Reader comments · Tory minister jokes that she is married to George Clooney but that he has gay affairs, in Lords debate · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory minister jokes that she is married to George Clooney but that he has gay affairs, in Lords debate

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I had to laugh at this as it is surely one of the funnier moments in the marriage equality debate.

    However, what happens if George Clooney, who was married to Lord Alli has anal intercourse with a woman, or if George Clooney, who was married to Baroness Beeston, had anal intercourse with another woman. Would this be adultery or unreasonable behaviour?

    Surely, the term adultery is rather old fashioned and fast becoming obsolete. After all, who actually uses it? Even in the legal sense it really is out of date as marriage equality gains acceptance in various jursidictions around the world.

    Perhaps the term adultery should be replaced by that of infidelity,which in essence is a much broader concept, and would be applicable regardless of gender or sexual act.

    As one who doesn’t wish to marry but supports marriage equality, should I now be preparing to support divorce equality?

    1. I agree.

      However, as far as I am concerned adultery takes place whenever one of a married couple has a sexual relationship with someone outside that marriage. To me, that should be irrespective of sexuality.

      Your suggestion of using the term infidelity would work for sure.

    2. Adultery only happens when a penis penetrates a vagina to a sufficient depth to satisfy the judge.

      If you are a straight man you can have oral or anal intercourse as much as you like, with men or women, and cannot be divorced for adultery.

      1. I’m sorry, but the UK seems to have the stupidest definition of “adultery” I’ve ever heard.

        Adultery is when one member of a married couple performs a sexual act with another person who is NOT their spouse. This should be regardless of the exact nature of that sexual act. Who cares what the exact nature of that act was? They went and got their rocks off with someone else. THAT is adultery. Period. There shouldn’t even be any discussion around the topic.

        The UK legal definition of adultery is so heterocentric and so 18th century it’s laughable.

        1. Isn’t it just! But they risk a bigger outcry from the opponents of the bill if they even remotely make it sound like they’re getting rid of the adultery part in its current form. It’s not worth looking at it in relation to same sex marriage, but yeah – I agree – they need to sort it out!

        2. That is the point that I was also trying to make Mikey.

      2. Is that why Bill Clinton said “I did not have sex with that woman”?

      3. A man who can penetrate a vagina and still satisfy a judge (who is I suspect not even in the same room) must surely be the envy of all his buddies. ;-)

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Jul 2013, 12:17pm

      I think we can safely say that anal intercourse or even fellatio would fall under unreasonable behaviour for either gender since adultery implies vaginal penetration and has a more biblical connotation.

      Just as marriage will now be expanded and not ‘re-defined’ as the opposition are apt to say by including gay couples, so too should adultery which really should encompass all forms of sexual acts in my humble opinion. The god botherers of course wouldn’t agree because of its biblical reference reserved only for hetero men and women and of course is the seventh commandment…’thou shalt not commit adultery with thy neighbour’s wife’.

    4. The idea of using infidelity is a sound compromise. But if straight spouses were able to divorce their gay partners using adultery, the noble lady might find that the statistics for adultery are increased.
      My ex wife actually found it funny that I couldn’t divorce her for adultery because she was in a relationship with her girlfriend. I did not. I felt that my marriage was being regarded as a civil partnership, ironically something that as a straight man I can’t legally have.
      I wanted to divorce using adultery because to me, that was what it was. It was an appropriate way to end my marriage. It would have bought justification and healing to me. The fact that I couldn’t just added insult to injury.
      Regrettably, my experience is that some gay men use the ‘its not adultery’ as an excuse to justify to themselves, and to their straight wives, as ‘its not cheating’.
      The use of adultery as a term is important to straight spouses who are catholic too.

  2. The PN story is a very warped report of what was actually said, all for the sake of a dubious headline, where Tina Stowell was using an humourous illustration to show that adultery and unreasonable behaviour applied equally to same- and opposite-sex marriages.

    A good day af the Lords with the anti brigade roundly beaten again again and again. And they’re finally getting the message.

  3. Colin (London) 9 Jul 2013, 7:31am

    I loved this and to see the expressions on faces and the twinkle in eyes was wonderful.

    After such a long day it was lovely to hear that humour was used for a rather dry subject.

    Keep going Lords and please do your duty for us. Please stay away from religion and think EQUALITY.

  4. I propose Baroness Beeston of Stowell is nominated for a Stonewall heroine award – she has been a terrific force for good during these debates, a firm hand on the tiller (George Clooney’s if she had the opportunity!) and above all, great common sense and humour. Best of all she has shown up the bigots in the chamber and elsewhere for the humourless, vinegar-faced old miseries that they surely are.

    1. Hear hear, everything I read about this great lady makes me smile. She is a beacon for gay rights! I can’t think of a better lady to help steer the equal marriage bill through the Lords, she has done it splendidly.

  5. Funny and imaginative. Laughter is good.

  6. Baroness Stowell of Beeston. Not Beeston of Stowell. Sheesh.

  7. A shame, Thomas, that she has fought so hard for the Government approach to inequality and injustice when it comes to the skimmed-milk marriages we are offered when it comes to pension rights.

    1. Colin (London) 9 Jul 2013, 10:05am

      It’s pick your fights believe it or not. If we wait until it’s perfect we will never get it.

      We can take pension issue to the courts.

      Their is a strategy behind a lot of this.

  8. Lovely in a sad way. Fantasy worlds are one thing e can all enjoy but the reality could be worse. Good on her for the fun

  9. It was funny, and it highlighted the stupidity of the anti arguements. Even though she’s a Tory peer, the girl done good! ;-)

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.