Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay Essex dads to sue church over gay wedding ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I don’t understand why gay people who are in churches which hate them, simply don’t change church to a more accepting church.

    I feel sympathy for anyone who believes in ‘god’, but surely if these religious people believe in 1 almighty powerful ‘god’ then it does not matter whether you are a member of the catholic church, C of E, Lutheran or Quaker.

    Or is there a panel of ‘gods’ in ‘heaven’ (like the judges on the X-Factor) who have their own specific teams?

    1. Except there are plenty in the CofE who have said that they are in favour of same sex marriage and have said they would perform them if they were allowed to.

      Surely, if the CofE is the established church and is so proud of providing wedding sevices to anyone in their parish then they should at least give religious freedom to those vicars within their org to do them. At the moment the religious freedom is at a high level, the synod says no , so everyone else in the CofE has to conform. That’s not religious freedom., that’s bullying and selfish.

      I think if a vicar within the CofE took the CofE to court then he/she would have a better chance, especially in Europe , of winning. The CofE is different to the other churches, it’s there for everyone, if it isn’t ,then get it disestablished and remove its bishops from the HoLs and let it become a private club like the Sikhs and Catholics.

      1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 7:19pm

        The CofE is run from the top down and what the General Synod says is the law of the Church. These dissenting vicars know this and they are not going to be given permission to perform gay marriages even if these clowns are able to overturn the quadruple lock.

        Nobody in this country is forced to be a member of any church and if you don’t like the teachings of a particular body you are free to move. That ultimately is religious freedom. Each church however is afforded the right to set its own rules including the CofE.

        I agree the CofE should be disestablished but the chances of that happening are pretty much negligible.

        1. Adam Stewart 1 Aug 2013, 8:09pm

          I agree.

        2. The bill has only passed for a week, the General Synod hasn’t had a chance to decide anything!!!!. They CofE have put off any discussion on the issue indefinitely.

          1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 8:32pm

            The General Synod’s position is quite clear on the issue.The CofE made it quite clear in its submission to the consultation that they had no intention of allowing same sex couples the right to marry in CofE ceremonies. The passage of the bill has no bearing on that.

    2. is not like saying Blacks not welcome here so they go to another place – its wrong why should any person have to move or go elsewhere because a few people dislike their sexuality, colour or because their disabled

      1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 10:07pm

        This is different. Whether we like it or not churches have specific rules in relation to sexuality and gender which are based in their theological interpretations of their holy texts. Also whether we like it or not human rights legislation allow religions the freedom to make decisions in these areas. We have now the right to marry in civil weddings or in religions that are welcoming and that is the best we can do for now.

        Religions may eventually catch up but we can’t force them without becoming exactly what he Churches said we would be, vindictive and aggressive gays.

        1. There have been many, many examples of religions with strange religious beliefs about race (it isn’t that long ago since the days when the Mormons banned black people from becoming priests based on their interpretation of the bible), but religious groups are now banned from discriminating against people of a particular race in exactly the same way as other private organisations are. If “religious freedom” means churches should be exempt from the laws on discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, why shouldn’t they also be exempt from the laws on discrimination based on race and disabilities?

          1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 10:32pm

            Religions in this country do not have any any articles of faith which require them to act a particular way towards people of different races. If they did then I have no idea whether they would be granted exemptions. However, they do have tenets in relation to gay people and women and we cannot in good conscience force them to go against those tenets without becoming exactly what Gerald Howarth and others accused us of being.

            We have no right to force religions to go against their beliefs no matter how abhorrent we might find them.

    3. I may be mistaken (someone correct me if wrong). But I thought these two were catholics when last on TV. If they were, did they move to CofE because the catholics were a lost cause? If they did change to CofE it would be strange to now sue them.

    4. Not all churches hate gay people, and no one needs your sympathy you arrogant prat.

    5. Because as a Catholic I believe in the Catholic faith and that the Catholic Church is the true Church. I cannot just “switch” to another church with different beliefs and which does not possess the plenitude of the faith, whether I am gay or not.

      1. So you’re celibate then in accordance with the conditions under which ‘holy mother church’ will countenance your existence?

        Or do you just ignore the bits about your “faith” which seek to deny you your basic human rights. Just like you seem to have ignored several other parts of both the new and Old Testament. Tell me have you read the bible?

        1. Isn’t the point of Martins post that he believes in Catholicism and therefore can’t just switch to a different type of Christianity? He’s not saying he approves of their teachings or even that he lives by them.

          I personally believe that faith a personal relationship with God and if you need a religious setting to carry out your worship you pick the one that best fits what you believe. Might not be a perfect fit, but if the only rule Martin ever breaks is the rule on gay sex then to be honest he’s going to be a kinder man than most of us.

      2. err sorry but actually your religion is christian, and it’s a jewish tradition at that. you probably could ‘switch’ between brands because, by and large, they are interchangeable (given that they are man-made fabrications). the word catholic was selected to mean ‘all encompassing’ but, as we all know, that’s a bit of a bad joke.

    6. Because there are gay religious people and pro-gay religious people.

  2. Godric Godricson 1 Aug 2013, 5:57pm

    I suspect this will a stick to beat LGBTI people with if it goes to Court

    1. This is exactly what the antis have been predicting. If I was Jewish I wouldn’t want to join a neo nazi party let alone take the matter to court.

  3. This will only add fuel the anti brigades stance. They will say ‘See we told you that will happen’.

    I hope these guys have very deep pockets because the only winners in this will be the lawyers.

    Also because of the governments quadruple lock I can not see that they will achieve anything.

    As someone else has said, why don’t they simply choose a denomination that is willing to carry out a marriage for them. I can not see what they hope to gain. Marriage in a church that does not want you?

    1. They got money to burn! It will bring them publicity-perhaps thats what they want?

      1. Ian Bamling 1 Aug 2013, 8:02pm

        I agree with you totally.

      2. That is all they have ever wanted. They are publicity junkies.

    2. Quakers only perform wedding for Quakers and I assume the Liberal Jews only perform wedding for Jewish people. You’d have to first convert to these religions. Many people won’t want to this. I can’t really see why ,as in the Denmark, vicars aren’tt allowed to make their own minds up wether they are willing to do a same sex marriage. Why does it have to be the heads of he churches that forces their opinions on the rest of the clergy.

      I’m not saying it’s likely to change, but it’s unfair. It’s like the rule around religious CPs. Most of the CofE have said they are in favour of CPs but the Synod says no, so no-one can do relgiious CPs in Anglican churches, even though most of the clergy want to do them.

      1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 7:31pm

        The Danish church has a different relationship with its government than the CofE has with ours but individual priests are entitled to refuse to perform marriages between same sex couples.

        It has to be the heads of churches who decide because that’s the nature of the way churches are organised. If the Synod says no then that is the law of the church and these two will be well aware of that. If they want to remain members of the CofE then unfortunately they will have to accept that the CofE currently does not allow same sex marriages and should work to change that from within. Forcing the CofE to change through the courts is only likely to p*ss everyone off.

        1. The bill has only passed for a week, the General Synod hasn’t had a chance to decide anything!!!!. They CofE have put off any discussion on the issue indefinitely. If they want to decide this issue then put it to the Synod and get it discussed, otherwise, which “heads of churches” are you referring to, the General Synod I thought was the head.

          1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 8:34pm

            All throughout the process the CofE has made it clear that they have no intention of extending marriage rights to gay couples. The passage of the bill doesn’t change that. The CofE doesn’t need to debate it now the bill has passed because they made the decision in principle before the bill had even begun its passage through Parliament.

      2. Not true on Quakers at least not in all Quaker socities/meeting houses

    3. Ben Foster 1 Aug 2013, 8:27pm

      I am very much afraid you are right, especially about the ‘told you so’ and the cost to these two men.

    4. Dan Filson 2 Aug 2013, 9:26am

      Why don’t they simplfy choose …. because they are CofE, this is their church (both the denomination and the building) and presumably they reckon that the vicar and congregation would wlecome them getting married but are prevented by law from so doing. Not all CofE folk are bigots.

      1. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 11:07am

        If they are CofE then they are well aware of the Church’s stance on marrying same sex couples and yet they wish to force the Church to go against its teachings on this issue through the courts. In my eyes that makes them as bad as the CofE who wanted to stop us getting married in secular settings.

        The CofE is run by the synod and even if the quadruple lock didn’t exist, local vicars simply don’t have the autonomy to marry a gay couple against the wishes of the synod. They’re prevented from marrying gay couples by canon law as well as secular law. And I’m sure their local vicar and congregation won’t take kindly to finding their church in court.

  4. Good luck. I hope they are successful.

    1. Why is Doug’s comment hidden? It is not in the slightest bit offensive to anyone. What’s going on PinkNews?

      He has only indicated that he agrees with the couple in the article who want to get married in their church, but are banned from doing so because they are gay. WHAT IS OFFENSIVE ABOUT THAT OPINION??????

      1. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain why Doug’s post is ‘hidden’/offensive. Thanks.

        1. It has more than 10 negative “votes” so it is hidden automatically, it’s not a great conspiracy. At least 14 people don’t agree with his sentiments, obviously they wish the opposite.

          1. Thanks for clarifying that Joss. I realise now that unpopular opinions, even if inoffensive, are treated as if they are offensive and therefore hidden in the same way. It isn’t a great system. Only offensive comments should be hidden, or better still, removed altogether. Hiding unpopular opinion is only saying “you may well be gay too, but we don’t like what you’ve said so we’re going to treat you like a bigot and brush your comment under the carpet, so go away and don’t bother us again”!! That’s the impression it gives. We all must have to agree!

          2. It basically saves pink news from having to moderate the comments, because if you’ve noticed they rarely delete the troll comments, they’re just auto hidden. Before this system there was just reams and reams of troll comments and replies on display that clogged up the page, which was much more tiresome.

            I don’t take these green or red thumbs personally, some of the most offensive comments I’ve ever seen have positive votes.

  5. This is tedious, I don’t see why they need to make an issue of it. They can have as large a ceremony as they want, Essex-style as they want, with all their money.
    So why insist on trying to enforce that on a church which doesn’t respect them?
    I can only think it’s playtime to seek attention.

  6. “I am still not getting what I want.” Says it all really. I was taught at a very early age that “I want” does not get.

    The Church (whatever your personal opinion) has a religious doctrine that it has followed for centuries. It has a right to a point of view, as do we as the LGBT community. They are having enough issues changing Canon Law to allow female Bishops. In time, they will I suspect, look at same -sex marriages, but it will take time and they need to come to this on their own, in their own time, if a church wedding is going to have true meaning.

    There are other denominations that say they will conduct same-sex marriages, if it is so important to get married in a church have one of them do it.

    I sometimes think as a community we are our own worst enemy. We have achieved a remarkable victory. Why can we not savoiur that, celebrate that and be happy that our Marriages will be recognised in law.

    1. Just because this vulgar and self-obsessed couple is gay it doesn’t mean those individuals represent “the gay community”, whatever that is. They’re certainly no part of any community of mine.

      1. Dan Filson 2 Aug 2013, 9:44am

        Vulgar and self-obsessed – my, how judgmental! Vulgar – because they lead a lifestyle that is different to yours? In the last 14 years how often have they sought publicity? Most times it’s been a question of getting on with the business of raising their children and making their livings. .The original publicity was about their surrogate parenting; inevitable in circumstances – they preemptively got their story across rather than just be subject to media snide attacks. Of course they don’t represent the gay community any more than you or I do. They don’t claim to do so. All they seek is to get married in their church by their vicar in front of their congregation and their guests. I don’t think they will succeed as courts in the UK are unlikely to overthrow Parliament’s expressed will as enshrined in an Act of Parliament. It may be informative to see how European Courts judge the issue. My guess is the ECHR will judge the UK Parliament balanced the issues correctly but I might be wrong

        1. I have seen them on TV more than once – there was a toe-curling programme on them some years ago – and they seem to pop up quite a bit in papers and on PN: I’m clearly not the only person who thinks so on this thread.

          And yes, their boasts about their money, their conspicuous greed (“I want”) and their equally conspicuous lack of style renders them vulgar in my eyes.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Aug 2013, 12:44pm

        Exactly Rehan and what is more damaging is that the majority of religious nutters will construe that they represent the opinion of all of us. That to me smacks of selfishness. Wreckless behavior in my view. There will be many in the hierarchy who will now become hardened to any semblance of relaxing the rules in the future if they persist with this selfish act.

        1. Homophone alert :-) – I think you mean ‘reckless’ (or perhaps ‘wrecking’).

    2. MerlynHerne 1 Aug 2013, 11:01pm

      Quite right. I also was taught that, as the old Rolling Stones song says, “You don’t always get what you want”. We couldn’t afford the wedding of our dreams in Canada, so we engaged a very nice Humanist minister and had a lovely wedding in the local park. These gentlemen need to quit whining that they aren’t getting exactly what they want and go to another church. As much as I loathe the hater church’s attitude towards equal marriage, I believe they have a right to it. I will go so far as to say I will defend to the death the right of churches to marry or not marry same sex couples as they see fit.

      These men need to go find another church in which to marry, or, failing that, go to city hall and have a civil ceremony. Grow up, gents!

    3. This is what I wanted to say myself, but you put it more eloquently than I ever could.

    4. “I want does not get” isn’t a truth about reality. I wanted a bottle of beer yesterday, so I got one. Why live by empty cultural statements?

      1. I think you’ve missed the whole point of the statement. As have some other people probably because of a lack of quotation marks.

        ‘”I want” does not get.’

        It means just saying you want something does not mean you are entitled to it or will get it. It may not apply to this case unless their entire legal argument is foolishly based on this premise. However, my gut feeling is that it does.

        I doubt yesterday you stood in the street telling people you wanted beer and expected them to give one to you, you probably went and bought one or got one from the fridge. If you asked someone else you presumably knew them and will one day return the favour. In any case your beer is pretty much a straw man.

  7. All the couple has to do is prove who is better at knowing the mind of god on this matter. Our legal system requires earthly evidence – if none can be provided then the case should be dismissed.

  8. I honestly think these guys are secret agents for fundamentalist homophobic groups.

    1. I honestly don’t think so!

    2. Dan Filson 2 Aug 2013, 9:48am

      Honestly? Do you really? Or are you just being judgmental about someone else’s attempt – however misguided – to assert their equality rights?

      1. It is not a right to be married in a church, mosque, temple or synagogue, any more than it is a right for a woman to preside at any ceremony in one. If you don’t like the rules of a club, don’t join it.

        1. So women with whatever faith but who want to be treated equal (I’d say that would be very many religious women) shouldn’t attend their places of worship, or – if we go down that road – just ‘drop’ their faith altogether? Just because the leaders of their religion have out-dated misogynist rules? Surely they have a right to seek change in those rules. Religious men have changed rules in their religions for centuries because the rules at those particular times were inconvenient for them. Why can we now not have religious women or LGBTs change the rules governing their churches, just as heterosexual men have been dropping/amending/adding ‘rules’ to religions for centuries in order to continue their dominance?

          1. Absolutely they can, but it is not a human right. It can be achieved by encouraging change by consent from within, as US episcopalians have done: as far as I know, women bishops there and in NZ didn’t come about because of legal challenges based on equality legislation..

            Do you have any reason to believe the Drewitt-Barlows are particularly religious? They only talk about the lavish ceremony they want.

  9. As a gay Christian my partner and I are getting married in Spain in October where we live and in the local town hall which is what most couples, same sex or hetro, do here—- We have exactly the same rights as any other married couple in Spain and our Vicar is blessing the union there and he has no problem with it….so apart from all the bling do these guys have any other reason to marry in a church? Do they attend regularly and do they believe in God or is it merely for show…if it is and I was the vicar I would not marry them there for the wrong reasons!!!! Why use church for something when you do not believe?

    1. The vicar in this case couldn’t marry them if he wanted to regardless of whether they are regular church goers so there is a distinction.

      I think their main motive is:
      “I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works… I am still not getting what I want.”

      So no, I doubt they are regular church goers…

      1. Wanting a big lavish ceremony, “the whole works”, is the desire of very many couples, Christian or not, who get married in church. Should churches only marry those couples who are regular churches goers and have very modest wedding ceremonies? There is nothing wrong in this couple wanting to go all-out for their wedding, just as most other couples do. It doesn’t make them deserving of the pariah status they’ve been given on here.

        1. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 11:10am

          No, what makes them deserving of pariah status is trying to force their will onto an unwilling church. It makes them just as bad as that Church was in trying to force their teachings onto the whole of society.

  10. I was really hoping that this would not happen. There are churches – lovely ones – where gay people will be welcome to hold their services. Of course it is still discrimination for the Church to choose not to marry gay couples – but the way to change that is by persuasion, not using the courts. There is already a lot of support in the various Anglican churches in the UK and this is where the work needs to be done. I hope I am not being too unkind, but this seems very attention seeking as they seem to care more about having a ‘big do’ than anything else.

  11. I wonder how many times they and their family actually attend services at their local church and why the need to marry in a church which is not accepting of their lifestyle. Surely this is not about religion or Christianity but someone saying who one can love or marry. Churches marry divorced couples as it had to change its view it was not by divorced couple suing the church.
    I love my partner and we are committed to each other having signed the partnership register and having a civil partnership ceremony when the law changed. Yes we would like to be married in a church but the government got this wrong as it should be decision of the individual clergy / church to agree not a blanket opt out. Continue to campaign, but to sue a church will only cause further animosity and hatred by all who worship under the guise of Christianity. Unless this couple are just seeking further publicity for themselves again in doing so.

    Dan

    1. Dan…total agree…James

  12. Lettice P 1 Aug 2013, 6:23pm

    Pair of publicity hungry bores!

    1. Amen (so to speak) to that.

  13. If there ever was a time for such a complaint, now is certainly not that time.

  14. Patrick Mc Crossan 1 Aug 2013, 6:37pm

    No country can enforce any church to change their beliefs to allow them to get married. I would love to see Stonewall or any other group or person campaigning for muslims to allow gay marriage in their mosques.

    Equality does not mean you can force any religious group to change their beliefs.

    You may not agree with these beliefs but you can not and should not be able to force a church to marry you.

    I knew this issue would raise its ugly head and it will do more harm to how people regard us as the gay community, than it will mend relationships.

    I as a gay man feel ashamed that these two men are going to cause so much damage to our community by their very selfish attitudes.

    I hope they fail, and its ecpected they will in anycase so they know in advance they are just causing harm, for selfish reasons.

    Fame hungry I suspect, but the end result will be a loss for their individual case, and untold damage to the gay community.

    1. I agree completely.

    2. Not quite true. When Canada introduced SSM the state Church (The Church of Canada) had to agree to marry gay people.

      1. Bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 9:40pm

        Canada doesn’t have a state church. The Anglican Church of Canada does have blessings for married gay couples insome dioceses but they don’t perform marriages. The United Church of Canada do offer same sex marriages but they do so willingly and not because they were required to do so.

    3. ..but aren’t your churches funded by the tax payer? I understand that view here in the US but I don’t think churches should be able to discriminate in the UK.

      1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 11:12pm

        The CofE does not get direct funding from the government. It does get tax relief but then I believe religions get tax relief in the US too don’t they?

  15. Been out of the headlines for more than 5 minutes have we? Grow up you pair of prats, you will lose this case and all it will do is alienate people. If you really want to get married in Church, find one that has opted in and get it done there, it’s the same ‘God’ after all.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Aug 2013, 7:05pm

      Exactly, they’re going to lose as well as a large sum of money. The lawyer will run off laughing to the bank but anyone with integrity wouldn’t take their case.

      1. Samuel B. 1 Aug 2013, 8:06pm

        Yes, but has time has proven, these two numbskulls have far more money than sense!

    2. Totally agree!

  16. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Aug 2013, 6:52pm

    After all we had to go through to get this bill passed, these two selfish loons come along not realising they’re playing into the hands of the right wing religious nutters. These two publicity seeking morons should go marry in a welcoming church instead if they must. I despise them. You can bet the Mail and Telegraph as well as the BBC will make hay out of this one.

    1. Totally agree. The Christians and UKIP are already roaring their “told you so”‘s. *sigh*

      1. They may well be publicity whores but whatever their motives, I think they are right. The fact they are religious is their misfortune but I agree with them that they should not be denied ANYTHING that straight people get.

        1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 9:26pm

          In the abstract I agree but in practice if we force churches to go against their beliefs then we become the aggressive gays that Howarth was talking about. We live up to the stereotypes of the nasty vindictive people that we have been painted by the right. And we become authoritarian, ceding the moral high ground that we fought hard to achieve. There is more at stake than just whether or not the Barlow-Drewitt’s get a big fat gay wedding.

        2. Sorry, you are wrong, I’m amazed to find myself in agreement with the majority here. Same sex marriage is about gaining LEGAL rights not religious rights. Religions should not be forced to marry anybody they don’t want to marry. Imagine standing there with a sour-faced vicar who doesn’t want to do it. Terrible. It would be a ridiculous embarrassment for the gay couple AND the church. Really bad taste.
          As for your ‘ANYTHING’ statement that is just plain silly: consummation cannot reasonably be applied to gay couples as it is straights, that would be ridiculous. You also cannot apply the presumption of paternity to a gay woman’s wife; I must admit that I once thought that gay married couples wanted EXACT same treatment in every area of marriage law and I found that ridiculous and railed against the stupidity of it. Now it turns out that they realise that it can’t be exactly the same with same sex marriage and I respect that.

  17. David Waite 1 Aug 2013, 6:52pm

    Just a note to those commenters who are speculating about whether this couple wants a CoE wedding for the ‘right’ reasons: They had their children baptised in their parish church, they are regular attendees.

    Does that satisfy people who cite equality in Spain and then suggest that this couple should just change faiths? Probably not. But for others here, who have questioned this couple’s motives: Do your homework on a couple who have been at the pioneering front of the fight for marriage equality before you trash them out of hand.

    To those who express fears about what this suit can do to an already-legislated same sex marriage act, you sound very hetero. Right wing hetero. Sounds like you’re unwilling to fight for the rights of religious gay and lesbian couples, now that you’ve got yours.

    To those who question the timing, this suit began last year. Do you honestly think this couple should concern themselves with your ‘image’ anxiety when they have been on this path since 1999?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Aug 2013, 7:04pm

      Peter Tatchell was the first equal marriage pioneer as far back as 1992, so they’re hardly the pioneers. The only way the quadruple lock is going to be abolished is by a majority support of the hierarchy to then petition Parliament. It is up to the individual clergy under them to petition for the change, not these two. No court in the land is going to reverse the law nor is the ECHR. All this will do will stir up anti-gay sentiment among moderate Christians and further embolden the right wing element at C4M, Christian Concern and Anglican Mainstream confirming what they said before the final bill was passed into law.

      1. David Waite 2 Aug 2013, 4:29am

        And why do you fear this?
        “All this will do will stir up anti-gay sentiment among moderate Christians and further embolden the right wing element at C4M, Christian Concern and Anglican Mainstream confirming what they said before the final bill was passed into law.”
        Same sex marriage is now the law in 90% of the UK and I expect Scotland will soon make it 97%. C4M, Anglican Mainstream and Christian Concern will fulminate until people stop funding their fulminations. If they couldn’t stop this Act from being passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Parliament, how on or under the earth are they going to get it repealed?

        The zeal of PN commenters voting my comment down would be entirely understandable if they had a real reason to fear such a backlash. As it is..

      2. Exactly, Robert, people who are beginning to get their heads around equal marriage (I must admit that much of my anti attitude was based on the -untruth- that gay couples expected to be treated exactly the same as straight couples-I’m thinking consummation and automatic presumption of paternity here-and I found that ridiculous. Now I realise that no gay couple is as stupid as to think that every area of marriage will apply to them-just 99% of it. In other words, they accept that there will be some-albeit- slight differences-although the pension one is a glaring injustice- remaining but still want marriage label) may start to change their minds again because of this aggressive attack on the Church.

    2. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 7:16pm

      In the CofE what the general synod says goes. If they are such avid attendees of their local church they will be well aware of the position of the CofE on this matter. So why do they feel that they should be a special case? I’m sorry for them that their church won’t allow them to marry but they are under no obligation to remain members of that church.

      The way for religious gay and lesbian people to achieve acceptance however is not by riding roughshod of the religious freedoms of others but by working from within to change the views of people within those organisations. Their actions will cause harm and I do feel that they are being incredibly selfish.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Aug 2013, 7:54pm

        Absolutely agree, bobble. Not only selfish but utterly wreckless. It’s bad enough with the opposition to the Bill and now these two idiots are going to stoke the fires of homophobia yet again. We’ll be hearing ‘we told you so’ nonsense from the far right.

        I blame any lawyer who would stoop to taking such a frivolous case wasting court time but if that’s how they want to squander their money, let them make bigger fools of themselves than they already are. Sometimes our own are our worst enemies. These two clearly qualify. I hope they visit PN to find out that they don’t have much support.

  18. Stephen Glenn 1 Aug 2013, 6:56pm

    I’m rather upset that these two have decided to take this action. Claiming to be about people’s freedoms while attacking the religious freedom of others is not the way to go about this. The Lib Dem policy on equal marriage which was passed in 2010 was for ‘those faith groups that wish to do so’ to be allowed to carry out same-sex marriages.

    Personally I think we need to balance everyone’s personal freedoms, including those that don’t (at present) want to allow us to get married in their church, or mosque, or synagogue or whatever. Those that wish to will not doubt be getting ready to welcome us, those that don’t yet we need allies and ourselves if we are within to plead the case for inclusion.

  19. Linsey Young 1 Aug 2013, 6:57pm

    What a pair of selfish idiots. We need to recognise that equal marriage has been a contentious issue for a lot of Christians. Even if we vehemently disagree with them we should respect their beliefs and not attempt to force our ways upon them. All this will do is give ammunition to the homo/transphobic and thereby damage us all. Now is the time to enjoy our gains and let equal marriage become normalised.

  20. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Aug 2013, 6:58pm

    Let them waste their money. Some unscrupulous money hungry litigator will take it on knowing full well that they don’t have a chance of winning. Serves them right. Fools and their money are soon parted.

  21. A lot of people say “A church should be able to choose to marry who they want”.

    But look at it like this… if the church of england said “We refuse to marry black people”, would we REALLY, as a society, accept that?

    1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 7:43pm

      No probably not but in this instance the analogy doesn’t work. There is no theological debate within the CofE any longer about whether or not black people should be able to marry. No one within the CofE believes that the Bible tells them that black people marrying is wrong. However, a large portion of the CofE including a majority on the church’s governing body believe that theologically they cannot countenance the marrying of two people of the same gender.

      Unless we are going to start suggesting that we should have the right as a society to change any religious practice that we’re not happy with then unfortunately we have to accept that currently the CofE is not going to allow gay couples to marry there. Freedom of religion in this instance sadly does mean freedom to discriminate. Eventually I believe that churches will realise that and will change but we can’t force them to do it or we become monsters.

    2. Ben Foster 1 Aug 2013, 8:31pm

      in the past, even as late as the 1970s, probably, yes white Britain WOULD have accepted that. People really did believe that blacks were different.

      1. No I don’t think so, not within the CoE which, by the 1950s, had many black and Asian bishops and archbishops. To be fair, in many ways the CoE was rather ahead of popular feeling when it came to race.

      2. Your post demonstratea the distinction withracial discrimination, which stemmed from a view of Blacks not being really human. With homosexuality, the issue is about morality. That’s where the comparison with racial discrimination fails.

    3. That would almost certainly be illegal, for a start. The Equality Act applies to churches just like all other organisations, except for a few exemptions to allow for things like gender-segregated services, banning female priests, and discriminating against LGBT people.

  22. These two stick their head up again. If I recall, while the Equal Marriage Act was being debated, they said that they would sue and now the law has Royal Assent, they now plan to carry it out.

    They are two very selfish men. Clearly only thinking of themselves and the likely press coverage they will get.

    I wonder how many times they actually go to church? If they go regularly, then all they are going to do is:
    (a) add fuel to the Daily and Co
    (b) alienate themselves from their congregation and
    (c) have to endure the wrath of the rest of the LGBT community for fanning the flames of hatred to us again for their own needs

  23. Craig Nelson 1 Aug 2013, 7:43pm

    Well here we go again. We get the stories and the headlines, but I very much doubt we’ll see an actual lawsuit are very remote.

    If the case was taken it would do some good because it would prove that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 does not threaten religions who do not wish to perform same sex marriages. It would be expensive but money well spent if that’s your bag.

    What we’ll get is a series of such articles suggesting there’s going to be a challenge but without the actual challenge.

    If you’re going to talk big about it you’ve got to commit and take the case and put us all out of our misery. I think the case will lose at the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the ECtHR.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Aug 2013, 7:47pm

      Exactly right, Craig. A court can refuse to hear a case too. A lawyer could also face rebuke from a judge for bringing a frivolous case and sometimes impose sanctions.

    2. Craig Nelson 1 Aug 2013, 7:49pm

      But if a case is taken we’ll all know for sure and that will be that. Sure the money could be put to better use (homophobic bullying, domestic violence, supporting LGBT people abroad – the list is endless), but if they really are going to carry through then it’s their money, they can do with it as they wish.

      But the fact there ain’t going to be a case makes all the self publicity very tedious.

      1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 7:55pm

        I suspect they’ll have to self fund anyway. Stonewall, Liberty and all the other organisations that support gay people in their court cases are not going to back these two and I think they’ll quickly find that the gay community won’t back them either. They’ll be on their own and I suspect once they realise that then they may well back down.

  24. This lawsuit will do more harm than good for us all. The only thing it will gain is for the religious folks who will seize this oportunity to finally say “I told you so”. In this will damage our gains. Leave the church respectfully alone and get married where you are wanted and accepted. Leave well enough alone, please?

  25. Ian Bamling 1 Aug 2013, 8:01pm

    I wish these two guys would get over themselves and stop making such egocentric drama. Why should your locsl church allow gay marriage?
    As a gay dad who is also hoping to marry next year I’m not flapping because my local church hasn’t signed up to gay marriage instead I’m looking at the churches that are.
    I do think you two guys are beginning to annoy other mainstream same sex couples with children rather than be seen as pioneers against discrimination.
    There are lots of options open to samesex couples who will decide to marry so let’s celebrate that instead of moaning about your local church.

  26. Samuel B. 1 Aug 2013, 8:01pm

    Dear God no, not those two AGAIN!!

  27. barrybear1980 1 Aug 2013, 8:11pm

    Three questions…

    1. Why would you want to be married in a. Church whose organisation is publicly against your way of life?

    2. Why go to court and waste money when there are conditions written in to law to prevent such changes to the legislation?

    3. Are there no limits to the ridiculous ideas these men have to get themselves in the news?

    1. 3. Apparently not.

  28. But these guys luv publicity – betya there is already a Hello deal in place for the big gypsy wedding deal. How many kids do they have now.
    Tedious couple who make money from telling others how to adopt children.
    Boys need to calm down and do ‘ I’m a celebrity get me out of here’ instead.

  29. GulliverUK 1 Aug 2013, 8:21pm

    People and large amounts of money either equal Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, great men, exceptional philanthropy, or completely moronic insane ideas and actions. They would have more success if they put money in to bringing back the Bubble car!

    Lord Pannick made it quite clear they would not succeed. Can they marry? Yes, period. They are not disadvantaged by not having their religion, which they knew didn’t offer same-sex marriages, from offering one – they will still be able to marry.

    If they have millions to waste, please, and for gods sake, give money to the Albert Kennedy Trust or some other worthy cause, where it will help other gay people who struggle to have a home and roof over their head.

    1. warren buffet and bill gates both make their money out of other people’s labour. That doesn’t make them great, but parasites. Their “philanthropy” is nothing more than grandiosity and a very partial payback, but to the wrong people.

      1. Completely agree David but this site is full of middle class liberals who are happy to accept the comfort of their privledged existance. These two made their millions out of Sex Chat Lines originally, exploiting many vulnerable low paid workers !

  30. I just don’t know these guys are challening the govt NOT the CofE. I think they are entitled to that. The quadriple lock is put there by Govt NOT by the church of England and therefore is that really religious freedom.

    I also think that any dissenting vicar, whether he be barred from being a Bishop becuase he is gay or whether he is being not allowed to perform a same sex marriage is entitled to challenge the church. The bar on same sex marriage, however, is an articficial one put there by the Govt NOT the church and in the case of the opt out it is the govt that will be in the court docks not the church.

    1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 8:40pm

      As I understand it they are suing both the Church and the Government.

      Dissenting vicars should challenge Church doctrine if they feel strongly enough about it but through the Church not through the courts. Otherwise it makes a total nonsense out of the concept of freedom of religion since the religious principles have to be set by someone. If not then we end up with a free for all where anything and everything is covered by religious freedom.

      And even if these clowns manage to get the quadruple lock thrown out which I think is almost an impossibility, they still won’t be able to get married in the CofE because the CofE will not allow same sex marriages. The idea however of forcing a church to change its religious principles through the courts is quite frankly chilling and must be resisted.

      1. But you’re last para could equally have applied to PT case (the one “forcing” govt to adopt same sex marriage). Surely forcing social policy like same sex marriage on govt and populations is wrong since that’s why we have govt and elections.

        However, PT did do great work in publicising the problem. I don’t think he had any chance of winning. I think this couple can do an equally good job in publicising the problem. It’s never going to win in the courts.

        At the moment the Church is refusing to discuss same sex mariage. How is it going to change? At least these two men are doing something about it.

        1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 9:05pm

          There is a big difference between expecting the government to treat all of its citizens equally and forcing a church to change its long held theological positions. PT I suspect would be as strongly against the actions of these guys as the vast majority of commentators on here.

          They won’t do a good job at anything. They will p*ss off the CofE and make them less, not more, likely to be more open and accepting of the gay community. And what they are doing about it is so far beyond the pale that it must fail and fail badly because to force a church into changing its positions is a truly frightening thing to do in a free society.

          As I’ve said elsewhere the Church has made its position on same sex marriage abundantly clear throughout this process. They may well return to it in the future but they are not required to discuss same sex issues just because we want them to and I don’t expect for one minute that if they had a discussion now that we would particularly like the outcome.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Aug 2013, 12:33pm

      john, remember…it was the CoE which didn’t think there were adequate protections to prevent being forced to conduct our marriages against it’s will and belief system. Archbishop Welby issued an official statement saying that the Church was satisfied. It can opt in at any time to petition Parliament for a change in the law provided its synod are in the majority of agreement and canon law is changed to reflect it. That is their decision to make, not ours. This bill would never have been passed if such protection for the CoE had not been granted. The government cannot make that change without express permission and will of the Church to do so.

  31. It’s an interesting question – does our local parish church belong to the few who attend or to the whole community?
    The Church of England, as they are very fond of telling us, is our common inheritance. It is their proud claim that they work for the whole community, not just their “members”.

    It may be administered by a self-appointing hierarchy but they must surely have a duty to work for the best of everyone.

    And, topically it has come out this week that they are sitting on an accumulated fortune of 5.5 billion. Would anyone suggect that that is the personal property of the hbishops and attendees for them to do with as they will?

    The real challenge is for christians to rationalise their beliefs around the fact , which churches have mostly accepted, that homosexuality is a normal and natural feature of humanity with the concept of a loving creator. Plainly they’ve got something wrong with their traditional interpretation. Perhaps these guys will help concentrate the Churches minds

    1. Paul Halsall 5 Aug 2013, 2:24pm

      It does not have to marry divorced couples.

  32. They’re going about this in totally the wrong manner. As someone has already said they are simply adding fuel to the fire of the right wing, anti-gay marriage groups who argued that allowing equal marriage would lead to Churches being forced to do it against their will.
    If you so desperately want to be married in the CofE why don’t you try to make the upper echelons in the church see the merit in changing their canonical law rather than trying to bully them with a legal stick until they give you “what [you] want” or until you give up and have a civil ceremony. All you’re doing is making gays look worse in the process.

    1. Also, I’m pretty sure St. Paul actually writes about not taking other Christians etc. to court O.o It just seems all the more ironic. We could also consider the whole “Respect the authorities because whatever authorities that have been established have been established by God” quote. Their actions even seem to go against their own religious teachings to a degree.

    2. “Making gays look worse in the process”.

      Had we been concerned in the past about making ourselves “look worse” by legally challenging homophobic discrimination, we would still be illegal! We haven’t got where we are today by being agreeable and likeable with those who wanted to continue discriminating against us. It meant being unpopular when challenging wrongs and rocking-the-boat in order to do so.

      1. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 11:14am

        There is a difference between attacking government bodies that are discriminating against us and attacking the tenets of a religion because we don’t like them. This will make us look bad. It will make us look like we are targeting Christians, it will give Widdegoon and her ilk crowing rights because they are being proved right. It’s incredibly damaging to the gay community at a time when we were finally moving towards achieving acceptance.

      2. How exactly is this discrimination? As it stands they can legally get married. The purpose of the equal marriage law was to provide a way for same sex couples to have civil marriages. The law was put in place with certain protections to prevent religious institutes from being forced to perform same-sex weddings if it contradicted their beliefs and doctrines. These guys are trying to trample on that law because they’re not getting the “lavish ceremony” that they want. It would be like me sueing a selective school for not letting my child in because my child didn’t get the necessary grades. Both institutes are following the rules and regulations they have put in place, you can’t simply sue them until they give you what you want.
        For a couple that belongs to this religion, you would expect them to either respect the decisions their leaders have made or try their best to make them see the error of their ways. Using the courts will only foster division and further hostility.

    3. Chester666666 2 Aug 2013, 9:31am

      “Religious conscience” is just coded or homophobia so why support/defend it? I think what this couple is doing is excellent and I hope they succeed

      Plus many have forgotten that the homophobic religious we’re happy to trample over other religions to win

      1. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 11:16am

        So we should then be happy to trample over their beliefs as revenge? Do you realise how petty that makes us?

        We cannot expect others to respect our rights if we don’t respect theirs.

      2. We’re just stooping to their level in that case.
        There is plenty of support within the CofE for SSM. A much more laudable effort on their part would be to rally together the laiety, the high ranking bishops and biblical scholars and present a viable case to the higher ups as to why they should change canon law.
        If this is about their “lavish ceremony” then that is sure as hell not a worthy reason for them to sue the Church. If this is about religion then they must understand exactly how their religion views marriage, what it represents, and its significance. If their marriage does not reflect the views and teachings then it stands to reason that their marriage is not in accord with their religion and hence they would have no religious obligation to get married in that church.

        They can still get married; they don’t need a church or a religion with which they have conflicting views to do it.

  33. “a big lavish ceremony, the whole works,”

    Says it all really. Sounds like something off big fat gypsy wedding. Has nothing to do with religious faith, one of them just wants to be a fairytale princess for the day, then get a documentary made, and be in the local paper and on pink news.

  34. Please don’t. This is just firepower for homophobes… It is what they have been saying since the start of the debate. Don’t prove them right…

    Why get married in an institution that believes gay acts are wrong and immoral anyway? I just don’t understand.

  35. I just hope this won’t catch the attention of MSPs like Elaine Smith. She’ll say this is exactly what she’s warning about – religions being forced to carry out same sex marriages despite government assurances – and use it to try and convince other MSPs to vote against the same sex marriage Bill here in Scotland.

    1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 10:38pm

      That was something I thought about actually. There is pretty much nothing that can be done about the England and Wales Act, it’s law now. But this could jeopardise Scotland’s attempts to legalise SSM and will be a major set back to attempts to move things ahead in Northern Ireland.

      1. They probably don’t even care about the possible effects of their case on the fights for equal marriage in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

        I guarantee Scotland for Marriage will be using this as evidence against same sex marriage, and my fear is they may just be able to convince enough MSPs – it’s probably unlikely but not immpossible.

  36. MerlynHerne 1 Aug 2013, 10:53pm

    I don’t get why gay people insist on wanting to be married in churches which do not wish to marry them. There are plenty of other churches out there that are willing to marry same-sex couples. Go there.

    This is only going to give fuel to the bigots who will now scream, “I told you that there would be lawsuits against churches!”

  37. If I WAS a Christian the one thing I wouldn’t be doing is getting married in a Church, unless they welcomed me for who I am and who the woman I wish to marry was!!

    I am so glad I am not Christian, this means I don’t even think about it frankly. I feel for those who do wish to marry in a church. But as I said, if it was me I wouldn’t even be losing sleep over it

  38. I really hope these two think twice and don’t proceed, and that they fail if they foolishly still go ahead.

    Having successfully fought to stop the churches dictating to us to whom we can and cannot get married in a civil ceremony, we really cannot then expect to send the lawyers marching in to dictate whom they should marry !

    Churches are about irrational beliefs. If they want to believe in all sorts of strange things that’s fine, and we shouldn’t interfere as long as it doesn’t affect outsiders. That’s what religious freedom is all about.

    The gay community should really tell these two to shut up. Their selfishness will cause us untold damage, especially in places such as Scotland and the RoI where it will damage the campaign for Equal Marriage.

    If they really want a church as background bling, they should try the cute Unitarian one in trendy Hampstead !

  39. Good luck to them. They are entirely correct. The Government is enshrining discrimination in law against people just because they are gay. That is exactly what the Government has done. Actually, same-sex marriages are NOT equal to traditional marriage, because the politicians failed to provide equality in respect of insurance, pension and other social security provisions. We now have a two-tier marriage system – heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage. That isn’t EQUAL marriage. Sorry folks, but a lot of us do not seem to have realised that the Government has not provided equality, it has only added more inequality. It is either equal or it is not and what we have now is not.

    1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 11:28pm

      No what the government is doing is protecting religious freedom. They have as much obligation to provide religions with the security to practice as they do to provide us with equality and they cannot and must not force religions to go against their beliefs or else we become exactly what we’ve accused the churches of being over the years.

      You’re right that we’re not quite equal yet and there are still fights ahead but this is not one of the fights we should be having. It is divisive and it genuinely threatens same sex marriage movements in other jurisdictions. If they were fighting for pension equality then I’d be backing them to the hilt but trying to force religions to do something they don’t want to do is wrong.

      1. I don’t think any of us should be feeling concerned about religious freedom – such a thing doesn’t exist anyway. Most religions just want to continue their dominance over many areas of society and will spread hatred and lies in order to do so. Democratic Governments shouldn’t be afraid of religions which assert power and influence over them. Religions need to be made equal under the law as every individual citizen. At the moment they can almost do whatever they want to. If that’s what “religious freedom” means, then I personally believe that such freedom is a cover for corruption and an abuse of democracy. At the end of the day, there is either equality or there isn’t. The current same-sex marriage legislation is certainly not ‘equal marriage’. So called “religious freedom” is one of the obstacles preventing us from having equality.

        1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 11:52pm

          So we should become the aggressors and force religions to do things that they don’t believe? How is that virtuous? How does that make us any different from the way we’ve been treated by religions in the past?

          1. Because there are many religious people who believe that gay people should be able to marry in church. I know heterosexuals who attend church and have actually challenged their minister about this. You see, those religious leaders who have campaigned against same-sex marriage do not represent the view of everyone in their churches. There are dissenting voices within the churches. There are plenty of people, including ministers, in the CoE who do want gay couples to marry in their church. The ‘triple-lock’ was three steps too far. I believe that it can be overturned.

            There are gay Christians who have conviction that their God loves them as equals. The gay Christian couples will not split up because some in the church wishes them to. Neither will they stop believing in their faith because many in their church cannot tolerate who and what they are. The gay community in general need to accept that there are gay people who also have a religious faith and deserve our support too.

          2. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 12:16am

            I do support them and I hope their churches change their teachings but forcing them to do that through the courts is absolutely the wrong way to do it. These gay Christians are well aware of their churches’ teachings on the subject and they are not required to remain in those religions if they disagree.

    2. I realise that very few here are willing to speak out in support of the Drewitt-Barlow couple, but I will and I cannot understand why doing so would be offensive to anyone here. ‘Doug’ posted a message, above, in agreement with the couple and his message was hidden by moderators! I honestly do not understand why supporting the idea of truly equal marriage is offensive to any gay person. I really don’t get it.

      We’re either equal or we’re not. We aren’t equal with the current law, so I think it is brave for any of us to legally challenge that inequality.

      1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 11:38pm

        By forcing religions to go against matters of conscience in their places of worship?!? You rally think that is a good thing? Because I think it makes us the bad guys, it makes us intolerant and bigoted and vindictive. If they wanted to pursue the inequalities relating to pensions etc then good for them and I’d support them but this is just plain wrong.

        Oh and doug’s comment wasn’t hidden by mods but rather it was down voted by readers who disagreed and was therefore hidden.

        1. Oh, so saying something ‘disagreeable’ rather than offensive warrants a post to be hidden. If it isn’t offensive it should stay. Otherwise, we are behaving in a very intolerant way towards gay posters who just happen to have a different view. It’s disgraceful. Obviously Pink News contributors have to have one view only. How very democratic!

          1. bobbleobble 1 Aug 2013, 11:55pm

            I’m not sure that Pink News is a democratic organisation is it? Plus I suspect the technology cannot determine which comments are offensive and which are simply disliked.

          2. Chris Ward 2 Aug 2013, 3:39pm

            Are you suggesting a voting up/down system is an affront to democracy? Right then.

          3. Surely a post being hidden because of the number of negative votes is actually democracy in action?

          4. No Chris, voting up/down posts isn’t the issue. It’s hiding posts that are unpopular but inoffensive, that’s the issue. An unpopular comment may have -100 votes. So be it, but it isn’t democratic to then hide that comment if it isn’t inoffensive. As it is, unpopular comments are treated in exactly the same way as terribly homophobic comments. Ideally, homophobic comments would be removed and unpopular – yet inoffensive – comments left untouched, even if everyone voted them down. A democratic system accepts/views/listens to legitimate, inoffensive opinion that isn’t the majority opinion, it doesn’t treat it in the same way as offensive, discriminating or even hateful, opinion.

        2. I used to like this site, but as it appears that we have to speak with one voice, I should go elsewhere that is less intolerant towards those of us willing to support a fellow gay person who wants to be EQUAL in society and is ready to ‘rock the boat’ by trying to do something about it.

          1. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 12:04am

            You mean someone ready to force a religion to go against it’s teachings so they can have an extravagant wedding? And you think we’re intolerant? Bizarre.

            What happens of their actions lead to marriage failing in Scotland? It’s a possibility. Is that a price worth paying to allow these people to rock the boat? Or are the Barlow-Drewitts the only cause worth fighting for?

          2. It is better to have equality than a type of two-tier ‘equality’. Some may be content with that type of equality but personally I don’t believe it is equality. We shouldn’t be content with being just second-class citizens. It might be one step up from being third-class citizens, but we’ve fought too long and hard to be content with that. The current system is riddled with inequality. We shouldn’t make do with that.

            There are many inequalities and injustices, other than the Barlow-Drewitt’s case, so in answer to your question they are not the only cause worth fighting for. We need to do a bit more complaining about the inequalities that continue to exist and fight through the courts as one if we have to.

            I can’t understand, genuinely I can’t, why so many of us are so very against this couple who dearly want to marry in the church in which their children were baptised. I thought we were all made of stronger stuff. We used to be.

          3. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 12:35am

            What is wrong with it is that the Church of England does not believe that two men or women can be married according to their beliefs. In a pluralist society we must respect that and allow the CofE to hold to those teachings even if we don’t like them because to do otherwise makes us tyrants.

            Compromise is necessary, we have limited the rights of religion over marriage to their own domains but invading those domains and forcing religions to do what we want is despicable.

            I note you didn’t answer my question. What happens if heir actions lead to the failure of SSM in Scotland? I don’t disagree that we need to continue to fight inequality and through the courts if necessary but this is not one of those instances.

      2. James, do you intend to support all actions to force mosques, gurdwaras, synagogues and temples to perform SSMs as well? Do you, by the same token, believe that their should be no men-only (or women-only) environments, like clubs, or gay-men-only environments, like another sort of club?

        1. Rehan, I would support any couple of whatever religion who take action to force their religion to remove anti-gay ‘rules’ preventing them from being treated equally. Until there is a time when homophobic attacks are a thing of the past, then I believe the LGBT community should have their own safe environments. The same with women, I believe there should be women-only environments as many still experience domestic violence. I believe that any group of society should have their own safe environments if they are being oppressed or a target of violence.

          1. So bars and clubs and safe houses can set their own rules, but not churches? I can’t follow your reasoning. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not by any stretch of the imagination religious, but IMO they are no different from clubs and perfectly entitled to set their own rules. Nobody (in the UK anyway) is obliged to join them if they don’t want to.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Aug 2013, 12:39pm

      So, don’t get married, don’t have a civil partnership either. There are 16 countries with equal marriage. Not one of them forces any religious denomination to marry us. Why should England be the exception? They didn’t want us to even have civil marriages so why should we compel them to marry us? Straight divorced catholics are forbidden to remarry in their church and they haven’t brought legal action against it. They opt for a civil marriage or find a non-Catholic church to marry them. You just don’t get it.

  40. This pair obviously have more money than they know what to do with. If they take this to court, they will lose. What’s really sad is they don’t seem to realise that the ONLY reason they can’t get married in their CoE church is because that very same CoE firstly campaigned against them getting married at all, and then insisted that they would not marry same sex couples when the new legislation passed. It’s pitiful to see them wanting approval from an organisation that has made its position crystal clear – namely “you are not welcome here”. I have no sympathy for their foolishness.

  41. Why???? This couple and their sad hunger for press has always sickened me!

    Just stay away from the church?!? Why sue for acceptance??? Can that acceptance really come from somebody’s heart if they are forced to do so by a judge?

    I hope the quad lock stands and they fail miserably…

    1. I presume from your post that you are a religious person who is against equality for gay people.

      1. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 12:11am

        I presume from your post you’re an intolerant bigot who feels that their opinion is the only one that matters?

        I’m not religious but I genuinely find the idea of forcing churches to do something which goes against their teachings abhorrent. What gives us the right to force our will on them? Doesn’t that make us as bad as them when they tried to prevent us having civil marriages or marriages in friendly churches?

        1. I take great offence as a gay person, bullied throughout my school years to the point that suicide seemed to only viable option, is called an intolerant bigot because I merely asked the poster if he was a religious person against equality for gay people. I didn’t resort to calling him names or try to insult him. I merely asked a question. So please do not insult me for asking a question to another poster on this site.

          You know already that I feel compelled to support the couple in the article because I genuinely feel that gay Christians are deserving of support from the gay community as a whole, even though many of us cannot understand why gay people would be religious. The only way we will be able to make advances in relation to the churches is to challenge them in the courts. Religions are the biggest hindrance to our wellbeing across the world, so they need to be challenged.

          I am intolerant of intolerant bigotry. How that makes me an intolerant bigot is beyond me.

          1. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 12:39am

            You are being intolerant because you are expecting religions to conform with your view even though it goes against heir teachings. The courts are entirely the wrong place to resolve this. I support gay Christians but they know the teachings of their churches and whilst they are entitled to challenge them they are not entitled to force changes through the courts. I genuinely cannot believe that anyone can consider forcing a church to change its teachings through court action is a good and virtuous thing.

          2. If we never forced changes through the courts, what position would we be in today. We would be much worse off. I’m in Northern Ireland and it was because of one brave gay person here that took the Government to the ECHR in 1982 that homosexuality was decriminalised. If that action had not been taken, we would have remained illegal for many more years as the UK Government wasn’t willing to force the issue. Sometimes challenging inequality through the courts is the only way to change things. Believing so and knowing so in the case of NI, doesn’t make me intolerant, especially not an “intolerant bigot” as you called me. I may strongly disagree with your opinion but I’m not willing to insult you.

          3. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 12:54am

            You can insult me all you wish. Forcing a change through the courts if it is the government at fault is entirely reasonable and to be applauded and encouraged. Governments should treat all their citizens equally and if they fail in that duty then they should be sued. But we’re not talking about the government here but religious organisations with deeply held religious beliefs. They are also entitled to protection from the government for those beliefs.

            We may not like the beliefs but to force them to change through court action is frankly abhorrent. It is bullying, it is vindictive and it is intolerant. We live in a society where religions are free to practice as they see fit, if we bring that to an end then we move away from a free society and I think that is genuinely sad.

          4. I do not wish to insult you and I expect you not to insult me further. From your comments, it is clear that you believe that religions should not be equal under the law, but should have ‘freedom’ to discriminate against a section of society. You are clearly opposed to any legal challenge against that freedom of religions to discriminate, simply because they are religions. You describe such action as “abhorrent”. It makes you sound very much similar to the bigots of religions, but although you appear that way to me, I am not willing to say that you are a bigot. I am comfortable with my conviction to support any gay person willing to challenge discrimination through the courts. Courts are used as a last resort. Legal challenges have been the only way in many cases that we have been able to end discriminate laws against us. Why should we have to accept religious ‘freedom’ to discriminate against us? cont’d…

          5. Governments have only reformed laws because they’ve been forced to in many cases. Politicians and society as a whole are less homophobic now because of those forced changes. Religions will only ever change their laws once they are forced to, unfortunately. If they have to be forced to become less discriminatory, I am sure that like society in general, they will eventually become less homophobic. Forcing change is a last resort that often has to be taken unfortunately. It is a way that can be the catalyst for people to positively change their opinions, albeit gradually, but in time their opposition becomes mellowed or reverses. If religions did not change their beliefs throughout history we’d still have slavery and stoning to death of raped women. Religions have to accept the changes to societal opinions. Forcing them, through court action, to change their remaining discriminate regulations, is not “abhorrent” to anyone who believes in 21st century justice. It’s 2013, not 1513

          6. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 11:25am

            What I believe is that in a pluralist society we have to accept that not everyone holds the same opinion and that people are free to have different opinions. We also have to accept that religions have been given freedoms in various documents including our own Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights in order to practice their religion as they see fit. It may not be convenient, religions may act in a way that we disapprove of but if we believe in human rights then we cannot force religions to change their practices or else we become monsters.

            Challenging inequality through the courts is important when it comes to being maltreated by the government or someone acting on its behalf. But forcing a religion to change its teachings through the courts is wrong. As you point out religions have changed their opinions over time but they haven’t done it as a result of court action and forcing them to do something they don’t believe is going to harden opinion against us.

      2. No, I despise religion. I also despise publicity hungry, couples from Essex who’s swimming upstream cause our equality movement more harm than good.

        You cannot sue a religious body into changing how they interpret their thousands of years old scriptures.

        Religion is a CHOICE in life. If a specific denomination does not officially accept you, then you search on for one that does.

        Can you not see how this will only fuel hatred in the vast majority of CoE members who do not want the state to force them to interpret their scriptures differently?

        I personally hate religion, but I absolutely believe in live and let live…

  42. Craig Nelson 2 Aug 2013, 12:50am

    Of course the whole thing is a little misleading. They can’t sue the Church of England because as things stand the CofE isn’t allowed to perform same sex marriages.

    The CofE can’t be punished for obeying the law as it stands.

    That leaves a Human Rights Act/ECHR challenge against the government. That too will fail. The Strasbourg Court attaches the highest importance to the freedom of religion from State interference and to the balancing of rights by national Parliaments and does not empower dissidents to flout overall control of their organisation.

    If they had actually seen a lawyer some of this would have been explained to them. An initial consult is not that expensive and well within their means.

    1. And the argument the church has always been apposed to gay marraige is wrong because it conducted gay marraige before they took an evil turn in the 13th Century and covered up any approval of homosexuality.

      They done it 800 years ago, they can do it again.’Forcing’ churches to marry same sex couples would simply be ‘forcing’ the church to re-adopt a custom it abandoned and denied before committing themselves to a 800 year festival of cruety against (natural) LGBT people because of their (very unnatural) beliefs. It would be reverting the church back to how it used to be, not forcing it to adapt a brand new custom.

      But again their teachings are irrelivent because as we all agree, they’re totally false and used purely to accumulate and monopoliize wealth, power, and control. It’s time we made Christians act more like Christians.

      Mr. Pink

      1. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 11:26am

        The CofE didn’t exist 800 years ago.

        1. The Catholic Church I’m talking about

          A church is a church is a church. The CoE was founded by Henry 8th so he could legally divorce and get balls deep in a new woman, that’s the only reason it exists. It being founded on such grounds removes any kind of legitimacy or respect for me. It’s a sham, a joke. It’s based on lies, fear and corruption like every other church. A church is a church is a church.

          Mr. Pink

  43. Some of us appear to believe that religions should have the freedom to follow the convictions of their faith. However, religions have been forced to alter their convictions in the past. Christians believed in the scriptures advocating slavery and commanding them to stone to death any woman who was raped. There are many things in the bible guiding Christians what to do and believe that would now repulse them. That change in belief means that they conveniently ignore those parts of the bible, yet they hold onto the homophobic bits. The only reason why they changed their opinion about slavery and stoning etc. is because they were forced to change their opinion. That force was a change for the better. Why can’t forcing them, via the courts, to change their opinion about how we should be treated, be seen as no different to how they have been forced to change their opinion on slavery, rape, etc. If they are forced to change they will have to ignore the anti-gay bits in the bible.

    1. Do you have any evidence that they were forced to change their beliefs by the courts?

      No. Thought not.

    2. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 11:29am

      The CofE was not forced to change its views on slavery by court action. Their views evolved once the law was changed to outlaw slavery. Maybe now that the law has changed in regard to our relationships the Church’s opinion will also begin to evolve but forcing them to go against their teachings will not help especially when we’re talking about fundamental Church rites like marriage.

  44. It’s a tricky one and their methods and timing are pretty unwise but for me, LGBT rights trump religious rights everytime. I don’t care what their ‘teachings’ have said or how long they’ve said it – they’re wrong. That’s why LGBT rights always trump religious rights, because quite simply they are wrong, and we are right. ‘Religous Freedom’ to continue practicing an ideology that has scarred humanity beyond repair ? No thank you. Can’t be trusted, causes too much misery and suffering, makes too much money, is based on lies and oppression. Sorry, can’t agree with it on any scale. If gay people are nuts enough to want to get married in a church like everyone else wants to get married in a church (despite hardly ever being religious) then they should be allowed to. I don’t care what the pope or the bible or the bishop says because they are wrong wrong wrong.

    Mr. Pink

    1. The church conducted same sex weddings in the past anyway but covered it up, so it’d actually just be ‘forcing’ them to adopt a custom they willingly undertook BEFORE the 800 years or so of cruelty against (natural) LGBT people based on their twisted and distorted (and very unnatural) religious beliefs.

    2. I agree with you Mr Pink, but I’m sadly one of few who do! I cannot get my head round the view that religions should be entitled to continue their homophobic convictions, simply because that is what they currently believe. Did Christian faiths always marry couples of differing Christian faiths? Did they always marry couples who didn’t have the same colour of skin? Did they always marry couples who weren’t regular church-goers? etc. etc. etc. The bible has passages advocating slavery, condemning rape victims to death and many other things now considered abhorrent even to Christians, yet they once believed in and practised that behaviour. At certain points through history, religions have changed their views on those things because they’ve been forced to. The definition of their ‘freedom’ to follow the convictions of their faith has changed throughout history and certain passages in the bible advocating all types of abhorrent behaviour are now ignored. Cont’d…

    3. It’s only the homophobic bits in the bible that are held onto, because they’ve been allowed to. Because of the Government’s ‘triple-lock’ protection of religious freedom to discriminate against gay people, the only way to change that now is via the courts. In doing so, it is only an attempt to get the CoE to evolve their opinions and to ignore the homophobic passages in the bible, just as they’ve been made to evolve in the past to ignore all the other passages in the bible which advocate things they would now think to be an abhorrent way to behave. Christians no longer advocate slavery or murder of victims because they’ve been forced to change their views. Slavery is wrong, wrong, wrong. Murdering rape victims is wrong, wrong, wrong! Homophobia and treating gay people as less worthy human beings is so wrong too. Religions have just not been made to realise that yet, but eventually they will have to be made to realise that they cannot continue to be homophobic.

  45. These two get on my nerves.

  46. James Peron 2 Aug 2013, 7:18am

    This is stupid. Just as the church shouldn’t determine the law, the law shouldn’t control the church. Disestablish it and cut all ties. It makes about as much sense forcing a church to marry a couple as it does to force it to give communion, or mandate it baptize in a certain way.

  47. Martin Gavet 2 Aug 2013, 7:29am

    As someone who is in a civil partnership and looking forward to having it converted into equal marriage status in the summer of next year, I too would like as a confirmed C&E member to be married in the church I was baptised in.

    However, I think looking at the way the law was written this couple will have a very difficult time convincing any court that their human rights have been violated under the law. If you read the human rights act and the equal marriage law, the clause is written to allow the church to opt in. The Church is not breaking human rights legislation by refusing to do so, as there is provision in the Equal Marriage Act for them to refuse. Furthermore, belief is also protected under Human Rights legislation, and no matter how wrong we believe the Church is in this respect, I think they could equally say they have been discriminated against if they are forced to marry same sex couples.

  48. mikeysussex 2 Aug 2013, 8:05am

    Oh dear, not these two silly old queens again. Over the years they have become a standing joke. They are an affront to decent gay people. Why don’t they go and live in America or just shut their gobs up.

  49. Michael 2912 2 Aug 2013, 8:21am

    I am a fervent atheist and have no desire to marry in any church, no matter what denomination, but I respect the sincerely held beliefs of those who do. I’m frankly astonished by many of the posts to this thread that seem in the one hand to exhibit profound internalised homophobia (we should be grateful for what we have, let’s not rock the boat) and in the othe plain prejudice against two individuals who they don’t know. I don’t know them either. To suggest that they’re seeking publicity is, frankly, crass. The comments made mirrow exactly those who told us to be content with civil partnerships when we had the temerity to demand equal marriage. There is a point if principle here: the citizen of the state should not be denied any of the privileges of the Established Church.

    1. Godric godricson 2 Aug 2013, 8:47am

      In theory we should have complete equality as should everyone else although I am also pragmatic about equality. Pursuing some sort of utopia is fantasy.Wanting something to be so doesn’t make it so.

      I now have more real equality than I ever imagined would be the case and I won’t be lectured on abstract theory. Trying to force the Churches to do something is risible and the couple would do better to support disestablishment and secularism rather than paying legal bills

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Aug 2013, 12:28pm

        Well said, Godric.

    2. The churches want to force us not to get married. This is wrong. How then is forcing them to marry us right?

      The principle, surely, should be that in a decent secular society we shouldn’t have an Established Church and that people who attend said Established Church are fundamentally opposing secular values and citizenship. Get the church out of our lives, out of our legislature and allow it to do as it pleases whilst sensible people avoid it at all costs.

    3. “in the othe plain prejudice against two individuals who they don’t know. I don’t know them either. To suggest that they’re seeking publicity is, frankly, crass.”

      But we DO know them… they’ve been whoring themselves out to the press for years.

      In theory I don’t feel that strongly against challenging the Church on this matter, but in practice it is:
      a) terrible timing – if it’s about public support then let gay marriages at least start first, rather than doing the one thing the entire gay community said it wouldn’t do mere weeks after the act passed.
      b) fairly stupid – I’m not a lawyer but even I know that challenging a law in a way that the original law was specifically designed to withstand is like trying to drown a fish.
      c) as a test case the worst possible choice “I’M STILL NOT GETTING EVERYTHING I WANT!” screams the bridezilla… Rosa Parks was not the first black woman to refuse to move to the back of the bus – she was just the most media friendly.

      1. Dan Filson 2 Aug 2013, 9:52am

        “Whoring themselves out to the press for years” – clearly you have never been in a situation where you know the media will be onto you and you want to get your story out first on your terms. That’s what they did on the surrogate parenthood issue, and if they got paid to boot, well, good on them. I concur with Michael 2912 and am appalled at how people are all pitching in against them for rocking the boat supposedly achieved by the quadruple lock at the expense of this being a genuinely equal marriage Act.

        1. Michael 2912 2 Aug 2013, 9:59am

          Thanks Dan. I just wish I hadn’t made quite so many typos.

    4. So you would suggest that the Established Church should be forced to provide a marriage service for atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews etc too?

      1. Michael 2912 2 Aug 2013, 5:12pm

        Any m/f couple who are citizens of the UK do actually have a legal right to be married in an Anglican Church in accordance with the rites of that church.

        1. Muslims? Catholics? Sikhs? I think not.

  50. How did I know it would be these media whores again…

  51. These two idiots deserve a slap, if not a punch.
    Leave these bloody religion groups alone, they don’t want us, they don’t want to marry gay people, can’t these idiots be content with whatever we got already?
    Idiots such as these two don’t deserve my respect, hopefully they will loose.
    IDIOTS

    1. Advocating violence against two fellow gay people because they are willing to rock the boat, is frankly advocating gay-bashing. Shame on you.

      1. so do it.
        These two are trying to spoil what we already got. Leave the bloody religious people alone. and yes, they deserved to be (should I say) spanked? That would be more gay friendly wouldn’t it?

        1. Spanking, i.e. hitting a gay couple against their wishes because you don’t agree with them? Sounds like gay-bashing to me, even if you are gay yourself. It just makes you an intolerant, gay-bashing, gay person – internalised homophobic behaviour that the gay community doesn’t need.

          1. Oh james pull the stick out ,mate. I really think that Cel was using a colloquilism and just expressing frustration at the behaviour of these two media whores rather than advocating physical violence against them
            So why dont you use your anger in a positive way rather than getting all uptight over a throw away comment !

  52. As a venue if a church holds straight weddings it should hold gay weddings. It’s similar to pubs in the sense that they can only provide the ‘service’ they do through being licensed to do so. If a landlord refused to serve a gay couple I suspect the reaction wouldnt be that they should just find a pub that wants to serve them.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Aug 2013, 12:25pm

      Aaron, it doesn’t work that way. The CoE demanded air-tight protections from being forced to marry gay couples. That is their choice, not ours whether we disagree or not. I don’t like it either, but I respect their right to believe what they wish.

      To digress slightly, the RCC already forbids religious marriages for divorced straight couples and I’ve never heard of any couple bringing a lawsuit. Instead they marry in non-Catholic churches but most go through a civil ceremony. Why should we be the exception? It’s up to the CoE clergy to petition their hierarchy for a change in the law, not us, like it or not. Incidentally, I haven’t seen that much support from the majority of ordinary CoE vicars for such a change. Until that happens, these two will get nowhere fast but what they will do is cause a spike in homophobia among some of the moderates in the church. What we don’t need now is a backlash against the LGBT community after the huge progress we’ve made with this new law.

      1. The reason the Church of England was given the ‘triple lock’ is because, as ‘the established church’ a Vicar or Rector is his own Registrar. That is a ‘State Office’, and so it could have been argued that the Vicar could be forced to perform Same sex Marriages due to this office. That would have been contrary to Canon Law, so the lock is a way of ensuring that his position would be entirely secure. This legal action is twaddle and will go nowhere. And no Act of Parliament may be set aside by a Court, no matter how lofty that Court thinks it is.

  53. What the hell is with the overall “Noo! Don’t rock the boat! Be thankful for the scraps we get or the straights might be mean!” tone of the comments here. Bunch of wet ninnies the lot of you.

    Not a christian (I view religion of all stripes as a joke to be honest) but good luck to these guys – no cult should have its bigotry enshrined in law .

    1. bobbleobble 2 Aug 2013, 11:04am

      It’s not about not rocking the boat, it’s about respecting others. We cannot force people to change their religious beliefs. We cannot force those who don’t agree with same sex marriage to carry those marriages out in their places of worship. If we do we become the thing we supposedly hate. We become the aggressive gays that Gerald Howarth was warning about. I wish all religions wanted to provide same sex couples with marriage but they don’t. What right do we have to force them to change? I think it’s depressing to read so many on here who think that we are the only ones who should have freedom.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Aug 2013, 12:19pm

        Exactly bobble.

        Paul, you’re entitled to your point of view but Gerald Howarth was ranting during the final consideration of amendments about this very thing. These two only exacerbate and fan the flames of homophobia by the religious right wing and giving them power. This is music to their ears. These two are wreckless and selfish and incapable of seeing the larger picture. The law of the land is the CoE is banned from marrying gay couples until it’s synod and canon law are changed to allow it. It’s up to the Church to decide, like it or not, not us. There will be other denominations willing to give them a religious ceremony and legally too. I’m an atheist but I respect the right of any religious denomination to say yes or no to marrying gay couples. Just as we are entitled to our beliefs, so are they. It’s the same in all 16 countries with equal marriage. We are no different.

        1. > These two only exacerbate and fan the flames of homophobia by the religious right wing and giving them power.

          Whereas if everyone kept their heads down homophobes would just shut up? I doubt it, somehow.

          I don’t think the opinions of Howarth and his ilk should affect anything we do; they’re going to hate us regardless of what we do, so why should we concede to them and take their views into consideration? No use for diplomacy when the other side won’t care either way.

          1. By all means speak out against the homophobia in the church. These two didn’t give two sh1ts about it when then funded said homophobic church in the past and baptised their children. If you can’t see why that’s hypocritical then I don’t see how you can be an accurate judge of hypocrisy.

            If they get the “right” to marry in the homophobic church they can further fund its bigotry towards women. Equality wins!

            Quite honestly I’m a better person than homophobic mentally ill people, I won’t stoop to their level, join them in their bigot crusades or knowingly fund them. If I wanted to worship a deity I would find like minded people and/or organisations.

    2. If only everyone could be as tough as you instead of being ‘wet ninnies’ (WTF is a wet ninnie – a term undoubtably used by a wet ninnie), then we’d have full equality.

  54. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2013, 9:57am

    Oh these two attention junkies.

    Sadly there’ll always be those that disappoint and whilst I understand the frustration, these two do not help our cause one bit. Bigots will see them as the norm and wrongly we’ll all be tarred with the same discriminating brush of ‘I told you so’.

    Like Tatchell they’ll do anything for media coverage and whilst Tatchell does have some valid points these two are clearly in fear of not being recognised.

    One wonders why they would want to force a religion that hates then. Surely smugness isn’t the best for a happy day when there will be faiths who wish to perform the ceremony.

    I say chose you battles and maybe at least wait til it’s available to us all.

  55. I understand why they want to get married in their church, but forcing their way in is not the right way to do it.

  56. Basically a pair of children who have never told NO, and they can’t cope with the fact they will not get their own way.

    Spoiled princesses the pair of them.

  57. The govt has put artifical locks in the legal system. It’s almost as though it has taken control of how the church should operate by saying that nothing can be done in church unless the boss says so. Surely it’s up to the church to decide this themselves within their own org and doesn’t need the govt to interfer in that process. The locks are unnecessary, time and time again they said the churches were protected by Europe anyway.

    Too much attention was given to the churches in the whole act. Time and time again further amendments were put in to the act, making the rights towards churchs top heavy. When were gay people’s rights regards to their religious beliefs discussed? when were individual vicars freedom of religion ever discussed? No , the MPs and Lords were too scared to upset the churches and more and more locks were put into the Act.

    Why would we be surprised if some people rights had been compromised with the obsession to safeguard the churches?

    1. Craig Nelson 2 Aug 2013, 8:28pm

      I agree with a lot of what you are saying – I would have done the bill differently so that marriage is legal for same sex couples and no church or religious celerant is forced to do them if they don’t want to. A much simpler way of doing it. But the Courts aren’t the answer for every problem. There is simply no legal basis for what the couple are trying to get. Consequently there will be no case but there will be a lot of stories that there will be a case.

  58. This page of comments, mostly very much opposed to this couple and actually treating them as outcasts, could have been taken from a Daily Mail comments page. Especially as some others who are posting messages of support for the couple are also being treated as outcasts. Those insulting this couple for not being content with the discriminate law as it stands are behaving no better than intolerant, homophobic bigots. Some of you sound like homophobic church-goers. Shame on you for turning against your own.

    1. James, although I agree that the couple in question may be attention seeking please remember that most of the posters on here are a bunch of hypocrites, sycophants and Uncle Toms. Many of these posters supporting religious beliefs are the same that will not hesitate to attack the Catholic Church, the C of E or Christianity in general at every and any opportunity they can and have categorically stated that they cannot wait for the total and utter demise of such institutions. Now they are defnding religious beliefs and those that call themselves Catholic, Anglican or Christian.
      Why? Simply because they have got what they wanted and now they don’t want anybody to rock the boat. Don’t rock the boat because that may affect marriage equality in Scotland. If I remember correctly, there was an article recently on PN regarding some report – American I think – that said the struggle for marriage equality in the West was directly related to many countries around the world adopting

      1. draconian anti-gay legislation. Many of the readers either discounted the report or simply said that regardless of the outcome for LGBTs in those countries that the struggle for marriage equality and equal rights in the West must press ahead. HYPOCRITES.
        Some of these same commentators effusively thanked various Lords for supporting marriage equality. Why should anyone be thanked for merely and finally doing what is correct and humane?
        They shouldn’t be thanking them they should be demanding an apology for what they have done to us over the centuries. UNCLE TOMS.
        If any religious group/entity wants the benefits of being tax exempt or receiving subsidies from tax payers then they should have to tow the line regarding all laws of the state. NO EXEMPTIONS.
        I do not want to marryso personally I don’t give a damn about marriage equality but I have supported those in the community who do and for whatevertheir reasons. Now these same people do not want to support couples who want to

        1. marry in a church of their choice? Once again HYPOCRITES.

          And just for the record the term “committed relationship” which so many readers bandy about in their comments has no more meaning then the term “practicing Catholic”.

          And as for the idea of a monogamous gay relationship…lol…it’s a bit like the legend of BigFoot…you hear about it but there is no real evidence.

          1. I’m with you on this one jake28

          2. WOW…I have to be honest and admit that was a really cathartic experience…LMAO

          3. Thanks Val…ever since I came out more than 20 years ago I have never wished that I was straight…but I have to admit after reading all these posts I am somewhat emabarassed to be gay.

          4. It’s been relief somewhat to read your posts Jake! At least some of us are not willing to do the churches’ dirty work for them. This page is, as you indicated, an embarrassment. The majority of the comments have an “I’m all right Jack” attitude. Some treat this couple as outcasts and pariahs. At least one advocated violence against them. Truly shameful behaviour for any gay person. So much for the gay solidarity that enables us over the past 4 decades to get where we are today. Believing that equality laws should apply to religious organisations has led to me being called an “intolerant bigot”. LOL. Reading this comments page is actually quite surreal. Some of us have, it appears, turned into the type of people who comment on the Daily Mail website. If that’s the attitude that many gay people have adopted now they’ve got what THEY want (and ‘to hell with the rest of us’) then I guess we’ll have to make do with what we’ve got as we’ll never overturn any more injustices.

          5. And as for the idea of a monogamous gay relationship…lol…it’s a bit like the legend of BigFoot…you hear about it but there is no real evidence.
            Internalised homophobia or what ? Deeply offensive and straight out of the Daily Hate school of perpetuating negative stereotypes

        2. Thanks James. I read all your posts and you certainly have taken a battering over this. Sorry I didn’t join the discussion earlier. Unfortunately the LGBT communities throughout the western countries have become so complacent it really is unbelievable.
          Everyone wants the benefits but very few are prepared to take any risks.
          I think too many in our community live in nice little gay bubbles and think all is fine and dandy in the world. I don’t believe we should have to pay taxes that fund institutions (any) that openly vilify and discriminate against us.
          I think people in our communities should remember the Stonewall riot. And should look to recent events in the US regarding activism. I am talking about the Zimmermann trial. Regardless of whether justice was done or not, black Americans took to the streets in various cities and towns across the US to protest their anger and disgust. And what do we do? Sit and sign petitions and expect others to fight for us?

          1. Oh and before any smart alec says “what have you ever done for gay rights” go and check my comments regarding the article about the Canadian Foreign Minister. Some of its there and I don’t intend to repeat myself.

        3. Calm down princess !

    2. These two are always up to something. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE, just leave these churches and religious people alone/ THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH OUR LIFE STYLE, AND THEY DON’T WANT TO CONDUCT GAY MARRIAGE. Tis is in the law and they will loose if they take their case to the court. All church goers wil be saying what they said in the begining of this process that gay couples would start taking them to the court for not allowing them to get marriad there.
      Leave them alone, once again these two are trying to spoil everything for us, they will hate us even more from now on. JUST LEAVE IT QUIET.

      1. Not all of us in the UK do have the right to marriage yet, and none of us have equal marriage, not even equal civil marriage as the law stands now. The recent legislation still contains inequalities in civil marriage law. Now there is a two-tier civil marriage system.

        Why should we leave the churches alone? They have never done us any favours. Gay Christians are entitled to seek justice. Religious organisations sadly do have more rights but are still subject to the judicial system and therefore any discriminated-against members of those religious organisations are fully entitled to campaign for change through that judicial system. Why would that “spoil everything for us”? Thinking that gay Christians should just stay quiet for the benefit of the rest of us is being selfish. Of course it will make outspoken religious homophobes more outspokenly angry, but if we never rocked-the-boat over the years we would have much fewer rights than we have already.

        1. James, you are such a strange individual, you know the law passed and yes, should I put on a better terms for you so you can understand better?

          James
          The same sex marriage bill passed in the commons and the Lords, therefore we will be able to get marriad soon……….I think you know the rest.

          When I say eave the church alone, I mean, i the bill approved by legislation the CoE appeted out, therefeore why insist on something that will never happen and we will be persecuted even more y religiuos freaks because that is exactly what they said it would happen….”Gay people will try to take us to the court because we won’t be conducting gay marriage…..”

          Then Mr. James, these two are doing exactly that.

          1. Oh. And before you say something I misspelled some words

          2. I’m used to being called a strange individual by homophobes who’d rather I just stayed quiet and didn’t irritate them because I seek to be equal to them in society. I know that I’m perfectly normal and that it’s those who refer to me as a “strange” individual that have ‘strange’ ideas in believing I, and others like me, should stop irritating them simply because of our desire to see LGBT equal rights in society – a society that religions are part of.

            My first name is James, not my surname, therefore I simply “James”, not “Mr. James”!

          3. OH James PARANOIA…… not a good look lovely boy !

          4. If you’re just wanting to insult me, then f*ck off stepol…and that applies to anyone else who just want to post a patronising, sarcastic or offensive comment to me. Disagree with me, go ahead, there’s plenty who obviously do, but I will reply to comments which I disagree with. If some then patronise, use sarcasm or offensive remarks because I merely don’t share their opinion, then I’ll reply likewise. So stepol…please post arguments opposing my view, but if you just want to post as you’ve just done then I don’t think you’ll feel upset by me returning the insult.

          5. James don’t get upset…just look at it this way…the more thumbs down the more you know you have pissed people off by telling the truth.

            I sometimes get alot of thumbs down and know I will when I post on certain topics. I think its funny.

            A bit of self reflection people…and a at least a bit of PRIDE and for God’s sake stop acting like your heterosexuals.

            Let the thumbs down commence…lol

          6. Ok Princess you want to know why i have a problem with these two clowns and your support for them
            They are out and out capitalists who have made their money from exploitation of vulnerable low paid workers (sex chat lines) I also think its laughable that they or any other gay lesbian or transgendered person would want to have anything to do with religion full stop , it has done nothing but promote suffering and hatred around the world causing most if not all wars but being a true liberal i respect peoples right to believe in fairy tales .Also being a democrat i believe that our countries Laws should be upheld and part of that means that the churches are exempt .You wanting to force your version of the bible on other christians by making them accept your homosexuality is akin to Taliban tactics in other parts. this also means that just because i am gay doesnt mean i will or should support every action by any other gay man as legitimate
            So pull your head out your ass a debate ,rather than more queeny fits ! XX

          7. On James’ behalf Stepol I would just like to say…

            Pot calling kettle.

            Hope you are enjoying your day :)

          8. Stepol, your personal insults suggest that you have a bit more growing-up to do. When you’re a bit older and wiser, I’ll debate with you then! If you are a bit older already you should know better than resorting to personal insults. It isn’t going to help you win the debate.

            As you seem unable to comment maturely, this will be my last response to you. If you continue to personally insult me, I’ll just have to contact PinkNews.

          9. personal insults ??? and FYI i did what you asked and you still refuse to debate…i do appologise if calling you Princess hurt your feelings ! …. but if i am not mistaken you are a chiristian…..so forgive me !

          10. Yeah Stepol…personal insults. Childishly calling me a ridiculous name, telling me to “pull your ass out of your head” and accusing me of having “queeny fits” is being personally insulting. A person with some maturity would already know that. I had been debating until you started responding like that. Now it is impossible to have a debate with you. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who has to resort to that type of language has lost the argument anyway. I rest my case. Goodbye Stepol, I genuinely hope that you find a way of becoming less bitter. By the way, I’m not Christian. I’m Atheist, but that doesn’t prevent me from having empathy with gay people who are also Christian or whatever belief.

          11. So your not the same James who posted earlier that he was a gay Christian planning to marry in Spain …?
            Stick to one story lad !

          12. No Stepol…I’m not the same James. I’m not marrying in Spain! The other ‘James’ is, but this James isn’t!

            There can be more than one person with the same name on this site as you don’t have to register. So, I’m not Christian, but what the f*ck that’s got to do with you anyway?

        2. It’s interesting that the only evidence that the Drewitt-Barlows are Christian is that they apparently they had their children baptised. There’s no mention of them being regular churchgoers, or even whether their local vicar is supportive of them. The gist of their remarks suggests they’re more interested in the venue and the conspicuous consumption involved in a pseudo-”traditional” ceremony.

          1. Well Rehan who appointed you God to decide who can call or identify themselves as Christian?

            And as regards the”conspicuous consumption involved in a pseudo-”traditional” ceremony.”…sounds like your typical hetero wedding to me…aren’t they the type that many in our community want to emulate?

          2. I’m not sure what you mean by “our community” – do you mean everyone who prefers cock? I myself don’t consider that a “community”. But yes, you’re quite right, it does sound like many a hideously vulgar, shallow, play-acting-type show ceremony that large numbers of non-gay people appear to prefer. That, in itself, doesn’t make it a whit more appealing.

    3. Can’t really force a religious group to carry out a ceremony they currently view as against their beleiefs. There are other churches that would be willing to marry them, and forcing their way in is not going to get the respect gay people need to get acceptance from all the other churches.

  59. I presume we (here) all hope, & maybe even expect, that the C of E will in due course change its policy and come to embrace & celebrate SSM. I had a reply from one of the Bishops I lobied in the Lords who said
    “I am surprised that you had read into my previous email that I was opposed to the Bill. I have some reservations about same-sex marriage, but I was never going to do more than abstain, since I believe that what the Government has proposed has the strong endorsement of both Houses of Parliament.”
    That doesn’t sound wholly negative to me & I believe that once SSM commence there will be increasing pressure from inside the CofE to join in.

    This couple are churchgoers and it is only fair for them to make their feelings known about what is an obvious injustice.

    I find a lot of the negative, snobbish & snide personal remarks made above about a couple who we don’t know personally, inappropriate and unworthy.

  60. I’m a gay CofE Christian and nothing would give me greater pleasure than marrying in my own church.

    I very much hope the CofE will, in time, work its way around and offer weddings to gay couples. The signs I hear are good. I also know my Vicar would marry me to another man, if they were allowed to.

    But to force them to marry me would seem.. Well, bizarre really. If this couple want to get married, and don’t mind spending some money or time to get there, they ought to be finding a way to change things from the inside. Lobbying, funding a pressure group, etc.

    I also feel sorry for the church in question. I know from experience how little money these churches have, and how hard volunteers work, and now they’ve got all this to contend with from two spoilt men – despite the church having done all it can to welcome them.

    Frankly they should feel ashamed. They’ve picked the publicity route, rather than the route that might make a difference.

    1. Yeah right….and I’m the Queen of Sheba. Make it sound a little bit more convincing next time!

      1. Sorry.. I don’t follow you… What don’t you think I was convincing about?

        I’m wondering because that’s honestly how I feel…?!

    2. Maccus Curia 2 Aug 2013, 11:31pm

      Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but “Gay Christian” – bit of an oxymoron that one unless you renounce active homosexuality.

      It’s not a question of “judging” or “condemning” you, trust your understand. It’s about basic 101 Christianity. Your welcome in church, of course, and God loves you, but please don’t misunderstand where your behaviour is inevitably leading.

      1. where is that then? Hell??? LMFAO.

      2. I’d say basic 101 Christianity begins by saying: “There’s only one truth – God’s truth – but different people interpret what he has said in different ways and only he knows for sure.”

        I have done a large amount of research in order to reconcile my faith and my sexuality, and would now happily engage in sexual intercourse with a husband (if I were married) – my interpretation is that God wouldn’t mind this at all.

        I don’t know where my behaviour is leading – none of us do – but I’m as sure as I can be that, if I am not welcomed at the pearly gates with open arms, it wouldn’t be sex with a husband that St. Peter would be ticking me off for, it would be the multitude of other sins I’m sure I have/will have committed! I try my best, but I’m certainly a fallible human – as we almost all are.

        1. Good post Seb. It’s a good argument why religions shouldn’t object to gay couples with a faith (or no faith as many heterosexuals married in church aren’t particularly faithful) being married in their churches.

          1. Thank you James. My faith was once very weak because of the confusion I felt when I didn’t know you could be gay and a Christian.

            Since reconciling my religion and sexuality I feel I’ve grown a lot stronger and am actually now seriously exploring Ordination. Yet would I say my beliefs are the definitive truth? Of course not!

            I believe what I believe. Homophobic Christians believe what they believe. Muslims believe what they believe. Atheists believe what they believe. As far as the existence of God, and the laws he sets, are concerned we all have the same amount of evidence – and thus all the same right to exist.

            I hope to see the CofE allow individual churches to decide whether to hold gay marriage or not, as they chose whether to have a female priest or not. In good time I hope this will lead to every church offering gay marriage, though I doubt I’ll live to see that day myself.

          2. Seb, I’m not religious. I have no particular beliefs about a ‘god’ or an afterlife. I once did believe and despite what homophobes said outspokenly, I was convinced that God would judge me as a whole person and couldn’t possibly be against consenting adult love. However, I’m in Northern Ireland and the religious homophobes are more abundant and outspoken here than the rest of the UK, to the point that you’d have to be a contender for sainthood to be able to hold onto your faith as a gay person. I may have lost faith, but I’m not like what ex-smokers are portrayed to be like with smokers. I’m ex-Christian I suppose, but it doesn’t prevent me from having empathy with gay people who do manage to hold onto their faith.

            To me, the ‘triple-lock’ is locking-in homophobia within the CoE. If non-homophobic people within the church are to have any chance of softening the opinions of homophobes, then the ‘triple-lock’ part of the same-sex marriage legislation needs to be removed.

          3. ….As the CoE is the established church, it really should have to comply with equality legislation. Everyone else has to. Christianity has kicked up a tremendous fuss at every stage of societal evolution. Yet, it has reconciled itself with it because it’s had to. It will have to do the same re. same-sex marriage. It won’t destroy society. Ending slavery and barbaric capital punishment didn’t. If this gay couple genuinely want to get married in church and are willing to force the issue to be considered, then who are any of us to judge them.

          4. I take your point about Geography, though I’d add that – while it’s true that I haven’t heard many people speak with huge passion against homosexuality here – I haven’t heard many speak in favour either.

            My entire research and reconciliation was based on books and the Internet, I made up my own mind having heard all the arguments. I’ve actually converted a number of homophobic Christians while debating the issue.

            I think the Goverment was right to add the Triple Lock, if only to ensure that the Bill could pass through Parliament without ‘religious freedom’ becoming a fatal argument.

            It’s up to the churches to unlock it now – something they can and must do from within if they wish to appear relevant to today, and if (in my opinion) they wish to be God’s true Church. Every religious person must decide whether they support or oppose it, and if they oppose it they must accept that will alienate them from others and turn people such as you from the church.

          5. I’d also add that I don’t judge them wishing to marry in their church – I’d love to do the same – but I oppose the method they have chosen.

            To make an organic, real, lasting change that creates true long-term equality the decision to offer equal marriage must come from within the church and must be a free choice.

            Even if they won their legal battle it would only be a victory for them. If they want everyone to be able to marry in their church they should have used a different approach.

          6. Oh, by the way, if you decide that seeking Ordination is what you really want to do, then good luck to you. If you’re convinced that’s the path you wish to follow, then don’t listen to the nay-sayers. Plenty of us may not understand and perhaps think that you’d be misguided to go down that path, but we have no right to judge if you’re not going to judge us.

      3. Currently I am hoping to perhaps start my training next year.

        I would dearly love to use whatever position I then hold to really help with this issue (and other issues) and make a difference. The CofE is in dire need of a new direction and new leadership, and I’d love to be a part of that.

        1. You’ll have to be very strong-willed Seb as there’ll plenty in positions of higher authority who will try to silence you. Good luck. Apart from forcing change (and I believe – even if I’m very much in the minority – that positive change can be forced through), religions will only change with more people like yourself willing to try and create change via diplomacy and debate. The problem I see in most religions is that those in authority silence debate and any opportunity for diplomacy and they’re being very stubborn about it. They’re not willing to even move an inch! That’s why I personally believe that eventually change will have to be forced through, but I genuinely wish you the best and hope you succeed in your method of trying to bring about that change. Religion is not going to go away, just as we aren’t going to go away, so if there’s going to be religion, then it needs more people like yourself who’s managed to ‘convert’ homophobic Christians!

          1. Thank you for your support.

            Over the last few years I’ve spent a lot of time (and I’m only 22 – I’m supposed to be enjoying myself!) fighting for a number of issues I’ve felt very strongly about.

            On one issue in particular I sat on a committee that was supposed to be united behind a cause. But I felt some of our ‘tactics’ did more harm than good, and (I think due to my young age) I was bullied by others. But I believed in the cause, I didn’t want to see them harm it, and I wasn’t going to let them walk over me.

            I found the best way to deal with trouble from within your own organisation is to be patient, diplomatic and draw strength from faith in what you’re doing rather than fighting – which only serves to distract from what you should be doing. The majority of people don’t hold strong views on many topics. First show them you’re pleasant and reasonable. Then, when you show that you strongly believe in something, I find they’re far more willing to agree with you.

  61. David in the O.C. 2 Aug 2013, 7:24pm

    This is wrong. You cannot force a church to go against their religious beliefs. There should be a separation of church and state. Only churches that wish to bless same-sex marriages should be an option.
    That is the whole point of secular civil marriage. It doesn’t matter what the church doctrine is if the state is providing the marriage license.

    1. There should be a separation between church and state. If they wanted positive attention they should be campaigning for that one the grounds that the church is discriminatory and doesn’t treat citizens equally. That’s something we could all get behind. They seem to have a persecution/victim complex so this scenario suits them fine I’m sure, being betrayed by “the gays”, persecuted by the church and discriminated against by the state. Victim bingo full house!

  62. Sorry no. I totally disagree with them doing this. There needs to be a line where religions can decide what they do in their own places of worship. This is over stepping that boundary.

  63. why do so many people think this wrong?

    do you not believe in full equality?

    is it ok when golf clubs do not let in women members because they are “private members’ clubs”?

    is it ok for a church (or other organisation) to turn away a person from attending a public service / gathering because they are gay?

    is it ok for a church to sanction a government document (a marriage certificate) for straight people but not gay people?

    everyone was constantly shouting on these threads for “civil marriage equality now now now” and to hurry up

    now that has happened it’s all “ok slow down with the equality now we have won that battle”

    i’m not religious, but i believe in religious freedom (including for gay people) but not when it goes against equality in other areas

    1. Is it OK that there are clubs for gay men only? YES!

      Is it OK for some Christian denominations to have women at all levels of their hierarchy and others not? YES! Their club, their rules. To the extent that the CoE can provide a document like a marriage certificate, I think the answer to that is to disestablish it and follow the Napoleonic practice of legal marriage being provided by a mayor or registrar only, with religious marriages having no independent legal status.

      Otherwise are you willing to insist that the all mosques and gurdwaras and temples, as well as churches, in the UK should have women priests? If not, why not?

      1. yes i am willing to insist that

        it’s called equality employment legislation

        do you understand what equality is? or are you happy with the repression of women that happens in islam (and christianity)?

        now gay people have civil marriage equality they seem to be talking a lot like the way “straight white males” have always talked – i.e. “i’m alright jack, so what’s the problem?”

        1. Really? So what are you doing about it? What measures have you taken to insist that mosques – and CoE churches – are equal-opportunity employers on every level?

          Or is it a case of “I’m all right Jack, so what’s the problem?”

          1. you’re boring me

            so you’ve stopped arguing the point, and are now just attacking my credentials as an activist for women’s equality in religion?

            I have none

            i’m just having a discussion on a pink news thread – like you

            but at least I am not arguing that women should not be allowed to hold certain posts, which is what you are doing.

            nor am I arguing that these men are wrong to push for further equality.

    2. Craig Nelson 4 Aug 2013, 7:09pm

      I think the reason it’s profoundly wrong is that it’s an attempt to hog media limelight – they clearly have no intention of actually taking a case because they will lose and it will be very expensive.The basis of the campaign was always freedom to marry for same sex couples, freedom to marry for churches that wished to and freedom not to be coerced into carrying out such ceremonies where a church does not wish to do so.

      After campaigning on that basis they are now turning round and siding with our opponents who have always maintained churches will be taken to court to be forced into such ceremonies – they are essentially doing their bidding for them,which is not helpful at all)

      1. i understand your point, and i am grateful people were patient enough to negotiate with the opponents, which is often the way to success

        however, there are more changes to happen over time, and if these guys can highlight that, or even help do it through the courts, then great

        i don’t really mind what their motives are – after all aren’t all our motives pretty selfish on the whole?

  64. What an annoying pair of publicity hungry creeps! Much the same as gay couples who seek out ‘traditional’ b&bs and sue them when they are refused.

    1. Leave the bigots alone to continue being outspokenly bigoted or continue breaking the law and at the same time accuse any gay person of publicity-seeking who happens to speak out or dares to do something about it?????? Until the unequal same-sex marriage bill passed through Parliament, only very bigoted non-LGBT people held such an opinion. Now that some people are content with their lot, it seems that everyone else has to put-up and shut-up! LOL.

  65. Maccus Curia 2 Aug 2013, 11:23pm

    Well, well, what an unholy squabble amongst you merry band of brothers and sisters.

    And all because these two men “want it all”. The poor tortured souls are being denied a “big lavish ceremony” – which we all know is really what marriage is about. And they “want it so much” too.

    1. No different from everyone else who have their big lavish ceremonies and who “want it so much”. Most couples married in church have no interest in religion. It doesn’t make us get hysterical about them having their big lavish ceremonies and that they usually say that they “want it so much”!! We may think the gay couple are misguided in their beliefs, but why should we get irritated if they want to have their big day in their church, just like their parents, brothers and sisters and others in their church have had? For those of us who are not religious, their actions really do not have an effect on us…well, it shouldn’t have! Let Christian gay couples wanting to marry in their church take their churches to court to seek the right to do so. Also, let women who want to become bishops or priests take their churches to court to seek the right to do so. They aren’t trying to take something away from us, they are only trying to gain something for themselves…..

    2. …. that will enable many others in the future to have equality. Seeking equality through the courts isn’t being selfish for that reason.

  66. The Daily Mail have run this story and the response so far is overwhelmingly negative, i wish these two would just shut their self obsessed mouths!

    1. …so that Daily Mail readers don’t get upset???

      LOL.

      WAOW. I’ve heard it all now.

      1. 2 Points -

        1) Daily mail comments section has been overwhelmingly supportive over the last 6 months
        2) Some gay people do read the Daily mail – you may not like it but its fact!

  67. Is this another “professional troll” story? They get interviewed by a local paper that will print any story. They hope the story goes viral and then cash in when the daily mail offers to run a follow up interview?

  68. These men are just giving homophobes a stick to beat them with by throwing their toys out of the pram and screaming “I WANT I WANT I WANT”. Get married in a big, luxurious place that actually wants you there – wouldn’t that actually make the wedding better anyway? – and check your egos.

  69. I’m afraid this will be counter-productive and further entrench the position of the CofE heirarchy. Far better to let the dust settle on this debate and allow quiet and escalating disobedience to take hold within the local congregations and Dioceses of the CofE as same sex couples begin to marry. Most Clergy and lay members are on side, but they need to be allowed to effect change from within. A legal challenge at this stage will not help.

  70. As a gay man, I have never heard anything so ridiculous! Why are we trying to change a religion?

    It is not a law we are changing it is a belief system! If that belief system does not accept gay people it’s about time we believe in something that does!

    1. Jock S. Trap 4 Aug 2013, 10:53am

      Ourselves perhaps!

  71. The CofE is a messed up place, with out of touch views with modern day life. It’s anti woman on ordination anti LGBT, well,… on everything! These 2 guys even got their child baptised in the same church and the vicar would marry them, but its rules don’t allow it. Guy’s, ditch your church and faith and get real, and vicar, time to move on. Your clearly in a place that does not respect all of your views either! The CofE like the Catholic church,can crumple to dust for all i care. It’s attitude is close to being on a par with Putin’s Russia except they don’t go around physically abusing people!……Oh! but then again………

  72. Craig Nelson 4 Aug 2013, 7:13pm

    One other angle people people should consider is that if the law is subject to legal doubt there is a distinct possibility the government will delay introduction of the bill until legal proceedings are over. After all they are attacking a core provision of the law that has only just been passed by Parliament. If the law cannot stand it may be it will not be able to be brought in at all because it only passed Parliament on the basis of protecting the freedom of religion. If that happens nobody will have a lavish ceremony.

  73. These guys love to seek attention don’t they? “I am still not getting what I want.” Spoiled brats who are doing our cause no good in my eyes.

    1. Agreed 100%! They’re doing a huge disservice to the gay community. We’re fighting for civil marriage. In a secular society religions are free to decide who they want to let in and get wed. If they still want a church wedding why don’t they just get married in the Unitarian Church which actually is gay friendly?

  74. These two really are stupid.
    Why can’t they be content?
    Why do they have to persecute Christians and churches?
    That is how it will be perceived.
    What a waste of time and money,
    which they could have donated some worthy cause.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all