Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

John Barrowman received ‘vile’ online abuse over his marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I would love to know why these cretins think they have the right to make judgements on anyone else’s life; why they think we actually CARE what they think; and what makes them think that spouting vile abuse will make us respect them? We do not need to justify our existence… but there are so many others in the world who do. Especially those who represent the church. Many congratulations John! I hope you and your husband are very very happy xx

    1. Ben Foster 26 Jul 2013, 7:37pm

      I was a little surprised they got married in the USA rather than waiting for next year in Britain. Otherwise, I echo the congrats.

      1. Well he’s been working in America, he’s in the new Arrow series and he’s pretty good in it. Well worth a watch.

        1. Although he was originally from Glasgow, his family moved to the US when he was a child. I think his parents and siblings still live there, so he does have ties to the US. That’s possibly why they choose to marry there – or maybe they just didn’t want to wait the extra year to get married in England or Wales, or even longer to get married in Scotland.

          Congratulations to John and Scott!

          1. Ben Foster 27 Jul 2013, 2:17pm

            I know all that. But I thought they WERE going to wait. Congrats are certainly in order.

            The visa issue for Scot is also an important point. Though as John has always said he is British I hope they both intend coming home some time.

            I HAVE seen Arrow btw. Nothing to do with John or anyone else’s acting, but I’m not keen on it. just not my genre.

      2. It’s simple. Scott, before they married, could only stay for short periods of time on a visa and would have to return back to the UK. Now they’re married Scott doesn’t have to apply for visa’s anymore due to John having dual nationality.

    2. Why because eg the catholic church claims to be the one true church.

      If that is so, then we should legalize rape of children by priests .

      these MFs are still living in the dark ages they created when social and economic progress ground to an absoltue halt and horror scenes like the inquisiiton and the mass murder of muslims occured due to the xtian crusades. (no wonder some of them hate us- societies have long memories

  2. Godric Godricson 26 Jul 2013, 6:02pm

    Congrats on the wedding. You make a great looking couple! The foul comments are just that and they take nothing away from the happiness of the event for you and for others.

  3. What does he expect?!

    If Mr. Barrowman stopped making a song and dance about his every life detail then perhaps he would not invite such a barrage of abuse.

    I personally cannot stomach him on my screen but that is because I find him smarmy and scenery-chewing:- nothing to do with the fact he is gay.

    So I can imagine to the knuckle-dragging element of society he must be their worst nightmare, and of course he is going to invite such outbursts.

    Stop overly-courting the publicity, John, and perhaps then you won’t be so horrified by the neanderthal level of abuse you attract your way.

    Simple, really.

    1. You want him to go in the closet? To stop doing his job? He and Scott are great role models for very many young people. Long may they continue.

    2. hang on, isn’t the fight for equality for everyone? Doesn’t he have the right to live as he chooses just like everyone else? The knuckle draggers have no more right to pick on him as any other gay person.

    3. Ben Foster 26 Jul 2013, 7:45pm

      actually, Samuel, if you follow John’s Twitter (which I do – so shoot me!) he mostly talks about ordinary things that occur in anyone’s life, gay or straight. He hates being stuck in traffic on the M25, complains about bad service at restarants, shares pics of the sunset from his back garden. He doesn’t ‘flaunt’ his gayness, just the fact that he’s in love with his husband. Nothing wrong with that.

      One thing worth mentioning, in a tweet a couple of days ago, he mentioned that Scott wasn’t allowed to do a ‘red carpet’ event with him. He seems to be playing down the idea of it being a homophobic matter, but reading between the lines, there are still ways that gay couples can be subtly discriminated against even if they are celebs.

      1. Samuel has a dislike for anyone who has a public profile & uses social media such as Twitter. It comes as no surprise to me that be believes all of us who use Twitter are fair game when it comes to online abuse & vile comments. Samuel has recently taken to stalking my Twitter feed (he is not a member of Twitter) & extracting out of context snippets of information to post here in order to discredit me – is this normal behaviour I have to ask? As a result I have had to change my security settings, twice in 2 weeks! He thinks he has the right to use such tactics, I call it trolling, stalking & harassment bordering on intimidation!

        Pink News readers should take no lectures from Samuel B. as he is also a knuckle-dragger & a neanderthal when it comes to online abuse, he is no better than those who have been vile to John Barrowman.

        What has happened to your personal mantra of freedom of speech, expression & thought Samuel? Oh silly me that only applies to you & no one else!

        1. W6, some of your comments leave a lot to be desired at times. You’re a bit of a pot calling the kettle with Samuel. Perhaps you both need to cool it sometimes.

          1. I agree that we can be as bad as each other, yet Samuel B. has gone out of his way to search for my Twitter feed, lift comments from there & post them here on PN – is this something you would feel comfortable about if he were doing the same to you, bearing in mind that he does not use social media (or at least confesses not to use social media). I have never had a comment on PN moderated & removed because I have defamed an individual, that is the extent of his recent actions – thankfully PN removed the offending comment swiftly.

            He reads my tweets daily which is odd for someone who does not use social media, do you not find this a bit odd & rather intrusive? We both have strong opposing views, but that does not mean he has the right to make me feel uncomfortable about what I post on my Twitter account.

      2. never mind what John has to say, just let the haters loose with half a dozen of his female fans. they defend him like Amazons! It’s almost frightening.

    4. As John said in the article Samuel B F Off :).

    5. If they have the gall to seek out his twitter page and attack him, then he has the right to respond in any way way he chooses. At least he has some dignity. What do the haters have? Nothing, obviously. Or why even bother in the first place?

    6. Samuel, John Barrowman is a song and dance man. Has been all his working life. what else is he expected to do?

    7. Adele Magee 27 Jul 2013, 2:35pm

      isn’t samuel’s response the same as telling a woman in a mini skirt its her fault she was raped, or a gay couple who get beat up they shouldnt have been holding hands in public (i.e. flaunting it) or a telling a black man he shouldn’t have been in the ‘white’ neighbourhood….

      1. You are spot on with your comment Adele – this is exactly the way he thinks!

  4. Sue Whiteley 26 Jul 2013, 7:39pm

    Leave him alone
    He’s got every right to express himself the way he chooses and share his happiness, not affecting you, turn a blind eye
    Those who judge will be judged, doesn’t make you go to heaven any faster no matter what your religion
    He’s not smarmy, he’s genuine and a lovely guy, Jealousy is such a negative trait
    Don’t like it DO ONE!!

  5. Scott Amundsen 26 Jul 2013, 8:24pm

    You guys deserve congratulations and good wishes, not condemnation from self-righteous bigots trying to score brownie points with a God of whom they do not have the least understanding.

    Many years of happiness to both of you!

  6. Craig, Scarborough 26 Jul 2013, 8:30pm

    Wish you lots of happiness and good health john and partner x x

    1. Partner? His names Scott! lol

      1. Craig, Scarborough 27 Jul 2013, 10:20am

        Grow up

    2. partner? Husband! Isn’t that what we’ve all fought for. From now on the gorgeous Scott is husband to the equally gorgeous John and vice vera.

  7. love john, he’s a great actor and congratulations on to him on his marriage. i won’t even comment on the haters and bigots b/c they just want the attention. really they don’t deserve to be part of the future and they won’t be, as long as they keep their attitude. they know this though which is why they are trying so hard to turn society back into the darkness it was.

  8. Katherine Wolfe 26 Jul 2013, 9:53pm

    Oh Captain Jack, you went and got married! I hope you and Scott are very happy together. :-)

  9. Has there been a single instance of an LGBT person sending similar vile bad wishes to a hetero couple who were divorced and re-married or not virgins when they married? Inconceivable.

    The clear message from these hate-tweets is: ignore second-class citizens, gays and lesbians don’t even qualify as humans! I doubt they would soften their views if they did happen to have an LGBT child..hence gay kids physically abused, tossed out of their homes, and living on the streets.

  10. What I always find amusing is that you never hear from these so called Christians unless it’s to spout their hateful poison. They just don’t seem to get that with every one of their venomous judgments, they’re being judged, in return, by a whole new, younger generation, who, in turn, are rejecting them and their religion.

    Their end will come, not with a bang, but with a pitiful whimper.

  11. Nobody should have to suffer abuse on their wedding day, absolutley no body. I think many straight people would see where we were coming from easier if they imagined what it would be like to be the bride or groom and have people telling you you’re a dirty whore or a filthy pervert on what’s supposed to be the happiest day of your life.. do people have no shame, no humanity?

    Love Conquers Hate
    Mr. Pink

  12. Congrats John , ignore the haters who gives a s***

    1. Ben Foster 27 Jul 2013, 2:45pm

      exactly what he has been doing by all accounts. :)

  13. It’s a terrible thing to say, but I hope they were vile enough to be worthy of reporting to the police. But I hope he is big enough to ignore the sentiment and see these fools for what they are.

  14. Chris Bogart 27 Jul 2013, 1:48am

    I would like to wish one of my favorite Dr. Who characters all the best in his marriage. May it be happy and blessed.

    1. Hello fellow DW and Captain Jack fan :)

  15. When it was announced I found various postings about the wedding on online papers, as well as John’s twitter and Facebook page and I kept coming across these foul creatures. On FB I reported many of them as I found them incredibly offensive!

    It seems these people have nothing better to do with their lives!

    And a big hearty congratulations to John and Scott!!

    And for those wondering why they married in the US and not wait until next year. Until they married Scott has always had to return home in between visas. Each one only allowed him to stay a while and he’d have to return home. Now he can stay while John is there working. At the moment John is busy with conventions! Back this Autumn for BBC show!

    1. And that is EXACTLY why equal marriage was needed, so that Scott and others like him are recognised as spouses in whatever country they go to, no quibbles, no questions.

  16. Kay Baumgartner 27 Jul 2013, 3:58am

    John, I’m sending you and Scott all love and congratulations. Hoping it helps to cancel out the vitriol. Have loved your work from day one, and wish you all happiness and success in the future.

  17. This is a prime example of where it really would have been a better idea to give identical marriage rights (OK, some things, based on biology can’t be made the same: adultery, consummation aspects for example) to gay people but call it something else. There’s no need for the vile abuse at all-it is wrong- however, the fact is that marriage is associated with men and women in some people’s minds and they get angry when this view is challenged; and let’s be honest, there cannot be EXACT same treatment based upon biological differences.

    Why does the USA just not bite the bullet and say, ‘Look we know there are differences between hetero and homo-sexual relationships, but there are many similarities and we’re going to give gay couples a legal system as near as dammit to marriage?’

    Who’d argue with that? I wouldn’t.

    If J. B wants to call himself married, then he has the right to do so, but why pretend that homosexual marriage is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage?

    1. bobbleobble 27 Jul 2013, 9:44am

      You are incredibly naive if you think your ‘solution’ would solve anything. These people aren’t attacking John and Scott because they got married, they’re attacking because John and Scott are gay. Marriage rights are just another excuse to go after us. And many of the states that ban same sex marriage also ban civil partnerships too. They don’t like gay people full stop.

      Plus I have a problem with your solution in that it separates me out. The similarities between gay couples far outweigh the differences and so marriage, a robust institution that can cope with pretty much any variation of heterosexual couple, should be open to gay couples too. Why create a new system of formalising relationships when one already exists?

      Nobody said that gay couples and straight couples are exactly the same. But no two straight couples are exactly the same either. We don’t have different marriage types for interracial/infertile/elderly/binational couples we don’t need it for gay couples.

      1. Why do you assume that, bobbleobble? Most people are moderate in views when it comes to homosexuality. Don’t you understand that the vast majority of people are all for a similar system to marriage for gay people? The umbrage/backlash will now come about because the gay marriage lobbyists have taken a word that had distinct meaning and religious connotations and altered it. Quite simply, it’s gone too far and people are fed up with it.

        You ask the average man in the street how he feels about two guys having same legal rights as a straight couple and he’ll probably agree-put it into those terms, and he’ll say fair enough. Ask him if they should get married, and he’ll either not care or shudder.

        But if you want to continue forcing others to accept gay couples as married, do so, but please accept that some find the notion ridiculous. I wouldn’t issue vile abuse or hate, but I’m entitled to my view.

        1. Wooah, you are woefully naive if you think that. I’m not gay and boy do I hear a helluva lot of homophobic comments from people who should know better.

        2. Beelzeebub 27 Jul 2013, 1:09pm

          Who cares if you think the ideas is “ridiculous!”

          All that tells me is that you have a blinkered closed mind and seem to think that “society” is a fixed unchanging entity.

          Well it isn’t. Never has been never will be.

          The fact of the matter is that it is now law.

          So either suck it up or shut up.

          1. So what if it is law? So the word of law is paramount and above criticism, is that what you’re saying? That’s so funny, a gay man citing the law as his guide to right and wrong.

            Let’s look at the list, shall we:

            1, homosexual activity between men, LAW until 1967

            2, Section 28-LAW until 2003.

            I could go on, but, really, for a gay man to be citing the law as his ‘god’ is really ridiculous. And, yes, I think gay marriage is ridiculous.

          2. Ooops! That should be ‘homosexual activity between men NOT law until 1967′ but you guessed that’s what I meant, anyway.

          3. Beelzeebub 27 Jul 2013, 2:21pm

            You failed to notice the “shut up” part of my last sentence.

            What business is it of yours if a gay couple get married?

          4. Why should I shut up because you tell me to?

            You want something (marriage) but that thing has to change in order to accommodate you. It’s horribly pushy and smacks of the playground bully. I want that! But I will have to radically alter it for everybody first. And it’s not as if civil partnerships didn’t give you same legal rights. My guess is that consummation will have to be taken from law just to accommodate ssm.

            I see you’ve not replied to my statement that the law is now suddenly wonderful and is your new god when for years it oppressed gay people.

          5. Tanya Doran 27 Jul 2013, 4:47pm

            Marriage goes back well before Religion. Marriage was a contract plain and simple. It was used to gain more land, gold, status, etc. It is only in recent (a blink of an eye in how long the earth and man walked the earth), that marriage became associated with Religion. There are many out there who marry, that have no religious ceremony at all. By the logic you pose, those who are not married with a religious ceremony are not actually married. Many religious and non-religious marriage ceremonies are made legal every day of the year. I and my husband were married in a civil ceremony by a justice of the peace, yet legally we are considered married. I do not see what the problem is with gay and lesbian becoming married at all. It is just a word, with legal contract binding properties. It is the individuals that add anything beyond that meaning to the word.

    2. Ben Foster 27 Jul 2013, 2:43pm

      “If J. B wants to call himself married, then he has the right to do so,”

      He doesn’t just call himself married, he IS married. Even though the law in the UK isn’t yet up and running, his marriage in the USA is legally binding here in the UK and any other part of the planet. It’s a done deal. No point in you complaining about it now.

  18. GingerlyColors 27 Jul 2013, 12:44pm

    Why can’t these vile internet trolls crawl back under that bridge from where they came from. It is not John Barrowman’s fault that they do not have the same talent or magnificent good looks that he has!
    John Barrowman is a great actor, singer, television presenter and role model for everybody, not just gay people and I have enjoyed seeing him in both Torchwood and Dr. Who. Scott Gill is a very lucky man to have a beautiful man like John in his life and I hope that they enjoy many years together and look forward to seeing them formalise their relationship on this side of the Atlantic as soon as the same-sex marriage laws take effect here.
    Forget weevil hunting in Cardiff, let’s go troll hunting!

  19. ..you know I have really come to believe that anyone who is abusive even ‘violent’ towards homosexuality is literally either extremely stupid or jealous—yes, really and they certainly wouldn’t admit to that, but you know what, you will never get rid of something that’s natural. So it’s about time people–just shut up and excepted?

  20. I personally don’t like JBs style of entertainment (teeth and jazz hands etc) but he and his partner shouldn’t have to put up with this. Hope he reported them.

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