HoL.

      And on that subject, some ‘stable’ relationship she formed with Bernard Williams – and yes, her daughter was adversely affected by it. I knew the daughter at the time and can vouch for the damage.

  16. As a civil servant I look forward to her support aginst my emmployer when I stop assisting customers that I have a “conscientious objection” to as well.

  17. Has anyone noticed Anglican Mainstream’s home page is now directing their readers to use the lobbyalord site to lobby peers to vote against SSM?

  18. everyone is equal, except that some of us are more equal than others… slightly changed from George Orwells, Animal Farm… lets get on with it… Young People are the same as old people… except they are not.. old peers are BIGGOTS

  19. Steve Evans 5 Jul 2013, 12:34pm

    I’m sick of these people! I pay taxes and I’m a gay man didn’t choose to be gay I just happen to be gay!
    Why am I being insulted daily because of people who have CHOOSE their religious beliefs!
    goodbye UK had enough of being spat on my taxes can go to a country with more respect for people rather then idea’s!
    how’s that for an opinion Maria Miller enough of people spouting hate in the name of religion and love

  20. That first paragraph hurt my head :(

  21. thelostdot 5 Jul 2013, 12:43pm

    No wonder the Labour party was in a mess when she was prominent in it (before the LIb Dems). Good ridance I suspect.

  22. Why is anyone surprised at the behaviour of Lady Williams, Sarah Teather et al? They will be consigned to history I believe in 2015.

  23. Really used to like her … used to

  24. GulliverUK 5 Jul 2013, 2:47pm

    I think she has the same problem Lady Thatcher had, poor thing. Lost her marbles. I should have seen this coming – she started gaving increasingly bizarre interviews a few years ago, and try as you might to be generous to her age and previous good character, I can only say that if this ever happens to me, shoot me, I don’t want to start morphing in to Anita Bryant or Lord Tebbit.

    What a disgrace to the Liberal Democrats – they really should distance themselves before they get tarnished.

  25. This stupid hag seems determined to destroy what vestiges of respect she had earned in her earlier career. Disgusting. Another reminder why we can never trust the LibDems.

    1. Really though? The Lib Dems, and the Liberal Party before them, were for years the only party talking about gay rights. This was whilst Labour and the Conservatives held views about homosexuals that were at best disparaging, and at worst downright evil. The Conservatives have over 100 MPs who voted against equal marriage with lies, damned lies and prejudice. Several Labour MPs voted against and Ed Miliband decided not to whip the issue, indeed they seem to have actively avoided making it party policy at conference. The only one of the three whose formal party policy, as set by conference, is to support same sex marriage is the Liberal Democrats. If he weren’t in government with the Lib Dems, do you really think David Cameron would have risked all this anger from his more antediluvian backbenchers on same-sex marriage?

      No political party is perfect and the Lib Dems have certainly made mistakes, but I think to criticise them on gay rights because of a couple of people is a bit rich.

      1. GulliverUK 5 Jul 2013, 3:37pm

        Agree that what we should be doing is writing her off, rather than the LibDems as such. Half the Tory party appears to be homophobic, and there are some Labour MPs, and LibDem MPs, who are, but they are the few.

        Stephen Pound (Lab), Sarah Teather (LibDem), are the most incredible disappointments ever, whilst Lord Fowler and many others have been welcome supporters, making up for the shortcomings in the opponents. On the one hand I’m angry about those two, who’ve pretty much voted with every equality measure, and on the other is pity because they’ve revealed they don’t stand up for freedom and equality and fairness, but do what the Vatican’s representative here in England told them to do. He must have put the fear of God in to them, which is in itself ludicrous. The majority of Catholics here support equality – why don’t they?

        Does the Vatican have dirt on these two? Is the “secret” confessional actually taped / bugged? Is this how the Vatican controls governments?

        1. Proportionally, more of the small number of LibDems have voted against the marriage equality bill than the Labour party. We should be able to expect 100% of the LibDems to vote for what is supposed to be a backbone belief of the party. Instead, we get quislings like this hag, whose allegiance is to Rome not to her party or her country. Not that there is any chance of it happening, but it would be a horrible mistake to give real power to the LibDems. They lie, they waffle, they fail to do what they promise to do.

  26. dorsetbob 5 Jul 2013, 3:01pm

    marvelous idea ! Let everyone with a deeply held religious belief choose what services they want to withhold from whoever they like. Teachers ,doctors, policemen postmen ,busdrivers ect should all have this right. What utter drivel.

  27. For all his faults, Henry VIII was SO right about breaking with Rome.

    Shirley, you are one hell of a disappointment.

  28. Disappointing but not surprising given that she has always struck me as someone who prefers to just talk the talk.

  29. Baroness Williams the lady who strove on behalf of inequality and discrimination.

    1. GulliverUK 5 Jul 2013, 3:52pm

      Perhaps she’s having an affair with Lord Tebbit !
      She’s certainly beginning to sound just like him.

  30. Colin (London) 5 Jul 2013, 4:06pm

    I have to say i’m gutted she ‘s doing this. A very vibrant woman under the clutches of religion. sad.

  31. I always thought she was a man.

  32. Yes, also marriages between black people may be referred to as black marriages, marriages between white people may be referred to as white marriages, marriages of mixed race couples may be referred to as mixed race marriages.
    Marriages between seniors may be referred to as senile marriages.

    1. Marriages between a white person and a black person may be defined as interracial marriages.

      Someone should send Shirley Williams a pointed white hood and a petrol soaked cross that she can set light to and parade about with.

  33. I’m a Christian who believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, I’m also a law student with an interest in family law.

    Equality is not the same as sameness – this is trivially true. However, the House of Lords are discussing a Bill to create a certain set of legal consequences (succession, taxation benefits, property dissolution, etc.) for parties who choose to enter into them. Insofar as those consequences apply, there is no difference between same-sex couple and opposite sex couples. Therefore, to create separate categories would violate established principles of equal treatment – which experience tells us tend to work quite well, in most cases.

    It is not the business of the law to meddle in the personal morality of individual citizens – in any event, laws which attempt to enforce certain social values are almost always ineffective. Introducing separate categories is not only discriminatory, it is inefficient and defies basic principles of jurisprudence.

    1. I have no interest in or respect for your religion but I appreciate and respect your view that your supernatural beliefs should not affect the laws under which others of different faiths or none have to live. Thank you.

      1. Oh, well of course I don’t think they should affect the way the law applies to others. I didn’t even mean to make that the main point of my comment. I just thought, y’know, full disclosure.

    2. Tim Chapman 5 Jul 2013, 9:00pm

      Good to hear from someone who holds the belief you’ve expressed but acknowledges that his belief should not seek to limit others who lack that belief. But I am interested to know *why* you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. No Christian I’ve asked who shares your belief has ever been able to tell me *why* they believe this. They either say they just believe it, which is the same as “don’t know” or they say “because God says so”, which has no substance, since anyone can invent what God says.

    3. Beelzeebub 5 Jul 2013, 10:37pm

      Then clearly your understanding of biblical bull and the law is at cross purposes.

      Your “Faith” has zero relevance in human law.

      Flowery legal speak, does not absolve you from your , “I’m a Christian who believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. ” tripe.

      I believe Santa will give me nice presents does NOT make it so.

      It is only your social conditioning into your “faith” that has made you say this.

      If you were born in Saudi for example your “faith” would be completely different.

      Why can’t you see such simple logic.

      You would be worshiping a different god.

      You people make me sick. “My god is better than your god.”

      No wonder humanity is always held back.

      Just grow up and get it.

    4. Uh, if you believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman, please do not marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.

  34. Can somone please explain to me what these people are so worried about if gay people are allowed to get married? What is going to change, other than gay people getting married?

    1. Their unbreakable definition of marraige which has remained one-dimensional throughout eternity (lol) will be shattered before their very eyes. Their whole WORLD will be tipped upside down at the realisation that not every body is automatically assumed to be straight and they’re disgusted that we are being accomodated and included by institutions… it goes against *~*~*~family values*~*~*~*~ them acknlowledging our existance, you know. I mean just WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO TELL THE CHILDREN?!>!>>!> How can one explain to one’s child that not everybody is always straight!?!?!? It’s truly an impossible task for any parent or teacher…..

      Or they just use it as an excuse to spread hate ! They don’t care about marraige, they just want to keep us in the closet.

  35. Paul Brownsey 5 Jul 2013, 7:40pm

    She can’t be entirely in thrall to the RC Church because she married her second husband while her divorced ex-husband was still alive…

    1. Tim Chapman 5 Jul 2013, 9:02pm

      it’s called cherry picking and they all do it.

  36. I had a reply from this woman. The way she wrote glad you are happy made me feel really uncomfotable.
    She’s an unpleasant bitter person who’s using religion as an excuse for her personal anguish.
    Be reassured when your dead your just dead

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