Reader comments · Baroness Knight: Registrars opposed to equal marriage are like pacifists during the First World War · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Baroness Knight: Registrars opposed to equal marriage are like pacifists during the First World War

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. There is a huge difference here.

    Conscientious objectors were not paid for by the state to carry out duties, registrars are.

    They should not be permitted to opt in/out of any part of their role responsibilites.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 9 Jul 2013, 8:39pm

      As a matter of interest and something I never realised until recently, to be accepted as having a conscientious objection you had to show it was based on your religion. A non-believer with a rational objection to war would be forced to fight or shot. Only religious people could have a conscience, it seems.

      1. GulliverUK 9 Jul 2013, 11:21pm

        I didn’t know that either. It’s absurd. I guess I’d be shot then.

    2. What about a pacifist who joins the armed forces? Refuses to learn to fire a weapon or participate in any activities that involve violence? Would this daft old bat defend their right to continue being employed in a role they are clearly unfit to perform?

  2. By her own argument, registrars who object to performing same sex marriages should “do another job”.

    1. By her argument, they should be shot too? I didn’t realise she was such a radical.

      Of course if she were in the first world war she would not have supported conscientious objectors either. She would have been in the front line insisting they be punished. Of course we don’t think pacifists should be shot now as we have moved on.

      So I suppose Dame Knight in 100 years may be saying great things about equal marriage activists. If only she could catch up.

  3. 1 she’d have had them shot too. 2 – I was unaware registrars were conscripted.

  4. bobbleobble 9 Jul 2013, 4:16pm

    The analogy falls down in so many ways it would actually take me all day to pick it apart and I just haven’t got the time.

    But no, refusing to register a marriage between a gay couple is not analogous to conscientiously objecting to fighting in a war. That’s all there is to say on the matter really. Stupid argument from a stupid woman.

  5. No, they are not. They are more analogous to KKK members using the same non-universal interpretation of dogmatic nonsense to deny goods and services to anyone who isn’t white. And it is NOT allowed in civilised society.

  6. It is disappointing (to say the least) that a woman of her age, who possibly even encountered conscientious objectors in her time, degrades the memory of their concerns by such a fatuous analogy.

  7. GulliverUK 9 Jul 2013, 4:38pm

    Nobody’s interested in what this old bigot thinks, and no they’re not like pacifists, they’re like religious bigots — and society is sick to the back teeth of them, most Christians are in favor of FULL equal rights and upset by the behavior of this rabidly dogmatic intolerant hateful few. What these people do to the Christian faith is to destroy it far quicker than an atheist with a breakdown of all the failures, faults, and egregious rhetoric from the Bible.

    I suppose slave owners were like pacifists and surrogates too, having to accept that most people came to believe slavery was wrong, ….. contradicting the “good” book. Contradicting the “good” book was grounds to be burned alive in the hay-day of Christianity.

  8. And its because of people like her in the house of lords spouting ridiculous ideas like this that the unelected house should be abolished.

  9. Beelzeebub 9 Jul 2013, 4:55pm

    I really do wish someone would put this painted old bag of rags with a wig on it, out of our misery.

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Jul 2013, 4:55pm

    This loon doesn’t realise that allowing special privileges for registrars to not comply with the Equalities Act opens up a can of worms for employers and employees in both public and private sectors. What if such a law were adopted? Wouldn’t that open the door for everyone looking for a job making the same demands to be exempt from any part of their job they were unprepared to fulfill, religious beliefs notwithstanding? Sheer lunacy.

    1. St Sebastian 10 Jul 2013, 7:28am

      Sheer lunacy.

      Agreed, but surprised.

  11. Are not registrars required to officiate at the marriages of people who in some cases were previously divorced? And at the marriages of people who may previously have been involved in adulterous relationships? There doesn’t seem to been any clamour on the behalf of registrars to be able to opt out of officiating at these marriages on religious grounds?

    1. bobbleobble 9 Jul 2013, 5:08pm

      There isn’t a clamour for an opt out for gay marriages either. People like Knight and Williams have created this ‘problem’ to cause controversy over the bill, not because there is actually a situation that needs fixing.

      As the head of the registrars representative group said, they have never asked for a conscientious opt out before and they don’t need one now. It’s the same with the teachers, I haven’t heard a peep from the unions or indeed any actual teachers who want to be excused from teaching about same sex marriage. The problem doesn’t exist except in the tiny minds of some of the Lords.

  12. How interesting that a STRAIGHT WOMAN knows so much about what it felt like to be a conscientious objector to a military draft or what it feels like to be a gay person denied marriage rights even though she has never personally experienced EITHER.

  13. Dame Jill Knight, a woman totally incapable of rational thought and befuddled by her interpretation of religion. Inverterate odious bigot does not even come close to her treatment of same-sex relationships and yet she has the affront to say – “I agree completely with what was said in the earlier debate about the monstrous way that we in this country and, I am afraid, other countries have treated homosexuals in the past.”
    “But it’s only wrong up to a point. We can demand that other rules are made that aren’t fair. More and more I come to the conclusion is that one person’s human rights are the denial of another person’s human rights.”
    Is this stupid woman not aware that many religious precepts, doctrines and beliefs are fundamentally at 180 degree variance with human rights, given her previous pronouncements and actions I can only come to the conclusion that she has no concept of what human rights and fundamental freedoms are.

    1. Beelzeebub 10 Jul 2013, 2:49am

      This bitch was the arbiter of “monstrous ways that gays were treated”.

      She actively called for the legal outing and public registration of anyone with HIV in 1986.

      She is the creator of section 28, whereby everyone pretended that gays do not exist under threat of law.

      Nip of to Hansard and read this bitches comments.

  14. I can’t wait till she gets to the part of the Bible that says women should shut up and be taught by their husbands (owners) at home! Let’s see what she does with that!

  15. Sean Johansen 9 Jul 2013, 8:09pm

    So this old bat is comparing people who opposed the Imperialist First World War, who went to jail for their beliefs to bigots who refuse to do their job.
    Honestly the intellect of he Lords speakers in this debate is lacking.

  16. Mumbo Jumbo 9 Jul 2013, 8:31pm

    Two men get married. Who dies?

    Conscientious objectors my sweet hairy arse.

  17. If only this old gasbag would deflate !!

  18. Does that mean that these refusing registrars should be shot for desertion and dereliction of duty?

    1. Or interned on the Isle of Man.

      1. GulliverUK 9 Jul 2013, 11:32pm

        Ah, going for the cruel and unusual punishment option eh!


        joking ofcourse, I’m sure the people on the IoM are lovely :)

      2. Good idea.

  19. “Baroness Knight: Registrars opposed to equal marriage are like pacifists during the First World War”

    No Baroness Knight, they’re more like Oswald Moseley’s Blackshirts during the Second World War.

  20. How anyone can compare WWI (forced) conscription into the armed services with marrying a loving same-sex couple is beyond most peoples comprehension.

    Someone who has deep religious proscriptive beliefs about others peoples behaviour and relationships does not get a job as a secular registrar (and then claim they cannot do their job, unless they are taking the P^$$ ).
    There is no comparison between being conscripted to shoot people and carrying out the job of registering and solomonising loving relationships or registering births and deaths on behalf of the state.

  21. A registrar who refuses to perform a same sex marriage because he or she has a religious objection makes as much sense as someone employed in a off licence but won’t sell alcohol because they are strict Methodist. It’s a nonsense argument.

  22. Craig Jewitt 10 Jul 2013, 2:09am

    What a patronising woman…’Homosexuals are good at artistic things’…Actually gay men and women can aspire to be anything they want to be these days, lawyer, doctor, physician maybe even Prime Minister.
    Cannot believe the vitriolic that this woman is spouting, some of which during her own time am sure would have put her firmly back behind a kitchen sink.

  23. Sacre bleu 10 Jul 2013, 5:55am

    I wish I believed in re-incarnation and the sky-fairy. Then in a couple of decades we could ask Baroness Knight what hell was like.

  24. Charge her with theft, oxygen theft.

  25. Someone please section her… She’s going the way Maggie did

  26. Jock S. Trap 10 Jul 2013, 10:54am

    At her age you’d think she’d know better than change history to suit an argument in the 21st Century.

    Most conscientious objectors were actually shot as deserters so to use that argument is seriously flawed. It’s cruel and it attacks the innocent and appalling way people were treated 100 years ago.

    Perhaps it is age that is clouding the judgement of Baroness Knight and a reason why she shouldn’t be part of this debate.

    1. Jock S. Trap 10 Jul 2013, 10:55am

      Sorry meant conscientious objectors in the first world war.

  27. you just couldnt make it up!! …..the utter hypocracy comming outta this old bat’s mouth.
    I think what we see in the Lords is just how desperate these loony toons are to clutch at straws to find ANYTHING to justify their position

  28. This evil old trout makes me so angry. My family was devastated by World War I. My grandfather never recovered from seeing all his friends die and my great uncle spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair after a gas attack. Thousands fed into the mincing machine of the Western Front and many who objected to this collective insanity suffered appallingly. How dare she draw a moral equivalence between all this and bigots working in public service paid by the tax payer who want to cherry pick whom they will serve? She is disgusting.

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.