Reader comments · Essex gay dads say local church supports them in gay wedding legal fight · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Essex gay dads say local church supports them in gay wedding legal fight

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dan Walker 20 Aug 2013, 6:17pm

    I wish they would stop! They are playing into the exact scenario the church used against equal marriage! Silly pair

    1. Diego L. Gerald 20 Aug 2013, 11:09pm

      I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…

  2. These guys make me so angry its unreal. They play into the hands of our opponents, absolutely self pigs they are!

    I reckon most LGBT persons would be against these morons!!

    1. For me it’s simply a matter of Homosexuality vs. Christianity

      Sorry but I gotta go with the gays on this one or they might take away my membership

  3. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 6:35pm

    They will almost certainly be laughed out of whatever court they find themselves in. No legal jurisdiction is going to take it upon themselves to order a church to change it’s beliefs. In the meantime who knows what damage they’ll do to gay rights and particular same sex marriage movements in other parts of the world, particularly Scotland. They will be held up as an example of aggressive gays and proof that gay people are out to persecute religions.

    I’m sorry that they can’t get married in their church but they know their church’s stance on this matter. If it doesn’t suit then they are perfectly able to seek religious fulfilment elsewhere but to force a change in church teaching is beyond the pale.

    1. And I will laugh as well….idiots

  4. Stand by for the “I told you so” and worse.

    1. You are probably right…and I am sure there were many saying “I told you so” when homosexuality was decriminalised ….what next…the “poofs” will be wanting to be treated equally and with respect in the workplace and not be fired for simply being gay…”I told you so” ….now the “fags” want to serve openly in the military…”I told you so”…now the “perverts” want to be able to adopt…”I told you so”….WTF…NOW the “degenerates” want to get married…”I told you so”….and for the “worse”….well I pretty much reckon that homophobic abuse and attacks go up in every jurisdiction that discusses and debates the notion of marriage equality…does that bother you Ray?

      1. During this protracted debate for marriage equality religions have been assured many times that they were entitled to their beliefs and would not be compelled to participate in SSM on the understanding that they should not interfere with civil law. That’s perhaps the reason that Charles and Camilla didn’t take the AoC to court claiming that they should be allowed to marry in Westminster Abbey?

        They can believe that the moon is made out of cheese and is orbited by a tea pot for me, as long as they leave civil law alone. That was the generally accepted basis of this legislation.

  5. “a big lavish ceremony, the whole works” says it all. I wonder if he’ll get one of those princess carriages like katie price, and that woman off big fat gypsy wedding to design his suit. I just hope no TV station does a documentary on their big day, I’d hate their tacky ‘big lavish ceremony’ to be the only example of a same sex marriage that people in the UK see.

    The annoying thing is, there are gay men who are christian, and whose faith means a lot to them – spiritually. But for some reason I don’t think these two idiots care any more about jesus than Pontius Pilot did.

    “big lavish ceremony” = “big fat gypsy wedding”

  6. Some one tell them to shut up PLEASE!

    1. I second that Ron.

      Can all the HYPOCRITES and UNCLE TOMS shut the Fcuk Up….oh almost forgot….please.

      1. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 11:02pm

        The only hypocrites are the Barlow Drewitts who apparently respect their church so much that they want to force it to change long held religious beliefs to suit themselves. Hardly the action of good Christian.

        There is no right to marry in a church, even the future head of the Church of England was unable to do so when he married his second wife.

        1. And you apparently respect the laws of the land, which has long held and cherished traditions of marriage by campaigning to overturn this outdated and bigoted view that marriage is between one man and one woman. Does that make you a good Englishman (or woman – sorry no offence meant but I have no idea what your gender is)?

          I don’t particularly like these two but bloody good on them for trying. They probably will lose but I see it as just another battle in a never ending war.

          1. But the laws of the land are civil rights, and are open to debate and to reason, and should apply to all equally; the rules of a church – essentially a club – are not in the same category, nor are their rules obliged to be based on fairness (eg towards women) or reason. No-one has a right to be married in church – after all, at the very least one of you has to profess to be a Christian.

          2. no “club” in the land is allowed to exclude black members

            even the bnp has to include them

            stop sucking up to religion when it has caused so much damage to gay people over the years

            the hypocrisy on this thread is amazing – people normally slate religion for all it’s worth, but when there is a chance to have a good bitch against two people they don’t like, they will defend religion to the hilt to do it

        2. Just so u know…I didn’t give u the thumbs down….cheers

        3. no “club” in the land is allowed to exclude black members

          even the bnp has to include them

          stop sucking up to religion when it has caused so much damage to gay people over the years

          the hypocrisy on this thread is amazing – people normally slate religion for all it’s worth, but when there is a chance to have a good bitch against two people they don’t like, they will defend religion to the hilt to do it

          1. I don’t think political parties can be considered clubs. But you raise an interesting point: I suppose the numerous black professionals’ clubs and Asian networking and mercantile groups can’t be restricted, strictly speaking, but they are in practice.

            So are you saying churches and their ceremonies should be provided to non-believers and those who believe in other religions too? I can’t see it happening somehow. And, as of course you will have noted, churches are exempt from equality legislation in gender matters.

          2. i’ve told you before that churches should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender with their employment policies

            you think they should be allowed to

            ok fine

            let’s just agree to disagree

          3. Sorry Jphn, I don’t recall that you did, to me anyway. Do you feel the same about mosques and orthodox synagogues as well?

            Do you think churches shouldn’t discriminate against non-Christians too?

          4. go look at the previous thread on this couple (1st august article)

            then you might recall that I did

            to you

            and yes to your question

            if you employ somebody you have to comply with employment laws

            why do religions get a special exemption from the laws of the land and leave to discriminate?

            obviously to say a non-Christian should be a vicar would be silly, but that’s different because believing is not an innate characteristic

            it would be like saying a bakery has to employ someone who has no knowledge of baking

            you obviously can’t see the difference, and are happy for gays and women to be discriminated against

            do you also believe islam and Judaism have more rights to discriminate than Christians in this country?

            seems like it from your post

            wow your logic is messed up

          5. do you also believe islam and Judaism have more rights to discriminate than Christians in this country

            Quite the opposite – I thought you did, since you single out churches in your posts and make no mention of other religious groups at all.

            Nobody is obliged by law to believe in a religion (by custom or through family pressure yes, but not law). No religion is obliged by law to be open to everyone unconditionally – I don’t think you can become a Muslim or a Jew if you’re uncircumcised, for example. For the record I dislike most aspects of organised religion but I don’t consider it my place, or that of the government, to impose its laws on a voluntary organisation (though I’ll admit the issue of circumcision is a tricky one). By the same token I don’t believe it’s the place of organised religions to interfere in the government or any aspect of my own life.

  7. What idiots!! I’m Atheist but I strongly believe it is the CoE’s right to not marry this couple or any other couple they choose not to marry! They deserve to be told a blunt – “No!!”

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Aug 2013, 6:54pm

    Delusional loons. If his local church is so supportive, why isn’t the vicar speaking up on their behalf? I suspect it’s just a handful of parishioners.

    Any solicitor taking their case wants his or head tested. It would be considered frivolous and a waste of time and is going nowhere. In fact, I hope some form of sanction is issued to any solicitor willing to take it on. Obviously, these two selfish attention seekers have money to burn.

    Fodder for the C4M and their rabble of hate mongers on the back benches. The Mail and Telegraph will have a field day with this one.

    1. Paul Essex/London 20 Aug 2013, 11:30pm

      It’s the first case and will therefore be treated as test case challenging law. Therefore I don’t think that it will meet the criteria for a Wasted Costs Order against any solicitor/barrister who takes it on. Like you say, they’ve got money to burn. I don’t think that this about getting a big lavish wedding but achieving more notoriety for themselves….at everyone else’s expense.

  9. “I am still not getting what I want.”

    Enough said.

    What he actually wants is for an entire religion to turn itself inside out just for him. He cannot just face the fact that they exist to hate and that is what they are doing. It is like saying I want to be a pig too but can we get rid of the mud please?

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Aug 2013, 7:01pm

    No district judge in his or her right mind would entertain such a farce knowing it is against the law to force any church to marry a gay couple. What morons they are even more so because the law hasn’t even taken effect!

    Vicious Tory MP Sir Gerald Howarth will feel vindicated now that two actual ‘aggressive’ gays have made themselves known.

  11. Self-centred fool!

  12. Brian Trousers 20 Aug 2013, 7:38pm

    A couple of desperados and reality TV wannabes are doing serious damage to our cause. We’ve already seen how they bought their children and paraded like them pets (which, ultimately, is all those poor children have even been to them) so now they want to get a couple of magazine deals out of having the tackiest wedding possible and causing trouble in the process.

    I’m ashamed of them, and hope at some point they’ll feel ashamed of themselves.

  13. These two are media whores! all they care about is attention!

    I really hope their challenge fails and it cost them everything!

    They are doing more damage than good!!!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Aug 2013, 8:41pm

      It will fail, no way they will succeed. The CoE is the established and protected by the law including the provisions set out in the new Marriage Bill.

  14. good luck guys

    it’s good to see them fighting for further equality

    i don’t believe the church should be allowed to hand out a government document (marriage certificate) without respecting equality laws

    if the church wants to do a “religious wedding” without the certificate that is valid in the eyes of “their” god but not the law, that’s fine – they can exclude gays, gingers, people over 6 foot, or whoever

    1. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 7:59pm

      And that’s exactly what’s going to happen if they win, which they almost certainly won’t. The CofE have already said that they will withdraw marriage services if the quadruple lock fails. So if they win, no only will they no get to marry in their church but neither will anyone else.

      This isn’t about equality, this is about their wedding photos.

      1. good

        if they don’t want to follow equality law and want to stop doing marriages it’s up to them

        (although of course that will never happen because it’s the only way churches are in any way relevant to the majority of people’s lives, and they want to keep that relevance)

        same as if a b&b don’t want to accept gays then they can’t offer b&b services to anyone any more

        1. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 10:08pm

          Churches and b&bs are different and should be considered differently. Equality doesn’t give is the right to ride rough shod over anyone who doesn’t agree with us. And the idea that it is acceptable to force a religion to change it’s teachings in a court of law makes me wonder what on earth we were fighting for in the first place.

          1. What about Catholic adoption agencies….I can’t remember too many of you showing any support for the RC C then….or is that different too….rofl

          2. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 11:04pm

            Yes it is different. Adoption agencies are not religious institutions, they are organs of the state who received some level of financial support from certain religions.

          3. we were fighting for EQUALITY


            the right to do what everyone else does

            the fact that a book of fairy tales (written by human beings I might add, and moreover in a time when women were considered possessions etc) says that there should not be equality is not a reason not to have it

            I am astounded

            if society is not ready for this change yet, that will be reflected in them losing the court case

            but I cannot believe people think they are wrong to try because “oh it might upset a few people”

          4. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 11:42pm

            It is a reason not to have equality in an organisation which is founded on and run in accordance with that book of fairy tales, a book of fairy tales I might add that the Barlow Drewitts apparently also believe in. Or should we only apply human rights when it’s one that we like?

            There is no right to a church wedding, even Prince Charles couldn’t have one when he married Camilla. This isn’t about EQUALITY this is about kicking the churches because they kicked us in the past. And you display that attitude quite clearly in your post.

          5. not if they issue government documents

            then they must follow government rules

            I have no interest in kicking the church

            you seem to have an interest in protecting them at the expense of universal rights

          6. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 11:47pm

            You mean universal rights like freedom of religion? Or do you not like that one?

          7. I believe in freedom of religion

            but equality trumps it

            I have previously said churches can have their own special weddings (without gays) to their own god

            just not issue marriage certificates if they exclude gays from marriage

          8. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 11:54pm

            You believe in freedom of religion so long as it’s freedom of religion on your terms. It doesn’t work like that.

            And if the only way to get a marriage certificate was to go through the CofE then I’d be right with you. But if all this is just about obtaining a marriage certificate then there is a very good alternative.

          9. same way there’s a very good alternative to staying in a B&B that doesn’t allow gays

            or to sitting at the front of the bus

          10. bobbleobble 21 Aug 2013, 12:04am

            I don’t agree that being forced to sit in a particular part of the bus or being turned out of a B&B is the same thing as being denied the ability to marry in a church for doctrinal reasons of that religion.

            The world isn’t black and white and equality for us has to be balanced with the rights of others. The religious are no longer allowed to use their religion as a reason to prevent serving us in shops or staying in hotels but surely we can’t force ourselves upon them in terms of their rituals. Where is the virtue in that, how does that make us good?

          11. Bobbleobble

            Marriage in and by a religious institution is only recognised by the State because the State grants it the authority to do so, not God(s).

            Like adoption agencies run by the RCC these institutions are providing a service (performing marriage services) and are in fact funded by the State. They are TAX EXEMPT which in essence means they are being subsidised by the tax payer.

            If people didn’t like being discriminated against by Catholic adoption agencies they should have just gone to another agency (and I am just using your argument here).

            If religious institutions want to keep their tax exemption then they should conform to the laws of the State. If they do not want to conform, fine, but they should not be allowed to discriminate if they are funded by the State ie the taxpayer. Let them give up their Tax exemption status if they feel that strongly.

            It is quite simple:

            Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s

  15. You judge them, yet you do not know them. They are doing the right thing, this is the next stage. It is impossible to have a bit of equality. Equality means totally equality not just a bit. Listen to yourselves, you still have the old mind set.

    1. Equality also means respecting the religious beliefs of others, even if we disagree with those beliefs. Those men have the right to be married either in a civil ceremony, or in a church willing to marry them. Unless I’m mistaken, Catholic churches refuse to perform marriages for divorcees, so this isn’t just something that happens to gay people, religious groups must have the freedom to set their own standards for marriage (as long as those standards aren’t imposed on anyone else).

      1. should we respect the religious beliefs of couples who don’t want to offer b&b services to gays?

        equality trumps tolerance for belief in fairy tales

        1. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 10:12pm

          Equality trumps fairy tales in the secular world but were talking about enforcing a change of religious belief in these people’s places of worship, how can that be acceptable? How can we claim any kind of moral high ground if this case goes ahead I simply don’t know.

          And pragmatism should also overrule point scoring. These morons will now be a tale of fear told to wavering lawmakers in every jurisdiction where same sex marriage comes up.

          1. I agree pragmatism should overrule point scoring but it isn’t about point scoring, it’s about equality

            in any case the pragmatic view says, the world didn’t end every previous step of equality, and every previous time the church has had to give up some of it’s power over the years (which has happened many times, and will continue to happen as we further outgrow religion as the human race)

            they cannot give government documents or run government sanctioned businesses unless they follow government laws on equality

            why does religion have a special exemption from these laws?

            Plenty of other businesses have to deal with laws they may not like for example small businesses have to deal with endless red tape, pay sick pay etc that can really mess up their business

            I am tired of religion getting special treatment when there is no reason for it except not to hurt some bigots’ feelings

          2. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 11:34pm

            It isn’t about equality, this is all about getting one over on the churches. Remember that the same legislation that gives us protections give protection to religious people and religious organisations too and we have to respect that or else how can we expect them to respect our rights? Religious influence is being reduced down to their own buildings and their own rituals which is as it should be. But the idea that we have a right to then interfere within those buildings and those rites and rituals is quite frankly horrific.

            I’m not talking about the world ending I’m talking about us having respect for human rights which includes the right to religious freedom. I’m also talking about the knock on effect this could have on other jurisdictions that are considering same sex marriage. The England and Wales Act is set but what about Scotland or Luxembourg or Finland or Illinois or Hawaii. There is more at stake here than whether or not the Barlow Drewitts get nice wedding photos.

          3. no it’s about equality, plain and simple

            they want to do something straight people can do, and they can’t

            that’s it

          4. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 11:45pm

            But not every straight person can do it, I’ve mentioned it elsewhere but Prince Charles wasn’t allowed to do it either. There is no right to a church wedding, not even in the CofE.

          5. fine

            if divorced people want to sue the church for that reason they can

            no one’s stopping them

          6. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 11:49pm

            Or maybe divorced people are simply adult enough to understand that freedom of religion means churches get to set the rules as to who gets married in them.

      2. Quite right Marianne. I’ve not heard of any straight divorced person bringing a lawsuit against the RC church. They wouldn’t win either and nor will these two self-centred dimwits.

      3. Marianne

        I agree that people have the right to disagree. However, obviously you don’t read the comments of some, including some of those commenting here, when there is any article pertaining to religion especially if it is to do with the C of E and the RCC? I certainly wouldn’t call their comments respectful but absolutely vitriolic and should be classified as hate speech. They would put most religious fanatics to shame when it comes to hate speech.

        And yet here they are now coming out in support of religious beliefs.

        Hypocrisy at its highest

        1. Surely there’s a vast difference between objecting, quite reasonably I think, when any church interferes or tries to influence public opinion in purely civil matters like equal marriage, and allowing a group to govern itself in accordance with its principles? Does the thought that women can’t become bishops in the CoE – or priests at all in the RCC – worry you as much?

          1. YES

            does it not bother you?

          2. No more than it worries me that a woman can’t join a men’s rugby team. If I were religious and especially if I were a RC woman it’d worry me, but I’m neither so it doesn’t.

            I also believe – firmly – that if women want to have women-only clubs/organisations, or gay men gay-men-only ones, they/we should very much be allowed to have them.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Aug 2013, 8:50pm

      It’s attitudes like theirs which fomented so much hateful rhetoric during the equal marriage debate. No court in the land is going to rule in their favour and I very much doubt if any judge would hear such a case since it is against the law and could be subject such a judge to disbarment. Ludicrous! It’s up to the established church to decide if it wishes to opt in at which time it will petition Parliament to do just that. They are free to marry in another church willing to perform a ceremony, just like divorced heteros such as catholics. Even hetero Anglicans who divorce are barred from a church wedding if one is the perpetrator of a divorce while the injured party is allowed to. There have been no lawsuits in that regard.

      1. they are free to get married in another church if they wish?

        same way rosa parks was free to sit somewhere else in the bus (the back)

        1. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 10:16pm

          Rosa Parks didn’t have any freedom, she had to do as she was told without any choice, these guys have a choice. They know the stance of the Church of England on SSM, they didn’t have to join and they don’t have to remain members. They have a choice to marry in a secular setting or to go to a religion which does accept them.

    3. Different pseudonym James! ? W@nker

  16. Equality means what it says on the label.. NO MORE SECOND CLASS rights… Good on them – HISTORY IS ON THEIR SIDE!

    1. You tell em Peter….I gave u a thumbs up

    2. Being married in a church is not a right.

      1. ok rehan, what if the chuch said black people couldn’t get married, would the government step in to stop them offering a government issued marriage certificate?

        1. I don’t know – and when it comes to a government-issued marriage certificate, I certainly agree that it’s time no church was allowed to issue any such thing.

          A church can certainly refuse to marry 2 Jewish people, or 2 Muslim ones. A church can also refuse to consider the idea of the higher end of its hierarchy being available to women. Do you find that as agitating?

          1. yes I do find it as agitating – if you employ people you have to comply with employment laws

            stop looking for ridiculous examples and excuses of the church’s discriminatory behaviour

            so your opinion is that the church should not be able to issue legal marriage documents at all?

            fine, but a little drastic

            why not just ensure they comply with equality when doing so?

          2. It’s not drastic at all, that’s the standard practice in most of Western Europe, where a religious marriage is not legally binding, only a civil marriage is (if you want a church wedding you have to have it in addition to one in a registry).

            Do you think it should be against the law for there to be a club for gay men (or women) only?

            How agitated are you by religious institutions’ sexism? Have you been campaigning against your local church and or mosque in that respect?

  17. Craig Nelson 20 Aug 2013, 8:03pm

    If you’re launching such an action you need to have an organisation behind you and a sympathetic couple in order to generate public awareness and support. Here there is no organisation supporting and whatever the merits of the couple no-one would describe them as sympathetic. Also no-one has described their legal strategy, which court they will apply to, what their claim is based on and what they even get if they win.

  18. ‘I am still not getting what I want’

    Frankly sounds like mummy and daddy gave them everything they ever wanted What they obviously really needed was a good spanking and someone to say NO.

    I suspect they will now get a really good legal spanking. The only winners in this will be the lawyers. If these guys actually believe they have a case and a chance then I suggest they are being very badly advised by a lawyer who is no doubt ecstatic to get two such stupid wealthy clients.

    A little research would have told them that the quadruple lock from this government and the ECHR’s previous refusal to to interfere in such cases. Will make their chances of success zero.

    The ink has barely dried, on the new law and already they seek to change it

    This action from these two spoilt, stupid, selfish, idiots, plays right into the hands of the anti brigade. I can hear them now ‘See we told you so!’

    They obviously don’t give a damn about the rest of the LGBT community.

  19. One of these two c***s is on blendr and is advertising himself as “in an open relationship” ..what lovely stable grounds for a marriage. People like this shame all gay people. :(

    1. no they don’t

      intolerant people like you who are so down on people who live their lives differently to the way you do shame all people

      what’s wrong with an open relationship?

      a lot of people seem to have a personal antipathy to these guys for whatever reason, and are therefore arguing against full equality

      if you want to bitch at people rather than discussing the issue, then fine

      shallow b@stards

      don’t forget these guys were amongst the first to adopt in this country and made headlines for that which helped the cause of equality through visibility

      1. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 10:21pm

        It isn’t tolerant to force a religion to change it’s teachings through the courts. I don’t deny they may have helped move gay rights along with their use of surrogacy showing that gay people are capable of being parents too. But now what they’re doing is showing that everything Gerald Howarth and others said about us is true. We’re vicious, were vindictive, we’re out to persecute Christians. They make us appear intolerant.

        Tolerance has to work both ways. We can’t expect people to tolerate us if we don’t show tolerance in return.

        1. so you would rather leave the law as it is and allow religions to have special exemption to discriminate, because otherwise gay people look vicious, and religious people are victims

          I understand

          1. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 11:44pm

            No I would rather leave the law as it is because I believe in all human rights not just the ones that benefit me. What I am worried about is the effect that this court case is going to have on same sex marriage movements and gay rights movements elsewhere. You’re crazy if you think that people against same sex marriage won’t use this as a reason not to introduce it.

          2. specious argument

            the more equality there is here, the more equality there will be elsewhere

            when people see the world doesn’t end from equal marriage they will be more likely to introduce it

            and it’s the same here

            equality breeds equality, because people see there is no longer a need to discriminate

          3. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2013, 11:58pm

            What a load of sanctimonious nonsense. Equality is hard fought for, it doesn’t come easily and it is resisted at every turn with every weapon those against us have in their armoury. The Barlow Drewitts are simply giving them one more.

    2. I have been around the track more than a few times and I have never met a monogamous gay couple in a medium or long term relationship. Many will be honest and say that although they are in a “committed relationship” they have an “agreement”. Others have an unspokenagreement but don’t acknowledge it. And unfortunately there are some individuals who are monogamous but unbeknownst to them their partner is screwing everything that isn’t nailed down and everyone is aware of it except the one being cheated on. And I have seen this all too often and it is devastating for the one who is being cheated on when they find out and it is awful to see this happen to good people.

      Now I am single, choose to be single partly because I like to screw around and choose not to be a hypocrite like so many others. But to those guys who do cheat on their partners who are monogamous and think you are too, strap on a pair, be men instead of selfish pricks and stop hurting the ones you supposedly love.

      1. Wow…another cathartic experience…let me just say I would hope that there is a monogamous gay couple out there, well hopefully a few.

        And no I am not suffering from internalised homophobia…just sharing my experiences and stating reality.

        I can hear the sh*t flying towards that fan as I write this.

        Bring it on….I am expecting at least twenty thumbs down for this one…lol

        1. I came out at 18 and stayed in a commited relationship for 4 years

      2. 8.5 years together and still love him as much as the first day I met him! We remain faithful to each other and always will. I put it down to both of us having traditional family values where you stay together and work through problems. If either of us were ever to be tempted then we would finish our relationship before we did anything rather than do it behind each others back.

        1. that’s beautiful Henry

    3. This is shocking. If I was the church I would say no to them! I really feel sorry for their children as one day they will find out that their parents didn’t love each other enough to stay faithful to one another. I cant believe they actually want to get married!

      1. Sexual exclusivity and love/commitment are not the same thing, and in this day and age people should be adult enough not to confuse the two, especially when men are concerned.

        1. Marriage in the eyes of god is all about staying faithful to the one you love! They cant do that then they shouldn’t get married! End of!

          1. Really? As in the case of the Patriarchs? Or had God changed his mind by the time the Book of Common Prayer was written?

  20. My word don’t these two guys have anything better to do? This is a typical fabricated piffle served up by two media hungry guys

  21. There will only be one sort of marriage, legal marriage, so let the courts decide, they run the country anyway, not the churches.

  22. Paul Essex/London 20 Aug 2013, 11:56pm

    Wonderful, these guys only live up the road from me and I can hear every Daily Mail reading busy-body up in arms making the most of this farce. I’d dearly love to have the right to get married in a CoE Church but not because that Church has no choice but to perform the ceremony. Because if CoE churches marry same sex couples I want it to be because the majority of CoE members have chosen for that to happen, so all the bigots can’t turn around and use my wedding as some kind of display of persecution against them. If the Church is forced to perform SSMs then the discussion, about how it’s teachings on homosexuality are no more valid than witch hunts, will never happen. Religion is a choice, if you don’t like the views and beliefs of a religious organisation you don’t have to participate – citizenship is not – that’s the difference between allowing the Church to discriminate on marriage and allowing the State to.

  23. Peter Robertson 21 Aug 2013, 5:19am

    While I suspect that their action is little more than a craving for publicity, there is another way to look at it.

    If they ever get to court they will clearly lose, showing that the bleatings of the various anti-gay churches about being forced to do anything were nothing more than scare tactics.

  24. Barry and Tony happiness is understanding the love you have for each other is precious than mere things, its more precious than getting your own way all the time, its more precious than creating situations which will effect the wider Christian and LGBT communities. And all for what… a big lavish ceremony, the whole works and no doubt publicity, but not one word said about the love you claim to have for each other. So is this about the principle or the publicity you seek?

  25. I really wish this pair took note of the comments that appeared on every article that they feature in and decide to retire from public eye and raise their children in private. I have said this before and still think they do our cause no good. An embarrassment to our community. I feel ashamed!

  26. Keith, have you lost the ability to spell you name all of a sudden? Hands trembling a little too much?

    You seem not to understand the difference between a business, like a B&B, and a church, essentially a club open only to those who believe in it (or profess belief in it) – no business can turn away people because they’re, say, Muslims, but no church is obliged to marry 2 people who are.

    Admittedly, the fact that the CoE is Established in England is an issue that needs to be dealt with, preferably by disestablishment.

    1. Keith, sweetie-pie, please don’t use words like logic that describe capacities that all too evidently elude you. You might also want to avoid accusing others of selfishness unless, of course, you’re happy to be known as a hypocrite.

      There are plenty of churches that, in practice at least if not as a matter of policy, discriminate on racial grounds: many African sects even in the UK that I’m pretty certain would be less than welcoming to a white man. I find it unappealing but, as with most churches’ attitude to women, I consider such things to be the business of those who’re involved, and not mine.

      1. You funny little fellow – my digging must have unearthed you from your native habitat (manure).

        Do you believe that women must, by law, be able to achieve any level of the priestly hierarchy in the RCC and CoE (which, in case you weren’t aware, is a little different in this respect from your own nation’s Episcopalians)? Should, say, synagogues be forced, by law, to admit non-Jews to participate in their rites? Or do you believe religious organisations are, in fact, exempt from the equality legislation that’s desirable in civil matters?

        1. I certainly believe that no faith should be allowed to exclude women or LGBT people from the clergy, and that synagogues and mosques should not be allowed to have gender-segregated seating. Religions should not be exempt from civil legislation to the extent that they currently are.

          As for synagogues admitting non-Jews to services (I’m not quite sure what you mean by “participate in their rites” – I’ve never heard the term “rite” used in Judaism), they already do that. About 50% of Jews who marry are married to non-Jews. Many synagogues welcome non-Jewish partners and interfaith families, especially at the Liberal side of the spectrum. I used to belong to a Liberal synagogue, and the synagogue newsletter was written by a Catholic (the wife of the administrator). If a child from a mixed-faith family had a bar or bat mitzvah, both parents would be honoured, including the non-Jewish one.

          1. Sorry, that was a reply to Rehan above, which for some reason appeared as a separate comment.

  27. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2013, 11:42am

    Not as much as they love the media attention.

    Stop Already! They are just too boring.

  28. Steve Cheneys 21 Aug 2013, 1:55pm

    So they want to do *exactly* what I’ve spent the past few years assuring homophobes that gays had no desire to do?

    Thanks guys.

  29. I find it depressing that a lot of gay people want to allow churches who have tax payer money to discriminate.

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