Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

UKIP Northern Ireland candidate: ‘No government has the right to redefine marriage’

  • Rovex

    You can ‘believe’ what you like mate, it doesnt make it so.
    Religion redefined marriage in the first place, so I don’t see why a government cant now.

    • Jesus_Mohammed

      Alan Day:
      alan@midulsterukip.co.uk
      07763619172

      Tell him that governments have a responsibility to all of their citizens,

      that governments do have the right to redefine marriage,

      that many governments have, in fact, already exercised that right,

      and that he needs to drop his involvement in religious baloney and kick himself into the 21st century.

  • Bikerman

    Well clearly that’s nonsense. Governments all over the world are redefining marriage. What goes on in the Land of Nod over the water is not true democracy anyway. It is an arrangement attempting to govern the ungovernable.

  • RickoP

    If a government has the right to define marriage in the first place then they have the right to redefine it. Either they have the power to define marriage or they don’t, the definition is irrelevant. This guy’s position is totally incoherent.

    • Barry Scarfe

      You don’t expect a UKIP representative to have a coherent political position, do you? We are talking about a party led by a ‘pub bore’ here. Nigel Farage is quite simply, the ‘Al Murray of British politics’ who invents his party’s policies on a beer-stained mat whilst propping-up the bar in the local that he frequents so often. Although saying that, I find Al Murray to be a far better stand-up comedian.

      UKIP claim to be a libertarian party so, in reality, they should have been at the FOREFRONT of the campaign to make gay civil marriage legal. They weren’t though because this anti-gay marriage stance by them was motivated as a good way to get some cheap Tory votes.

  • David

    It’s convenient for people like this to forget Marriage has been redefined a few times already. For example these day women are no longer treated as property or breeding stock. Even marrying for love (rather than being arranged by families) is a modern invention.

    • JohnE

      When were women treated as “property or breeding stock”?

      • Derek Northcote

        Ephesians 5:23

        For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour.

        Ephesians 5:22

        Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

        And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out
        as the manservants do.

        Exodus 21:7-8

        If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power.

        Try reading books, its very enlightening.

        • JohnE

          What in those passages makes women “property and a breeding stock”?

          The analogy in the New Testament is that between Christ and his bride (the church). In biblical times, as today, husbands have more legal and financial obligations towards their wives than vice versa.

          You should read some commentary on the passages you quoted so you can understand them.

          • David H

            Much of the problem with many of these “commentaries” is that they change what is actually written to suit the perspective of the author (hence some of the very gay-friendly parts of the Bible are changed beyond all recognition).

            But if you’re ignoring Derek’s contributions to the discussion, how about these?

            Genesis 3:16
            Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
            in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee

            1 Corinthians 11:3
            But I would have you know,
            that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;
            and the head of Christ is God.

            Corinthians 3:18
            Wives, submit yourselves unto
            your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

            1 Peter 3:1

            Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

      • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

        If you read the Bible you will find a lot of things in there that directly attack and subjugate women. But then, most Christians don’t actually read their Bible, they just listen to the bullsh*t and nonsense their fellow radicals preach about gay people.

        • JohnE

          See my response above.

          The biblical relationship between husband and wife is derived from, and analogous to, the relationship between Christ and his bride (his church). It is not a relationship of attack or subjugation.

          • Truth

            Forgive me, but you are falling into the trap of dissecting and analysing an old novel. It’s a lot of made-up nonsense. To endlessly debate it as having any foundation in fact is giving it much more credence than it could ever deserve …..

      • Steven Gregory

        Women (and girls) are treated as chattel property in many nations today, and have no recourse: once their father makes a bargain, they become the marital property of their husband. These have been customs for centuries. In many situations in the Middle East, a man is allowed to have as many wives as he can afford, and his wives must serve his mother as well. Quite often girls are “cut,” their clitoris is chopped off so they cannot experience pleasure, which is believed to lead to fornication and adultery.

        Throughout Asia women are still submissive to men, even in modern businesses.

        In the United States women were not allowed to vote or own property, and laws against domestic violence didn’t exist until the 1970s, because it was a man’s right to keep order in his house.

        As for breeding stock, throughout scripture and modern “quiver full” doctrines, women are responsible for bringing forth children.

        Are you simply being argumentative?

  • lee

    He added: “Personally, I believe that marriage is constituted for the lifelong union of man and woman, for the procreation of children.

    Really, you need to visit NW London Mate thousand of unmarried single mums here, they seem unaware that you should be married in order to have kids – so if you don’t have children if you don’t produce children? la lal la la

    • Rehan

      He speaks of it being a ‘lifelong’ union but he isn’t campaigning to abolish divorce.

      At least … he isn’t, is he?

    • Barry Scarfe

      These nutters are not consistent in their views. If they were, they would campaign to ensure old couples in nursing homes who get married should be prevented from obtaining a marriage certificate. After all, whilst it is possible for a man to father a child at any age (provided his sperm is good enough and he can physically get it up her to be rather crude about this) a woman ceases to have child-bearing potential after a certain age.

      Also, should we ban young couples from marrying if they refuse to take a fertility test?

  • David Greensmith

    He’s entitled to believe that a marriage is between one man and one woman if he wants. He’s entitled to believe that there really is a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. He can believe it, but it doesn’t make it true. As for government not having the “right” to redefine marriage then he should be pleased that the 1971 Marriage Act – which redefined marriage by explicitly banning same sex marriage – has been struck down and the previous state, whereby same sex marriages are not illegal, as been restored.

    • susan596

      my Aunty Grace got a nearly new blue Kia by working part
      time from the internet. look at this now C­a­s­h­F­i­g­.­ℂ­o­m

    • Steven Gregory

      Why accommodate the one man/one woman position, when it has been a very recent development in the marriage game. The basis for such statements is religion. If they want it that way, then beef up the requirements for one man/one woman marriage to biblical standards:
      1. The woman must be a virgin on her wedding day. If she is not, she will be taken to the stairs of her father’s house and stoned.
      2. If the woman’s husband dies, she must marry his brother, regardless of whether he is already married.
      3. The man must provide for his family.
      4. The woman is to be submissive and if she tries to usurp authority over men, it is the duty of her husband to beat her into submission (the Bible’s rule, not mine)
      5. Divorce is permitted, but neither spouse may remarry while the other lives, that is adultery.

      Then we’ll see how sanctimonious people are about marriage.

  • Rehan

    Eh? A government is exactly what has the right to re/define marriage!

    • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

      No, he means that HIS specific brand of RELIGION should wield power.

      That’s ultimately what it comes down to, more religious nutters wanting to dictate rules to the rest of society.

      Hopefully, this crazy and all his UKIP buddies will all be told to to take a long walk off a short pier.

  • Halou

    Yet again, Northern Ireland is having to rely on the Republicans to bring them into line with the rest of the Union.

  • truthdare

    No religion has the right to define its beliefs of marriage as traditional.

    Typers of marriages and families have varied among times and cultures all the time in human history.

    How can a womanman-marriage, that has no children be marriage better than a same sex marriage that has children?

  • truthdare

    How can UKIP be defined as a party, while no such party have existed untill just some years ago.

  • Truth

    “No government has the right to redefine marriage” But religion, which represents an ever decreasing proportion of the population may hold a monopoly on the definition? Is that what you are saying? Oh FFS – grow up, do … and stop this silly, childish self-delusional religious claptrap.

  • Danny

    Marriage has been redefined over the centuries; maybe if you took time to close your mouth and do some reading of history, you would not appear to be so stupid.
    Oppps sorry, forgot for a moment you are after all a UKIP person, reading history is beyond your understanding.

  • Pete

    Look what happened to Cardinal O’Brien when he was shouting so much about marriage between a man and a woman…..Can’t wait to hear about Mr Closet case…..

  • Rehan

    In passing and on a superficial note, it’s actually a little alarming that Day’s clearly been restyled recently to look fresh-faced and sort of geeky-trendy, with his gelled quiff and stubble and all. Is there a danger that it might make his ludicrous Free Presbyterian nonsense seem less outdated and absurd to some people?

  • Jones

    Then who is? Don’t say something in the sky that can’t communicate with anyone or has no evidence of being.

    Marriage has been defined throughout the years by people. We’ve shaped it along the way in line with society. If you are going along with the argument that marriage can’t be changed why are we seeing interracial couples marrying and why aren’t we seeing a 13 year old girl marrying a 73 year old King?

  • TampaZeke

    I know the young dear won’t let facts get in the way of his argument but I’ll point one out anyway. Since civil marriages have ALWAYS been defined, AND REDEFINED (numerous times), by government, yes, yes they do have the right to redefine marriage.

    • rogervigier

      The involvement of one man and one woman has never been redefined.

      • TampaZeke

        Actually it has. Polygamy was the original “traditional marriage”.

        • Rehan

          Quite right, Or, to be even more precise, polygyny (in the vast majority of societies, since what was sauce for the gander was very much not sauce for the goose).

  • Brett Gibson

    So then are you going to nullify people’s marriages if they don’t have children? Will you make it law that these people HAVE to have children? Will infertile people not be able to get married.

    Marriage stopped being the concern of religion many years ago, so I think you’ll find, matey, that the government absolutely does have the right to redefine marriage (which is by far a legal commitment – you know law, which is written by the government?)

    Honestly it amazes me how absolute t*ssers like this even finish higher education let alone get a career in politics.

    • Aron Sasportas

      Governments all over the world have always redefined, according to changing ethnical norms. Think, for example, of the words “voter” and “citizen.”

  • Mihangel apYrs

    that good protestant king Henry did just that – changed it from one man and one woman for LIFE to a serial polygamy

    • Aron Sasportas

      @Mihangel apYrs. Quite right. Is it not reasonable to assume that if Henry VIII had not broken with Rome (over something as non-religious as his ardent desire to discard one wife after another), the United Kingdom would now be largely Roman Catholic (at least nominally)?

  • Aron Sasportas

    Although there are many, many good people in Northern Ireland, in general nothing rational should be expected of a region long dominated and still dominated by two fanatical religious groups the chief tenet of each of which is bitter hatred of the other. It is never possible to have a rational discussion with religious fanatics.

    Unfortunately, the many, many good people are still a small minority, so that nothing will change for decades, if not centuries. Northern Ireland is living in the thirteenth, not the twenty-first, century.

    Members of the sexual minorities in Northern Ireland, should have no illusions about how much change will occur in their lifetimes. They would do well to settle in Great Britain or, if the Republic of Ireland legalises same-gender civil marriage, in that country.

  • Steven Gregory

    The stupid politicians in the UK are echoing the stupid politicians in the US.
    They need to be questioned, their answers need to be picked apart, and their stupidity must be exposed for what it is.

    They have sound bites, not complete, thoughtful answers; which means they will become incredibly angry when questioned and examined.

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