Reader comments · UK: Judge who criticised equal marriage receives official warning over conduct · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UK: Judge who criticised equal marriage receives official warning over conduct

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “Sir Paul said … he had received wide support from other judges.”

    And what is stopping him from naming these ‘other judges’ ? I for one would like to know their names. It is impossible to have faith in the judiciary if they hold these sorts of discriminatory opinions.

    1. Exactly!
      A judge who thinks that only the interests of a majority should be served is not someone who can be trusted to meter out judgments in this country.

      If there are other judges who believe what this man believes then there should be a government investigation to seek them out and have them replaced.

      No person in such an important role should believe in that could potentially go against equality, fairness, the rule of law and the rights of the individual.

    2. Agreed.

  2. Simon Francis 19 Dec 2013, 12:17pm

    The whole response from the MoJ doesn’t go far enough. They reprimanded him over talking to the media about his views, not that his views could well prejudice any rulings he makes involving gay families.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2013, 1:37pm

      And to think the new MoJ, Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes would probably agree with this idiot, Coleridge. Hughes also believes that marriage is only for one man and one woman by voting against the marriage bill in third reading. A very bad choice picking someone with very partial views.

  3. Selective reasoning.
    It makes absolutely no difference whether a married couple is still together in the teen years of their kids if they fight every day and the kids are so depressed it affects the well-being of those kids.

    This man is like a fanatical preacher for an institution that has no real proven benefits over any other living arrangement. There is absolutely NOTHING to say that a married couple is better at raising their kids than a cohabiting couple. There is NOTHING to suggest that being married has any real impact on the lives of their children. There is NO evidence at all that being married affects the well-being of children in a positive way as opposed to cohabiting couples.

    His assertion that minority issues should not be given any attention is interesting. He seems to not realize that he lives in a democratic nation where equality and rights are delivered to all, remarkable for a “Judge”. He shouldn’t have been in that trusted position with views like that!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2013, 12:42pm

      Interestingly, he’s made no mention of widows or widowers with children but I’d assume he’d have to include these in his statement.

  4. I am a bit torn over this. People will always have their own opinions over certain issues. Whether they say them aloud or keep it hidden, people will always have their own beliefs over things – even judges! The fact that other judges apparently support him in this just goes to prove this.

    I just think that as long as they do their WORK in line with the laws and policies, there is no real issue here. He is entitled to his own opinion. I disagree with it, but he is entitled to it.

    1. That’s the problem though, their own opinions do affect their work.
      It’s about suitability for the role. Would you hire a person with right-wing fascist beliefs to organize children’s parties? Would you hire someone with known psychopathic tendencies to work in disability care? Would you hire someone who has no empathy to animals to work in a zoo?

      No, you wouldn’t, because they are not suitable for those roles based on their personal opinions and beliefs.

      This man is a judge, he is supposed to believe in equality, justice, impartiality, the rule of law and the rights of the individual. His job is to make decisions affecting people’s entire lives. He CANNOT be trusted in that role with views like these and neither can his closeted bigot colleagues.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2013, 12:49pm

      He is entitled to say what he wants but not when it is in conflict with his judicial responsibilities which apply to all who serve on the bench. Personal beliefs should remain outside of the workplace. Claiming he has wide support from other judges, how do we really know? We only have his work. The anti equal marriage haters aren’t prone to facts and rely on bogus, flawed research which has been debunked by the legitimate institutions around the world. That he mentions only 0.1% of the UK population are affected by the new legislation doesn’t hold water, a mendacious statement at best that can also be debunked. As a judge, it’s not in his bailiwick to make such an outrageous claim.

      1. Well said, Robert! “Io Saturnalia!” to you!

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Dec 2013, 12:40pm

    And of course, that ‘wide’ support of other judges is just hot air. If they were that supportive, why haven’t come to his defence and have the courage of their convictions to do so. Delusional C4M loon. In his view, cohabiting couples include those in Civil Partnerships since they aren’t married and he’s even expressed opposition to gay people adopting children in previous comments. Vile man. Now watch and wait for Christian Concern to start a tirade.

  6. Why I obviously don’t dismiss same sex marriage as unimportant, I don’t disagree about the importance of marriage for children, in that it helps longevity. Even though part of the statistical advantage is likely to be consequence not cause.

    But I don’t think a judge should be engaging in what is an essentially political argument, so I am glad someone slapped him on the wrist.

  7. Mumbo Jumbo 19 Dec 2013, 1:52pm

    “….Sir Paul said the decision was “disproportionate and unfair”, indicating that he had received wide support from other judges….”

    You got off lightly matey – try saying things like that about black people and see what happens. In the meantime, just lie back and enjoy the persecution – you know you love it.

  8. Wonderful to find an email addressed to me just now from Eileen Mannion, Senior Caseworker in the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office, advising that Coleridge has been disciplined. As I was reading it I expected excuses, but no, it’s true, he’s had his knuckles wrapped!

    We complained, and we won! Excellent!

    Have just been to The Daily Mail to vote down all the Disgusted and Disgruntleds who think this judge has been hard done by.

  9. Why the non-sequitur, I wonder?

    Earlier this month, Sir Paul announced that he will be retiring early claiming that the judiciary had ostracised him for his views on marriage…….

    ……..Sir Paul said the decision was “disproportionate and unfair”, indicating that he had received wide support from other judges

  10. I recall that he, in effect, helped the BBC with its Christmas 2012 campaign against marriage equality. This was from the lunchtime news on Boxing Day last year –

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.