Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Portsmouth vicar refuses to baptise the son of a same-sex couple

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why would you want to baptise your child to a religion, let alone a specific church, that calls you an ‘abomination’?
    I’ll never understand religious homosexuals, or black Christians too for that matter.
    Believe in a god if you’re convinced of such a thing, sure, but why join a cult that preaches hatred against who you are?

    1. That’s always been my view point also; why can’t you believe that someone or something created the universe and science isn’t the be all and end all and not buy into a brand of organized religion? I’d probably start my own religion, it would be much more fun.

      1. I still don’t understand a need for a ‘religion’ in the first place.
        Why would one need to know how to acknowledge a deity in some way? You just do. And the fact that some people (in fact most people) believe that some humans have some sort of contact with the divine, that they are not privy to, also escapes me.
        What’s so special about the Pope, or some other leading cleric? This is so obviously human, is hard to believe so many fall for such rubbish. This leads to in-group thinking. And those ‘outside our little group the enemy’ thinking. The same thing appears in racism and other forms of bigotry.
        “Be like us or else!”
        None of that’s needed to acknowledge a deity in in some way, (if you’re convinced one exists at all, of course.)
        That’s why I dislike religious cults so much. They’re fundamentally flawed, and retard societies from progressing.

    2. The reason LGBT people of faith still participate in this “cult” is because there are good-hearted people of that faith, and places of worship, that don’t preach hate. There are religious communities that don’t call us an “abomination”. Of course, there are those in the religious community who do, but there are also many who don’t, and whilst many would argue that the christian faith is homophobic, many people don’t think that. I and many others believe that it’s not the faith itself that is homophobic, but many people of the faith community who are, and there are many in the community who aren’t. We can’t generalise millions upon millions of believers as homophobic because some of them are.

      1. The principal Christian institutions of this country (England) are the C of E and the RCC, both of which are beyond doubt seriously and institutionally homophobic. Gay or gay-friendly members of either of those institutions are placing their institutional loyalty above their commitment to LGBT rights. The word I normally use for such people is “traitors”.

        1. essexgirlbecky 6 Sep 2013, 3:07pm

          It is possible to be a member of an institution without agreeing to the positions it takes on each and every issue. That’s why Members of Parliament are occsionally alllowed to vote their conscience. The description I use for people like you is ‘ill-informed’.

          1. So it’s possible to join the Nazi party without being a racist and you can challenge the Nazi parties stance on racism and say “hey! we shouldn’t be racist you guys!!!”, despite racism being the fundamental principle of the party.

            It’s like me joining the church and challenging their stance on God. What would be the point? Why would you join an institution that you don’t agree with on “each and every issue” despite their being no chance of influencing the majority opinion of “each and every issue”? You’re just adding more muscle to the back bone of the nasty ones without actually helping things; that’s being a traitor

    3. There is absolutely nothing that someone with the patter and superficial charisma couldn’t get at least a small group of people to believe in. Throw in some theatricality in the form of ritual and dress and of course threats of eternity long punishment for not believing and the deal is sealed. It’s a formula that has worked from ancient times to present times.

    4. This is about feeling a needing to belong, even in a institution or practice that deems you less than others. Given the parents were part of a religious culture, they feel being part of it makes them worthy or equal to the other members and in family traditions. Rather than create their own and new traditions, they prefer to continue with what is familiar and find it comforting to continue with set family traditions. This is why many people find it difficult to leave toxic situations in religion, family, relationships… .

  2. Sorry ladies, but the church hates you. For all its soft talking and measured, restrained opposition, ultimately it hates you fiercely.

  3. Godric Godricson 3 Sep 2013, 10:01am

    “St.Mary’s is currently in a vacancy”, says the web site and I’m guessing that retired clergy and Church Wardens are calling the shots! All a bit Evangelical and the reaction of this Church is what you’d expect when two women want to be named as the mother. I wonder what their Bishop says now scandal has been drawn to the parish just when York and Canterbury are trying to bury the hatchet?

    Mike UK is quite right. Why would anyone introduce themselves into this vipers nest of hate? I’d recommend that the couple run and get away from Christians. Have a humanist ‘do’ if you must.

  4. That There Other David 3 Sep 2013, 10:01am

    For that matter, how does his Church know that any child that he’s asked to baptise isn’t pinched too?

    I know God-botherers tend to be paranoid people, with all that being watched all the time and eternal punishment nonsense, but surely that is a ridiculous assertion even for one of them to make.

  5. To me, anyone gay who needs the ‘approval’ an establishment which regularly calls you ‘disgusting’ is like someone Jewish wanting to join the Nazi Party. Doesn’t make sense … and implies some serious psychological councelling is required.

    1. …or learning to spell your native languag,e and think clearly about the mothers’ feelings and needs,and not yourselves perhaps ? !

  6. Why any parent would want to inflict organised religion to a child is beyond me.

    I too was baptised Roman Catholic but was given the choice by my parents of whether I wanted to pursue it further. Thankfully, I did not and by not following religion, I know that I am a better person for it.

  7. What happened to the Archbishop’s comments about repenting of their wicked views about gay and lesbian people only last week?

    Does the stage coach take that long to get to Portsmouth?

  8. Apart from the awful comments of this bigot the most interesting part of the article was this:

    “The pair had organised the baptism with the Rev Andy Norris but he has since left. Retired clergymen have been officiating at the church in the absence of a vicar.”

    1. A gay friendly vicar has been moved on – why?

    2. Only retired clerics take over – is the Anglican church is so short of recruits that it has to wheel out the old dinosaurs?

    And it shows how totally divided and confused they are about this issue. Welby’s recent comments illustrate this perfectly.

    1. essexgirlbecky 3 Sep 2013, 1:17pm

      Yes the Anglican church has huge problems in filling vacancies. And the vicar was promoted to become the Rector at Alverstoke. It seems you can’t keep a good man down; even if he is sypathetic to the cause!

  9. Neither parent claims to be a Christian. Why don’t they ‘baptise’ their kid in another place that will have them – quaker hall, posh hotel, McDonalds?

    1. This is so disrespectful of the 2 mothers.

      Consider them.

      They make it clear they have CofE and RC backgrounds respectively, and when I last looked these are Christian.

      Quakers do not have sacraments s you ignorantly seem to imply, though your tone is very light-hearted for such a serious matter, to the family.

  10. Kerry Hollowell 3 Sep 2013, 10:34am

    gay or straight no child should be baptised until it is an adult and able to make its own informed decisions.

  11. Derek Williams 3 Sep 2013, 10:37am

    So punish the baby, as it’s clearly his fault. Same rationale for calling children of unmarried parents “illegitimate” – it is the baby’s fault his parents are not married. That’s the logic of religion, it has no logic.

  12. Jock S. Trap 3 Sep 2013, 10:44am

    This is disgraceful.

    Well it shows religion is far from welcoming even for children so why bother?

  13. How about a link to the local newspaper who did all the work to get this story?

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/lesbian-couple-s-baptism-fury-after-dispute-with-vicar-1-5448668

  14. The church don’t want you. Leave them alone

  15. Mary of Bethlehem 3 Sep 2013, 11:51am

    Rev Bigot seems to forget that Jesus had two fathers

  16. The parents must be a bit thick and emotional to want their child formally entered into an institutionally homophobic organisation. No sympathy for them

  17. As someone who lives in Portsmouth let me pint out the error in the article. Warsash is in Southampton NOT Portsmouth.

    That said, why would any gay person want to get their child baptised in a Church that does not recognise their relationship?

  18. My first reaction was one of sympathy for the parents which lasted all of about 2 seconds. These two women are complaining that a homophobic church they support is homophobic. If anything, these two are part of the problem. Anyone who funds the Anglican and Catholic church is funding homophobia. Seems to me they got what they’re paying for.

  19. BlokeToys 3 Sep 2013, 1:46pm

    1. Why would any sane LGBT person want to be associated with any of these religious groups? It still baffles me that after decades of abuse at the hands of the so-called “loving” religious they want to be a part of it. I just cannot imagine any sensible thought process that leads to this idea that becoming a part of that system is in any way beneficial.

    2. The person who wants a “big, lavish wedding” in a church seems more interested in their own selfish needs (I want!) than in the prospect of dedicating themselves to another for life. That’s not marriage, that’s a stage show.

    3. I would prefer, if I were inclined to marry, to have a simple ceremony officiated by someone who wanted to do it, in front of family and friends. It should be about celebrating the bond you have with another, not about belonging to a club, or putting on a show, or “sticking it to the religious” – however much I might personally enjoy that last prospect lol

    Much fuss about nothing.

  20. During the debate over same-sex marriage in Canada, a Roman Catholic archbishop said that the Church would not baptize any children of same-sex couples. There was a huge backlash, even from Catholics, and he had to hem and how and said he was misunderstood. They couldn’t baptize the children of gay and lesbian parents because they didn’t know how to enter them into the rolls. Sounds like this dimwitted vicar is using the same defense.

  21. religious people like these are runin’n it for the rest!

    http://getoffmydress.blogspot.com/2013/09/neurotica.html

  22. Sister Mary Clarence 3 Sep 2013, 4:58pm

    Taking a leaf out of the Bible – the bigoted tw@t should be nailed to a fvcking cross.

  23. Every church baptism register I have seen simply has space fir two names, the parents’s names. The vicar is inventing a reason for not performing the baptism. End of.

  24. johnny33308 3 Sep 2013, 8:08pm

    That’s right…dislike the parents and so of course you punish the innocent child! Typical KKKristian crap! They are deeply immoral, totally unethical and obviously irrelevant!

    1. Well what exactly will happen to the child if he doesn’t get baptised? The two mothers haven’t protested that they are ‘devout’ Christians – so it’s just a tradition thing for them – taking nice photos is all they really believe in. I reckon a lot of vicars get pissed off with people who just want to use their church as a pretty backdrop for facebook pics.

  25. Ian Bamling 9 Sep 2013, 11:38am

    The church should know better. New birth certificates for children with same sex parents simply state parent & parent. That is a legal binding document therefore the church should and can adopt the same method for registering a baptism.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all