June 17th, 2012

Happy Fathers Day: Gay Marriage and Divorce

The progressive chattering classes and David Cameron have got themselves worked up about gay marriage – though as many gays point out, they have already got the same rights via civil partnerships. The Equal Love Campaign says the combination of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 creates a system that segregates couples into two separate legal institutions, with different names but identical rights and responsibilities. It is not a matter of substance.

Where it seems to Guido the gay marriage campaigners have got it wrong is if they intend, as many suspect, to go on to legally force religious institutions to marry them contrary to the teachings of their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples. Legislation forcing people to do something against their faith seems to Guido to be a breach of human rights, not an extension.

Yet there is an almighty Lilliputian row going on over mere nomenclature. If people want to describe themselves as married, partnered, hitched, contracted or whatever, so be it. Live and let live. Hopefully it won’t go as far as Spain where the socialists have, in the name of equality, legislated so that birth certificates read “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B” instead of “father” and “mother”.   As a libertarian Guido isn’t convinced that the state should be in the marriage/partnering or birth certifying business in any event.

As it is Fathers Day it seems to Guido a good time to bring up a matter of sexual equality before the law that is a matter of substance – fathers and mothers should be entitled to a legally binding “presumption of shared parenting” after separation, whether it is a divorce or un-partnering. You don’t need to be a Fathers4Justice campaigner to see that the current presumption in favour of the mother is unjust. Where is the Campaign for Equality in Divorce?


  1. 1
    What? says:

    “Where it seems to Guido the gay marriage campaigners have got it wrong is if they intend, as many suspect, to go on to legally force religious institutions to marry them contrary to the teachings of their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples”

    Tosh, just want same right to be as misrable as straight couples. change *Gay* to black, french, Irish and your argument looks silly.

    • 2
      What? says:

      Oh and do churches get tax breaks?

      • 6
        Cato Street Conspirator says:

        I’m sure they store up their treasure in Heaven.

        • 7
          Bible Bashir says:

          Matthew 6:19-21

          19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

          20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

          21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

          • Who believes in fairies in the clouds says:

            Anyone know the winning lottery jackpot numbers for next weeK?
            Besides the 6, 19, 20, 21 above.

          • ooops its labour again...last one out take the lightbulb says:

            gay straight who gives a ….

        • 117
          UP SHIT CREEK says:

          Its just another reason for the State to monitor your thoughts and judge you in your own HOME. The State will manage your thoughts your mind and your actions. any one dissenting will be sent for re education at the appropriate prison facility. Welcome to the future. OH. Did any one work out how much this was going to Cost. ha ha ha ha

          • David Laws Lib Dem Fiddler says:

            Govt. has no right to change a religion. Politicians might think they are omnipotent, but most us think politicians are rotten to the core and the pervasive corruption at Westminster ought to be addressed long before spoilt boy boredom or any other side issue catches their eye.

            Clegg is an atheist, his view should be discounted as another fanatical idea along with mass immigration, making the UK part of a region for the pan European state to change British culture. Horrible little fanatical party needs to be wiped off the political agenda.

            When is Clegg and Co.-who hates the British culture- going to make compulsory changes to the Islamic faith??

    • 9
      Dave a word of advice. If it ain't broke, don't fix it says:

      Marriage is an institution between male and female, doesn’t matter where they come from. Civil partnerships give homosexuals the same legal rights as a married man and woman. there is no need to change things.

      I don’t see how a church can be forced to marry homosexuals though as with the exception of the wishy washy CoE a pastor will not marry non believing couples anyway and no one has ever challenged that.

      • 72
        Bleedin unnatural says:

        What about the religion of p8ace? Will they be forced to marry gays, or will they be allowed to do whatever they wish, as usual?

        • 87
          Common Sense says:

          The requirement for marriages to be consummated cannot be maintained under the gay marriage agenda.

          • CYNICAL OLD MAN says:

            Because of my job, I’ve known a number of gay couples over the past twenty years. These couples have been as “ordinary” as any married couple. The one feeling that was common to them all was that they absolutely DESPISED militant gay groups such as Stonewall. They thought that by being aggressively militant they brought much discredit and created rancour within the rest of society. These couples just wanted to be able to get on with their lives and get on with their neighbours.

            If they are representative of most gay couples then Cameron, Featherstone and the rest of the Metropolitan do-gooders are determined to foist something on many gay couple they haven’t asked for.

            The main problem with most Special Interest and Single Issue Groups is that they don’t want equality, they want to create SUPER-equals who have more privileges and rights than the rest of us.

            Stonewall will never be happy until they have imposed gay lifestyles on the rest of society. That’s why no government should give them a hearing as they’ll always want more.

          • johnnydee says:

            “they don’t want equality, they want to create SUPER-equals who have more privileges and rights than the rest of us.”

            In what way? Lobbying for equality has been translated by you to mean INequality – but in favour of the currently disfavoured group, who state they want the same rights as you. Huh?

            “Stonewall will never be happy until they have imposed gay lifestyles on the rest of society. ”

            Lifestyles? What? Do you mean better grooming and a tastefully decorated front room? Or do you mean ‘forced gay sex’? Are you serious? How can a ‘lifestyle’ be imposed, let alone sex you don’t want?

          • Anonymous says:

            johnnydee, you’re dissing other peoples beliefs man. Chill baby.

          • johnnydee says:

            Dissing – I don’t think I am – where? I am respectfully opposing another’s opinion. I haven’t seen a religious belief stated in this part of the thread. But there is a tad of sarcasm in my earlier comment, that’s allowed, right?

          • Anonymous says:

            You know perfectly well that if this is introduced, a) in principle it goes against what many in the church believe and b), that before too long someone will take this to the European Court of Human Rights. To deny that is to deny that the sun will come up tomorrow.

          • Anonymous says:

            no one can say that a legal challenge, if it comes (I agree it’s possible), will succeed. My personal view is people are, in a country of laws, permitted to go to court on grounds of their choice. I wouldn’t support forcing a church or mosque or other organisation to marry two gays. And I doubt that it would succeed anyway. If the law permits it, and enough of us disagree, we – in a democracy – should change the law. And if that means voting to leave human rights treaties and the EU and all that, then ok. If enough say so it will happen.

      • 98
        Anonymous says:

        “I don’t see how a church can be forced to marry homosexuals”

        But they can be forced to not marry anyone unless they also marry deviants.

        • 299
          Pickled Wizard says:

          Surely when the presiding minister asks ‘if anyone here knows of any just impediment….’ thats the time to say ‘yup, it just aint right!’

    • 35
      LiquidPaddy says:

      Well said, those performing marriage ceremonies are paid to do just that and *not* to judge who marries. Silly argument Guido, if Tories want to preach a ‘free market’ the same should apply to the social and not be tied up by this “imagined” family status that doesn’t really exist, families come in all shapes and sizes, ie they’re more complex entities than those who are against church marriages seem to admit, and conservative politics needs to recognise that fact and modernise accordingly. For those who are against performing a gay marriage in a church, it is worth noting that marrying gay couples does not make your religious belief any less valid.

      • 185
        bigot watch says:

        “it is worth noting that marrying gay couples does not make your religious belief any less valid.”

        Unless you believe that marriage was instituted by God for reproduction. I think you’d better take a course in what people actually do believe, y’know, just to show a bit of sensitivity and demonstrate that you actually know what you’re fucking talking about, instead of sprinkling your not so liberal beliefs all over this blog. BTW, the only thing you’ll reproduce by having someone’s dick shoved up your bum, is a sore arse.

        • 221
          Anonymous says:

          Good idea. Mandatory fertility tests for all those who wish to marry, and automatic annulments for any couple who have failed to produce offspring after 7 years of marriage. Can’t have the sterile freeloading on an institution that’s all about producing miore souls now can we.

    • 108
      knotreligoz says:

    • 279
      DiLDDO aka Dala'i Llama Ding Dong-Ommmmm says:

      That troughing chancer, the greasy oily smarmy wanker “lord” Coe – caught red handed – of course the MO will be





      The Olympics travesty, just like the world cup, is nothing but elite chancers troughing away like the pigs they are. Gaol the bastards.

    • 304
      Bull says:
  2. 3
    Cato Street Conspirator says:

    ‘As a libertarian Guido isn’t convinced that the state should be in the marriage/partnering or birth certifying business in any event.’

    An atheist amen to that – sound common sense.

    • 356
      Archie says:

      Has anyone else noticed the increasing frequency of “Comments are no longer being accepted for this article” in the likes of the DT, DM, ES and so on?

  3. 3
    nickleaton says:

    It’s interesting to work out what would happen if the state got out of the marriage business.

    The church could introduce a standard contract to its own liking. Enforceable in the civil courts.

    You could also have Marriage Ltd doing the same.

    The church contract would be ‘until death us do part’, with appropriate agreed penalties up front. I suspect many wouldn’t sign up to that, and they would end up with a watered down version.

    • 355
      Opt Out Of The State says:

      Good point this. There’s no reason why churches can’t just go ahead and create their own legal contracts. After all, our scum politicians create legal bodies above us in the the shape of their EU monster.

  4. 5
    Anonymous says:

    “Legislation forcing people to do something against their faith seems to Guido to be a breach of human rights, not an extension.”

    Aren’t churches public buildings, often with historical significance? Shouldn’t therefore the wider public have a say in how they are used? How about Gay Fridays?

    • 11
      Man Friday says:

      Are you having a go at me?

    • 184
      The Abbey says:

      No, many churches are not public buildings, they are private buildings which happen to allow the public, sometimes and on certain conditions, entry.

      There are plenty of cathedrals in England you can’t get into without paying an entry fee.

  5. 8
    MB. says:

    “Legislation forcing people to do something against their faith seems to Guido to be a breach of human rights, not an extension.”

    But surely only homosexuals are allowed to have “rights” as several owners of guest houses and others have discovered to their cost.

    • 73
      Bleedin unnatural says:

      + 100

    • 81
      Paul Scott says:

      You couldn’t be more wrong. Homosexuals have only ever asked for the same rights that everyone else enjoys automatically. It’s the reality that society (and the law) have DENIED homosexuals equal rights in the past, so that is the problem.

      • 298
        Anonymous says:

        You mean the right of peoples to have a belief system and to hold to that belief?

  6. 10
    Pundit Too says:

    OUR country is going to hell in a handcart and Cameron and the Limp Dims want to talk about gay / lesbian marriage.
    What next? – introduce wolves into the English countryside or freedom day for tortoises??? You could not make it up.

    • 14
      Kevin T says:

      I’d sooner introduce wolves into North London. They’d serve more purpose there.

      • 29
        True Blue says:

        But like Muslem wolves, yeah. With Thatcher masks?

      • 45
        genghiz the kahn says:

        Still only managed draws with The Gooners, and Spurs.

        Needed to beat them, if they wanted to stay up.

    • 160
      PFI King living in Monte Carlo says:

      You should know that this is just part of a slow long slide into third world status

      Post-Christian Britain has changed inexorably into a Post Civilised country

      Without a past and without a future

      Except as a haven for gouging oligarchs and minorities who abuse the country’s absence of real rule of law satisfy their own greed

      The only matters which hit the “headlines” are abusive oligarchs, wags and shags and fourth rate celebs…

      Says of all really

      God help those that are left

    • 314
      MB. says:

      It is worryingly reminiscent of the amount of time that BLiar spent on his fox hunting ban but at least that earned the Labour party a lot of money from the protest group. Not seen any of the homosexual pressure groups have given any money to the Conservatives.

  7. 12
    Þorgeir says:

    As usual, Guido doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    There is nothing in the proposed legislation to legally force religious institutions to marry them contrary to the teachings of their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples.

    On the contrary, the government wants to ban same-sex marriages even by those religions who want to perform them.

    • 17
      Kevin T says:

      The concern is that if gay and straight unions are both called marriages, existing anti-discrimination legislation would make it illegal for any institution, including a church, to refuse to perform a marriage because the couple was gay.

      I personally would sooner amend the anti-discrimination legislation than continue with the hypocrisy of calling gay marriages “unions” but the concern is valid.

    • 18
      Creep is the word. says:

      It’s known as creep. When civil partnerships which incidentaly give homosexuals the same legal rights as a man and woman marrige were brought in they said this would not lead to homosexual marriage. Just as they are now saying homosexual marriage will not lead to legal challenges to force the Church to conduct homosexual weddings.

      • 22
        Þorgeir says:

        The fact is that there’s nothing in the proposed legislation to legally force religious institutions to conduct same-sex marriages contrary to their teachings, nor are there any English or European precedents that would make such a move possible, nor have there been any demands for such a move.

        To claim anything else is just scaremongering without any factual base.

        • 95
          Trahison des Clercs says:

          Þorgeir says:

          The fact is that there’s nothing in the proposed legislation to legally force religious institutions to conduct same-sex marriages contrary to their teachings, nor are there any English or European precedents that would make such a move possible, nor have there been any demands for such a move.

          Really,what hole have you been squatting in for the past 50 years? Willful blindness; there’s no cure.

        • 191
          Abusing the Majority's Patience Means Curtains for Tolerance says:

          The fact is, many people, christians and from other religions, and even atheists, no longer believe the minority of gay people who claim there will be no more such demands will be made. The line has been reached. No further. Get over it.

    • 31

      Þorgeir where in the article does it say in the text that there is anything in the proposed legislation to legally force religious institutions to marry them?

      It doesn’t. Read it slowly.

      • 119
        Anonymous says:

        Or you could read what you have written slowly. It is certainly your implication that that is what could happen.

        “Where it seems to Guido the gay marriage campaigners have got it wrong is if they intend, as many suspect, to go on to legally force religious institutions to marry them contrary to the teachings of their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples. Legislation forcing people to do something against their faith seems to Guido to be a breach of human rights, not an extension.”

    • 63
      johnnydee says:

      This is absolutely true. The priests and imams and rabbis etc will not have to perform gay marriages.

      “Legislation forcing people to do something against their faith seems to Guido to be a breach of human rights, not an extension.”

      So, who will be forced to perform marriages? Only the registrars at County Hall [or wherever] – no-one else.

      Shame on you, Guido – as a Libertarian and one attached to the truth, why are you perpetrating this falsehood and allying against against freedom, equality and human rights?

      • 70
        The Sheikh Of Arabeee says:

        *Deep fucking breath*

        Read the fucking article again slowly, numbnuts.

        Then Google the phrase “mission creep”.

        Now do you fucking get it?

        • 74
          johnnydee says:

          Nice one.

          Can a Muslim get married in a Cathedral?
          Can a Catholic get married in a synagogue?

          No? Why is that then?

          Why has that not ‘crept’ in?

          • johnnydee says:
          • The Sheikh Of Arabeee says:

            *Bangs head on wall at ob-fucking-tuseness of dickheaded troll*

          • johnnydee says:

            the reply below this says “*Bangs head on wall at ob-fucking-tuseness of dickheaded troll*”

            In which ‘troll’ is defined as someone I disagree with, and refuse to engage in debate with, and am entitled to hurl insults at. I don’t think that’s won many debates.

          • creepy missions says:

            Precisely Sheikh, when civil unions were introduced, the church was assured that demands would go no further. Now look where we are.

          • Dobbie says:

            Bloody god botherers – fecking wake up!

          • bigot watch says:

            God botherers, eh? Fuck off bigot!

          • Anonymous says:

            I really fucking hate these lefty attack words used exclusively be wonks. Words like BIGOT, RACIST and FASCIST. Not everybody who disagrees with you is a fucking bigot.

            And if a gay couple want to get married in a church, that’s fine, if it’s in a church that wants to marry them. Otherwise, tough, the church has rights too.

          • bigot watch says:

            So somebody who calls a believer a god botherer is not a bigot, but if he he called them racist, fascist or indeed a bigot, he would be? Something wrong in your logic there, anonymong.

    • 149
      CYNICAL OLD MAN says:

      We’ve heard all these “guarantees” before from government ministers when introducing controversial legislation. Remember when Labour said the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act would only affect terrorist suspects? Then they allowed all kinds of official busybodies and council officers to use it.

      These guarantees are worthless. The Equalities Commission has made it known that they would bring court actions against churchmen who refuse to marry gay couples in their church.

      I’m speaking as an atheist, but if we let these militant special interest minority groups get their way every time they will ride roughshod over everyone else’s rights.

      It seems there’s no one looking after the rights of the majority in this country.

      • 187
        johnnydee says:

        “The Equalities Commission has made it known that they would bring court actions against churchmen who refuse to marry gay couples in their church.”

        Forgive my asking – but can you point me to this on the web, as I cant find it.

      • 194
        Hands Off Whatever Religion, or None, I happen to Believe in Today says:

        I agree

    • 316
      MB. says:

      There is nothing in the legislation but everyone knows that they will then try and get it forced on the churches in the courts.

      I wonder of some churches might even stop doing marriages rather than marry homosexuals just as the RC church pulled out being involved in adoption rather than be forced to be involved in homosexuals adopting children.

  8. 13
    annette curton says:

    What an idiot Cameron is, any chance of another ‘u’ turn?, next Tatchell project will be Gay marriages in Mosques, could be interesting for all the wrong reasons.

    • 15
      Anonymous says:

      “Gay marriages in Mosques”

      Give it ~10 years?

      • 27
        Gayslims says:

        I think they are already preparing themselves for this in the mosques. I saw a photo of Finsbury Park mosque where a few hundred men dressed in skirts were down on all fours with their bums up in the air in the receptive position.

        • 64
          Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

          Are you sure you didn’t wander into social night at a party conference?

      • 40
        Kevin T says:

        And over how many dead bodies will that happen? Literally.

        • 252
          Anonymous says:

          Yeah, I’d like to see them fucking try. As for the COE, well we’ve seen them roll over many times before, and they’re surprised that the gays are trying it on again? Knobs.

  9. 16
    Matt Davies says:

    If the state legislates differently for gays and straights, it might be seen as condoning bigots who say one is less acceptable than the other.

    European court should take freedom of religion into account so proposed protection for churches will survive. But wrong not to let them marry if they wish.

  10. 19
    Allah says No says:

    All it needs is the muslem community to take a stand against this and the BBC will immediately support them along with their Guardianista sub branch.

    • 32
      Backwoodsman says:

      Have to wonder about the credulity of the professional gayers. Didn’t say a dickie boo when labour let 2 million plus mussie nutters into the country, all of whom believe gays should have their nobs cut off before being hanged. Now they’re having a hissy fit over being able to walk down the aisle in white.

      • 104
        Anonymous says:

        Not quite true.

        Musselmen have always been up for a bit of man love (- just read Casanova) so long as no-one mentions it.

        Comes of not having open (geddit) access to women, other than on slaving and raping expeditions into Christendom and Blackland.

        • 267
          Anonymous says:

          Just don’t get caught in the act, eh? BTW, the Rochdale 9 had plenty of access to minors.

  11. 20
    Harold Hill says:

    The problem is that the ECHR makes a ‘reasonable compromise’ impossible. As soon as gay civil marriage is introduced-which I have no problem with at all-there will inevitably be a gay couple who seek to be married in a church. They will be refused. There will then be a court case first in an English court and then in the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the couple’s exclusion from religious marriage is discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. The gay couple will win as this is clearly discrimination under the terms of the ECHR.

    In debating this issue people should remember that it is the ECHR that is the problem here. Not gay people or Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. If we were not signed up to it gay people would be able to have Civil weddings and straight /Religious people could preserve faith based man/woman weddings.

  12. 21
    Fish says:

    The Lib Dems are poisoning this well, also.

    They need to get back in their box and realise that their meagre 15% of the coalition MPs does not give them an automatic veto / right to impose everything they wish.

    Our Nuclear deterent will be the next thing that they think their tiny voice will give them the whip hand over.

  13. 23
    Harold Hill says:

    The problem is that the ECHR makes a ‘reasonable compromise’ whereby gay people can have civil weddings and religious ceremonies remain between men and women impossible.

    There will be a test case and the church concerned will lose.

    • 37
      Kevin T says:

      It’s Hattie Harman’s anti-discrimination legislation that would be used. If all unions were called marriages, you could no sooner refuse to marry a couple because they were gay than you could refuse to let them adopt a child or give them a room in your guest house. Religions weren’t allowed to opt out of gay adoption and Christian charities closed over it. Those saying churches could still opt out of marrying gay couples are either lying or ignorant.

    • 53
      Happy Father's Gay says:

      Will the Church disestablish then?

      • 229
        Cold and lonely, tired and bored says:

        What about the caffliks? Or the Methodists? The Assemblies of God.etc, etc?

        Didn’t really think about it properly, did you?

  14. 24
    annette curton says:

    • 26
      True Blue says:

      OMG! Of course that happens in Peru! It’s a Lib Dem Muslem country with no nukes! See what happens when you give up your nukes! Thatcher must be spinning in her grave!

    • 50
      Terrible But True says:

      Of course, Dr. Venkman had a view…

      As to the Spanish ‘solution’… “Hopefully it won’t go as far as Spain where the socialists have, in the name of equality, legislated so that birth certificates read “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B” instead of “father” and “mother”…. I am not sure this really gets round much, as I’m pretty sure we’d soon have a a well-staffed set of charities and quangos to fill out the BBC Breakfast sofa on the horrors of ‘B’ism’.

      Then again…


      Which explains much.

      • 62
        Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

        I believe we Brits have also adapted to new circumstances. Apparently the birth certificate for any baby born within 10 miles of Kensington defaults the fathers name to Boris Johnson unless corrected.

        • 82
          Bleedin unnatural says:

          Well Tristram, McDoom’s name will never be on any birth certificates. He’s g&y isn’t he, along with 3/4 of the Labour party.

        • 123
          Tolly Poynbee says:

          How many illegitimate (oops – are you still allowed to say that now without being arrested?) sprogs has Livingstone got?

    • 166
      aaaaaaah says:

  15. 28
    SDP Conference Goer says:

    Disestablish the Church of England.
    Make marriage a civil ceremony only (individuals can choose to have any additional religious ‘blessing’ if they so choose).
    Job done.

    • 41
      Paul Scott says:

      100% correct (post 27). Simple, and effective.

    • 201
      Jeepers Creepers says:

      It won’t solve the problem. There are plenty of idiots about who then will try to litigate to force parishes which don’t want to perform gay marriages to do so against their will.

    • 218
      HM Elizabeth II R says:

      Disestablish the Church, and what have I got left? Bloody Republican!

  16. 33
    Paul Scott says:

    Of course gay couples should have the same right of CIVIL marriage as straight couples, even Eric Pickles agrees with that! The present situation of having the same rights, but having to call it something different (civil partnership, not marriage) is ludicrous & insulting – and entrenches the attitude that gay couples are somehow inferior, second class citizens. It’s just the same as allowing blacks to travel on the same bus, but only if they sit at the back in a separate designated area! The principle is exactly the same. And it’s morally wrong.

    I fully support gay marriage equality for CIVIL marriages, however I agree that Churches should be able to do what they want, and that right protected in the law. Because religious wedding is a separate & private matter for the churches to determine their own stance on.

    The argument goes that if we allow Civil gay marriage, then under human rights laws, campaigners will challenge the ban on gay marriage in churches. However, nobody has ever challenged the law by trying to have a civil partnership in a church, have they? And surely this is an argument for repealing or modifying the law on human rights itself (which is the problem area), and we should not allow human rights law to effectively be a barrier to civil marriage equality.

    In 20 years’ time people will be amazed that gay people were NOT allowed to get married. So I know who is on the right side of history.

    • 327
      Baroness Waziristan of Dewsbury says:

      The rise of Islam and the imposition of Sharia Law will swiftly put an end to all of this silly public schoolboy nonsense.

  17. 34
    Lord bumwatch says:

    Get out of Europe now!

  18. 38
    Anonymous says:

    Guido is apparently a libertarian, unsure whether the state should be involved in marriage or the family at all, but he nonetheless asserts that only straight people should be allowed to marry or parent children. An odd brand of libertarianism indeed.

    Nobody wants to force any religious organisation to perform marriages. I’m fairly sure that nobody in Spain has taken the Catholic Church to court for refusing to marry gay people.

    Out of curiosity, I looked up the word ‘progenitor’ in the Oxford Spanish dictionary. The equivalent in English? ‘Mother’ or ‘father’. I could go further into the differences between the two languages, but then I’d be pandering to those who are want to sentimentalise a legal document.

    • 44
      Fax says:

      You used a poor quality Spanish dictionary. The translation of “progenitor” in Spanish is “progenitor” in English.

      • 51
        Anonymous says:

        The Oxford language dictionaries tend to be quite highly regarded. As I said above though, the meaning of the word is beside the point.

    • 59
      Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

      The lack of court action is, of course, because of the outstanding practical demonstration of support for gay marriage shown by many of its priests. True elsewhere as well. As Guido will know it is an oft-quoted remark in Ireland that Europes most conservative country has its most thriving gay community and that it is just a shame that it is called the church.

      • 84
        Bleedin unnatural says:

        Well Tris dear man, we all know you lefties only worship filthy lucre.

        • 186
          Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

          Personally I prefer clean lucre, but rather filthy than a leftie.

  19. 39
    Ed Miliband (Leader of the Party opposite) says:

    I will make a manifesto pledge to introduce Equal Rights For Married Men

    • 57
      Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

      But draw the line at extending such rights to other family members such as brothers.

  20. 43
    David Cameron says:

    I will congratulate the new President of Greece,Alexsis Tsiprias,in due course.

    Tally Ho !

    • 47
      annette curton says:

      Is that the guy who scored the goal against Russia? (they all sound like mezzas to me).

  21. 46
    Stobrith says:

    I have often wondered about the T.U.C. in all this.
    “Congress” (in Karma Sutra terms) is exactly the same as “Union” in other spheres.
    So could we see all sorts of thing in the near future.

    • 49
      Engineer says:

      How does the ‘trade’ come into this?

      (Maybe best not to answer that….)

      • 52
        annette curton says:

        No problem, it must refer back to the time when having a trade meant an artisan who after undergoing an apprenticeship of several years was acknowledged as being competent when performing in the workplace, so no, it doesn’t come into it.

    • 99
      Lou Scannon says:

      TUC headquarters should be housed a condominium.

  22. 48
    Engineer says:

    Three things.

    First, I haven’t heard a long campaign by gays demanding marriage in the lead up to this proposal. So this proposed legislation doesn’t really seem to be addressing a pressing social wrong – civil partnerships did that.

    Second – for me, and I suspect for many people, marriage is a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting and raising children, in socially stable circumstances. As there can be no issue from a gay marriage, it’s by definition pointless. I recognise that some gay campaigners will disagree with me; they are entitled to their opinion. However, I’m sticking with mine. I’m not anti-gay, but I am pro the institution of marriage being about stable families.

    Thirdly, the country has very serious economic problems. Government should be addressing those, not getting side-tracked into what is, by comparison, trivia.

    • 55
      Synic says:

      Absolutely correct on all three points.
      Engineers would make a much better job of running the country than the PC Westminster Village Wasters

      • 67
        johnnydee says:

        “…marriage is a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting and raising children, in socially stable circumstances.”

        No, it’s not.

        A possibly incomplete list of the classes of people who may marry:
        - heterosexual couples who are fertile, and wish to procreate, foster or adopt;
        - heterosexual couples who are fertile, and don’t wish to procreate, foster or adopt;
        - heterosexual couples who are infertile, and wish to procreate with technological help;
        - heterosexual couples who are infertile, and do not wish to procreate, foster or adopt;
        - a mixed homosexual/heterosexual couple, who may or may not wish or intend to procreate.

        Only one of those classes meets your definition.

        So if there are several classes of marriageable people who can marry without the intention of procreation, why not add one more:
        - homosexual couple who may or may not wish to procreate with technological help?

        • 68
          johnnydee says:

          And of course they may want to foster or adopt, too.

          • Engineer says:

            You’re entitled to your opinion.

            I’m sticking with mine.

          • johnnydee says:

            Respectfully, we’ll both be sticking to our opinions then. And after that, the facts remain as I put them above: you don’t need an intention to procreate in order to legally and religiously marry.

          • Engineer says:

            The purpose of marriage is to provide a socially stable environment in which a man and a woman come together to beget and raise children. That some marriages do not subsequentlly result in children is immaterial – the purpose of the institution remains unchanged.

            As two homosexual people cannot beget children, their marriage is pointless. The institution of civil partnership does protect their legal rights in all other ways, as I understand it. If that does not hold good in other countries, then it is a matter for those countries.

    • 86
      Bleedin unnatural says:


  23. 54
    Osama the Nazarene says:


    Apparently gays want marriage because in other countries civil partnerships are not recognised and the civil partner is not allowed as next of kin at partner’s hospital bed, for instance.

    I fail to see why civil partnerships should only apply to couples of same sex. Why shouldn’t my son and his girlfriend not go through a civil partnership when they don’t believe in any god but want legal rights for each other and possible future progeny.

    Agree with guido that argument about marriage is argument about nomenclature.

    • 71
      johnnydee says:

      “Why shouldn’t my son and his girlfriend not go through a civil partnership when they don’t believe in any god but want legal rights for each other and possible future progeny?”

      Well, if there is no substantial difference between CP & marriage [ as many here opposed to equal marriage state], what would you say to them if they suggest a registry office wedding?

      • 206
        Jeepers Creepers says:

        Exactly. There is no compulsory religion involved in a registry office wedding.

        • 273
          Osama the Nazarene says:

          …but why not a Civil Partnership, why have that privilege exclusively for gay people?

          It has the advantage that it leaves the “head of a pin” arguments about marriage to the religious and homosexual and does not carry any of the marriage “baggage” with it.

          • Anonymous says:

            Privilege is it now? I thought it was a sop to the militant gayers. Whoever thought 10 years ago that this would be an argument.

  24. 56
    Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

    Regardless of the merits of the arguments it does seem odd that the Church would object to conducting gay marriages when its own clergy could benefit more than almost any other group.

    • 92
      Bleedin unnatural says:

      P*ss off (please excuse my rude reply, but I believe you are either Jack – my father was a conchie – Straw OR that detestable tub of shyte known as Twatson).

      • 190
        Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

        Nah, just someone with an independent mind – admittedly a rarity here. I actually spent many happy hours opposing Straw and as for Watson, if he can erg 2k in 7:30 then I may be him.

    • 106
      Homo sapiens (geddit?) says:

      .. the second largest group being politicians?

  25. 58
    PC is bxllshxt says:

    Why do gays keep pushing their lifestyle and demands? They are a pain in the axse.

    • 94
      Bleedin unnatural says:

      Well PC, once you start giving ground………………………!!

      • 271
        delroy says:

        They’re like any other type of bitch, they need a good slapping down every now and again, and they’re a lot better for it.

  26. 60
    MAD FRANKIE HADDOCK son of COD says:

    The country is fucked and this is all Spineless Dave can come up with to deflect attention away from our bankrupt country

    Don’t they get enough rings ?

  27. 65
    Ed Miliband (Leader of the Party opposite) says:

    I have telephoned Comrade Alexsis Tsipras of the Syriza party to congratulate him on his landslide victory in Greece.

  28. 66
    Khazarian Khast Lead says:

    Perhaps, if CaMoron could persuade our buddies in the Islamic World that beheading shirt lifters is not very nice, that would be a better way of spending parliaments time and tax payers money.

  29. 77
    P.Mandevilson, the Eminence Greasy says:

    The government shouldn’t stop until we make gay marriage compulsory. Heterosexuality is sooo over-rated.

  30. 79
    old grumpy says:

    A very thoughtful blog!

    The issue goes well beyond the rights of Gays (not allowed to call ‘em Homosexuals any more). It impinges on INTERNATIONAL LAW as well.

    What most people do not understand is that MARRIAGE is not only a contract between consenting men and women, but a contract concerning the rights of any offspring………. and THAT is the International Legal bit! If you try to marry overseas, the INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT on MARRIAGE comes into full play…… You have to satisfy the particular agreements as to legality, between the UK and the country in which you wish to marry!

    I found this out, when marrying Maw. Because of residential requirements, the very senior CofE clergyman, who was detailed to handle our request, suggested we went away for a honetmoon and then come back and “make her an honest woman”! That would make things much easier for everybody, not the least the host country.

    We didn’t have time to do that,so we were married by Royal Warrant, to ensure the RIGHTS OF OUR OFFSPRING! The Royal Warrant preserved their possible rights in the host country, while guaranteeing their rights in the UK………. all very complicated………

    This sort of legislation holds for the rights of adopted children as well. Separate legal arrangements have to be made, if adoptive parents wish to ensure the childrens’ inheritance rights.


    Thus we arrive at the cosy arrangement for the convenience of Gays………. who cannot reproduce through normal processes. Their chosen “offspring” are ALWAYS subject to the legislation mentioned………..

    SO! What is to be gained from Gay Marriage Legislation?……….. apart from the TWEE assertion, “We are married!”

    Well there is one gain. IT PUTS GAYS ONE UP ON HETEROS! Heteros do not have a statutory right to marriage in a religious ceremony! That is within the GIFT of the encumbent priest, or equivalent! This proposed legislation will not only unbalance current legal process, but it will disadvantage the majority in Law.

    Tonhold that the proposed legislation will not result in challenges in the ECHR is arrant foolishness. The Gay Militant Tendency will take the matter there as quickly as they can. We only have to think back to the Government pronouncements concerning Civil Partnerships. We were assured the matter would go no further! YET HERE WE ARE WITH CAMBO TAKING THE DAMNED THING FURTHER!
    ………and the adoptees will still require separate legal settlements of inheritance rights………

  31. 83
    T.B£iar - the People's Messiah says:

    I have saved the Middle East, now I will save Europe.

    • 96
      annette curton says:

      Methinks Mr Blair’s grand plan is another $250,000 + grand a speech grand plan, his co-partner in crime Brown won’t like that, his last gig was at Darby and Joan club in Paisley and this is the Saviour of the world. Anyway Tony, How is p8ace in the middle east coming on, you are that envoy are you not?…sorry cheap jibe, How is the salary at Goldman-Sachs coming along?.

      • 116
        Pesident Blair says:

        His interview ended with blair NOT denying that he was positioning himself to be the president of Europe. It is not by chance that he is now making waves, he can see an opportunity here and unlike David Miliband he has the bottle to carry it out. It is to this end that he does not want Britain to be a Switzerland as he then would have no chance of being El presidento Blair.

    • 179
      Aunty Matter says:

      Because grand plans are Stalinist and what you expect from a murdering left wing c u n t like Bliar.

      Labour along with the Guardian and BBC pumped out these 5 year tractor plans on a regular basis.

  32. 90
    NewsTripe says:

    I think this is just a means for the government to rid itself of its anti gay label and realises that the pink vote is worth pursuing. It is gay campaigners who want to challenge the rigid heterosexist ideology of religious institutions and campaigning for gay marriage rights is the only means that these institutions can be challenged. Pure and simple.

    • 101
      johnnydee says:

      “It is gay campaigners who want to challenge the rigid heterosexist ideology of religious institutions and campaigning for gay marriage rights is the only means that these institutions can be challenged. Pure and simple.”

      Well, yes – and that nice Mr Cameron, many on the front benches and most of the Lib Dems, Labour, the nationalists [maybe not all of them]…

      The truth is not always that simple. If 3-5% of us are gay or lesbian, and only a fraction of that are campaigners, then how come this is likely to be passed in the HoC?

      Maybe because the logic of the argument is clear, and equality is coming because it’s overdue.

      • 112
        Homo sapiens (geddit?) says:

        Johnny, you should change your name to Pandora!

        • 288
          Anonymous says:

          That’s what he calls himself when he minces up Old Compton St no doubt.

      • 130
        Anonymous says:

        “If 3-5% of us are gay or lesbian, and only a fraction of that are campaigners, then how come this is likely to be passed in the HoC?”

        IT comes from the HoC overflowing with deviants.

        • 178
          Aunty Matter says:

          The number of gays in the population is about 0.1%, where the BBC get this 10% from is beyond me.

          I guess if you visit the public toilets in west London on a Friday night 100% of the men there are gayers, but that doesn’t mean that represents society, except in the world of the BBC.

          20% of men are left handed, but the BBC doesn’t give them a regular voice on the BBC.

          • Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

            I believe the Beeb noted the Ron Davies saga, conducted a poll asking who likes to watch badgers and added 2+2 to make 5.

          • Legal Crook says:

            The 10% comes from the 1948 Kinsey report. I agree the number is about 0.2 – 0.1%, when the politicians realised that the 10% number is completely wrong; they may not pander to such a small voting minority of the population.

          • Legal Crook says:

            Correction: sorry should read 1-2% of the population.

    • 110
      The Paragnostic says:

      In case you hadn’t noticed, Nature (or perhaps Dog, if you’re of the credulous type) has made male and female forms of most species of animal. To call a doctrine that recognises this fact “heterosexist” is like calling the laws of physics “massist” because of gravity.

      For my part, I regard all religions as silly, and all gay rights campaigners as unnatural weirdos. But the churches / mosques / synagogues are right when they maintain that marriage is a union between man and woman for the purpose of producing children.

      The gayers have their civil partnerships, and if these are not recognised abroad, then it should be foreign governments they seek to influence, not ours.

      • 135
        johnnydee says:

        Many species of animal have ‘gay’ male & female couplings, some life long.

        None have marriage and none appear to have churches either.

        All the gays [is 'gayers' a local term? For local people?] I know were conceived by straight people, and the overwhelming majority were raised in straight married families.

        All perfectly natural. Because being gay is natural. It is something only the bravest and most fool hardy would make an informed choice about: when did you make your choice?

        • 180
          The Paragnostic says:

          If by ‘natural’ you mean ‘the product of hormonal imbalance during gestation’, you may have a point.

          That doesn’t mean that a social institution created for the purpose of the begetting of children should be altered to accommodate those who are so blighted, no matter how loud they shout.

          As I said, if the purpose of the change in the law is to simplify life for gay couples when overseas, then it is not our law that needs to change, but that of the countries concerned – let the shouty types campaign for their rights there rather than needlessly upset the apple cart at home.

          • Another Engineer says:

            I’m nоt surе whеthеr іt іs pаrtly gеnеtіc оr purеly hоrmоnаl cоndіtіоnіng but іt іs clеаrly “nаturаl” іn sоmе sеnsе.

            Althоugh thе prоpоrtіоn іn thе pоpulаtіоn іs prоbаbly nоwhеrе nеаr thе 10% fіgurе quоtеd (thаt sееms tо bе а hаngоvеr frоm Kіnsеy), thеrе іs pеrhаps аn еvоlutіоnаry аdvаntаgе іn sоmе cіrcumstаncеs іn hаvіng а gаy brоthеr оr sіstеr tо hеlp lооk аftеr yоur оffsprіng.

            Thіs wоuld аlsо bе іmplіеd by thе fаct thаt bіrth оrdеr іs а vеry strоng prеdіctоr оf thе lіkеlіhооd оf bеіng gаy – fоr еxаmplе еаch оldеr brоthеr а mаlе chіld hаs іncrеаsеs thе оdds оf hіm bеіng gаy by аpprоxіmаtеly оnе thіrd.

            As fоr gаy mаrrіаgе – I dоn’t cаrе rеаlly. Equаl trеаtmеnt undеr thе lаw іs fіnе, sо I dоn’t sее thе pоіnt іn hаvіng cіvіl pаrtnеrshіps dіffеrеntіаtеd frоm cіvіl mаrrіаgе. If pеоplе wаnt tо gеt mаrrіеd “prоpеrly” (I cеrtаіnly dіdn’t) іn church thеn thаt’s bеtwееn thеm аnd thе church аnd nоthіng tо dо wіth thе stаtе.

          • Osama the Nazarene says:

            Agreed Alternative Engineer but then civil partnerships should be available for hetrosexual couples.

          • Another Engineer says:

            Yes – a civil marriage is just a civil partnership by another name, so the distinction is pointless.

            A church wedding is obviously different but should be meaningless to the state.

            That does imply the Head Druid should not be part of the state, of course.

  33. 91
    Ed Balls - Shallow Chancer says:

    Britain’s debt went ballistic round about the year 2000. Remind me, who was ruining running the Country then ??

    • 175
      BBC Newsroom lefties says:

      The Tories, Labour were never in power, we’re going to run a series with Robert Peston called “Tory scum the lost year 97-2010)

      Then we’ve got ‘Horrible Histories” called “Thatcher is a bitch and she ruined the economy between 97 and 2010)

      Then Nick Robinson will remind you proles every night that Gordon Brown was only shadow chancellor for 10 years and was never Prime Mentalist.

      The BBC tells the truth, so shut up and pay up.

      • 195
        Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

        I take your point. I never did believe that Beeb story this morning saying the Daily Mail was lying about Leveson threatening to resign over Gove.

  34. 97
    Vacant Possession says:

    It is the doctrine and specifically the bible which sets the agenda for the Church, so simples! Rewrite the bible and we can have the Authorized Prime Minister Cameron Version and the Gospel according to Clegg.

    Whilst we are at it, we could start the Church of Liberation and Social Democracy, with the above bible at its core.

    Wham bam, gays could be married in a church unencumbered by two thousand years of doctrine.

    Perhaps we could use Tolleys Tax guides as a starting point for the bible, with a little Peter Tatchell thrown in for good ‘liberal’ measure?

    • 162
      CYNICAL OLD MAN says:

      I can’t imagine any of the world’s organised religions condoning the practice of using the body’s waste disposal system as a sexual playground. Even when they legalised homosexuality in this country, sodomising a female remained a criminal offence that could get you a life sentence and remained that way for years.

      I may be a bit of a dinosaur but I couldn’t bring myself to stick my member up the posterior of either sex.

      • 171
        johnnydee says:

        All true, of course.

        I seem to remember that oral sex comes into some vague definitions of ‘sodomy’, and that was also policed back in the day [most recently in the . But most virile young men would not want the law or the Church to ban them getting the odd hummer off their WAGs, eh?

        And it’s also true – judging by the frequent reference to it by some of my mates – that male-to-female *n*l sex is also quite desired these days.

        I know it’s maybe not for all of us, but is it up to the guys in cassocks to tell us what to do in bed, as long as we consent?

        • 197
          Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

          I think you mispelt Hassocks and why are you accusing the poor Sussex gentry of imposing their beliefs? They normally restrict these activities to a Friday night in the local barn.

          • delroy says:

            I think johnnyetta is getting his knickers in a twist bless him. Just let him rant on here for a bit and he’ll calm down after a good wank later.

        • 337
          CYNICAL OLD MAN says:

          Wrong, Johnnyboy. Oral sex has NEVER been legislated against. Sodomising females was specifically mentioned in the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 and continued to be an offence well into the 1980s.

          • Anonymous says:

            you’re are right of course, in one sense: it has ever been illegal if one partner was female. Under the 1885 Act, oral was illegal for men x men. Lesbians, of course, we’re not referred to and so immune to penalty. The ‘gayers’ were of treated equally.

  35. 102
    The Paragnostic says:

    As a straight atheist, I have no dog in this fight.

    As a renowned bigot, may I just say that anything that upsets the likes of Sen Bummerskill or any of the hordes of other sodomites must be OK.

    Therefore I agree with Guido, even if he is a fat Fenian.

    • 138
      Bleedin unnatural says:

      My comment has disappe.&red altogether! All I said was …..it should be “exit only” tat00d on folk’s ars,,e,,s. Bet this doesn’t get through either. By the way cesspit, you are absolutely right.

    • 198
      Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

      Respect. Insulting the overweight and Fenians in the same sentence…..

    • 209
      Anonymous says:

      The good book gives clear practical advice of whats permitted -

      Matthew 19:19 – “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”

      love thyself is clearly ‘spanking the monkey’ and its ok with your neighbour as long as you don’t go to the tango stuff.

      • 296
        nellnewman says:

        Personally I prefer Corinthians 1:13

        4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

        8 Love never fails.

  36. 103
    The Tony Blair Faith Foundation says:

    I lowered the age of consent for gayer sex to 16, opened the floodgates to third world immigration and invaded Iraq at the behest of George W Bush. Please consider donating to my foundation. God bless you (Whatever you believe Him/Her/It to be).


    • 173
      Aunty Matter says:

      But don’t forget the Guardian wants the age of consent to be lowered to 12 (nice tight arses for pervy men to enjoy) and eventually abolished.

      • 193
        johnnydee says:

        and that is so fantastically untrue, as you know. Why bother posting outrageous lies?

        • 199
          Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

          You really have not grasped the purpose of this site, have you?

          • Anonymous says:

            i was labouring under the assumption that Guido wanted us to comment on the topic. Oh how naive I was. I could join in with slurs n misrepresentations n fantasies but that’s not me. I assume good faith it maybe I shouldn’t. Oh well. I’ll read the blog and try to remember – don’t expect intelligent commentary below the fold :(

          • johnnydee says:

            Sorry – that was me from my phone.

            No-one actively guides these threads, so I guess if i hang around, the unwritten rules will become clearer. But if you search this thread for ‘chill’ and also for ‘dickhead’, you’ll see that it is hard to work out the boundaries. In one moment I am sworn at, another I am told to shut up & respect when I can see no disrespect. Ho-hum.

          • Anonymous says:

            johnny, just STFU will you, you’re boring us.

        • 208
          Aunty Matter says:

          “…The age of consent has been set at 16 for the past century. Now, the Government wants to tighten the law. In this provocative and personal argument Miranda Sawyer says the Home Office is wrong: it would be better for everyone if we lowered the age to 12…”


          By the way plenty of other ‘approvers’ from the Guardian also promoting the lowering of the age of consent,

          • Anonymous says:

            Not a total surprise from the shirt lifters at the Guardian.

          • Marmite says:

            When do ‘children’ stop becoming children then? If they lower the age any further to molify these “beings”, we might as well do away with childhood altogether.
            What has this country come to, ffs.

  37. 105
    Freedom of Speech? says:
  38. 108
    johnnydee says:

    It seems to me that most readers here are no more likely to be attenders of a church, or believers than the UK average [somewhat less than 25%? I am not sure of the figures].

    So I ask in all honesty – why are you defending the Christian position on traditional marriage? Do you also condemn divorce as Jesus did? Which parts of the Bible do you hold fast to, and which do you reject?

    • 121
      Pope 1 says:

      None: The Bible is a fairy story story for people who refuse to grow up.
      Take some time out to suspend your parent’s beliefs and educate yourself.
      It took me about 5 years before I saw the light.

      Religion is a curse on progress, and until humanity realises this we will continue to fight and flounder.

      • 133
        Anonymous says:

        A fairy story that embodies universal truths and immense wisdom.

        Stone the gayers!

      • 134
        jgm2 says:

        You’re right of course. But the problem is that when you remove one set of faith-based idiocies it won’t be long before another pops up to fill the gap. Sadly, for the past century, that has been socialism and its faith-based idiocies.

        Look at the mass killings committed in the name of the Socialist religion. Hundreds of millions. But its adherents still believe it’s a force for good. No better than the religion of pea*ce.

    • 158
      CYNICAL OLD MAN says:

      We are probably defending the church, Johnnie boy, because we believe in freedom of choice and do not want to live under the cosh of bigoted and intolerant militant gays.

      No doubt you’ll call me a homophobe in an attempt to close down the discussion and if you do, I’ll just call you a gay fascist.

      • 176
        johnnydee says:

        Why would I do that – I haven’t done that here, why make that assumption?

        It’s ironic that you defend something on the grounds of freedom of choice, but in the same breath deny that choice to gays who wish to marry.

        And there’s a well known phenomenon called queer-bashing, but no recorded instances of straight-bashing by gay gangs, so the cosh has not recently been in the hand of those you fear so much. Quite the reverse, it seems.

        • 292
          Anonymous says:

          If the churches don’t want to marry gays, and they are forced to do it by The European Court of Human Rights, that’s not exercising freedom of choice, that’s coercion by any other name.

    • 202
      Tristram Smallbore-ffipps says:

      You mean that Life of Brian wasn’t a documentary? Damn.

  39. 111
    Mrs God says:

    God does not believe in marriage as he never married. A bloody weirdo who lives by himself and who spent a fair bit of time conspiring in the bloody crucifixion of his ‘adopted’ son. What kind of man would stand back and allow his only adopted son to be brutalised by folks in authority. Disgraceful!

    • 128
      Pope 1 says:

      The same sort of God who permitted one group of Tutsi nuns to immolate a group of Hutu nuns. Both Catholics.
      God works in bloody mysterious ways.

      • 137
        Tutsi nuns says:

        They had it coming.


      • 260
        free theology lesson in 5 seconds says:

        ffs we’ve all got free will, people get killed in all sorts of ways, it’s called death and it’s been with us since the beginning. BTW, why would god want to save anyone if he already knew that death was not the end? You may not believe that, and it may not be true, but it’s in the narrative of many religions.

  40. 113
    Freedom of Speech? says:
    • 118
      'Twas a long time ago says:

      Is his Justiceness denying Mr G’s freedom of speech? Shirley not!!

      Do these horse-haired people live in the real world?

    • 126
      Brian call me Lord Justice Leveson aka Scouse says:

      Right Martin, be in my court at 10.00 hours Thursday and bring along a witness statement explaining your Tweet.

      • 322
        Blowing Whistles says:

        On 13th June at just before midnight – The Leveson Inquiry team – and its Head of Administration Amanda Jeffery recieved an e-mail. They have recieved it “Because it has not bounced back”.

        The e-mail contains a demand from a member of the public to be given a right of audience to make comment “In the Public Interest” upon the testimonies of several persons who have given their versions of events according to their ‘recollections’.

        Ms Jeffery – appears to be of a want to “not” acknowledge the e-mail (much less its “Content”) and may well ‘again’ attempt to play out the old 28 day response time trick.

        If this is what the Head of Administration gets up to – one seriously has to wonder as to who’s pulling the strings from atop. Who for and for who’s benefit? According to “Archbold” this is a matter of “Public controversy” – and as such MUST be resolved publicly.

    • 136
      Michael Gove, Murdoch's liar in Cabinet says:

      I’m just looking after my rich foreign friends. That’s what government is for.

    • 140
      Ian Hislop says:

      If this is justice I’m a banana.

    • 172
      Aunty Matter says:

      Only Tories standing up for freedom of press. One eyed c u n t from Scotland wanted another fucking tax (there’s a shock) and Red Ed didn’t know what he’s supposed to think.

  41. 122
    NewsTripe says:

    @jonnydee. As stated they are pursuing the pink vote. Pure and simple.

  42. 124
    Anonymous says:

    Everyone should be born with exit only tattooed on their arses.

    • 250
      Anonymous says:

      Just like to acknowledge that’s funny.

    • 255
      UKIP.I.AM says:

      That also applies to men with women as well.

      If I had a co*ck that worked like a hoover or a straw wouldn’t people think that was odd?

  43. 129
    My left foot's a brick says:

    The main issue appears to those who are faced with a civil partnership in the Register Office but want a fancy set piece church ceremony. Problem for them is the Church’s stance on their position, and so these people claim the Church is ‘intolerant’. Yet the intolerance is actually their own, when you look at it.

  44. 132
    Mrs God says:

    It is about time religious institutions practice what they preach. Tolerance.

    • 142
      Bleedin unnatural says:

      Tolerance of what? Unnatural practises? That’s what got this country in the state it’s in today – bleeding tolerance!

  45. 139
    I agree with Nigel says:
  46. 141
    Anonymous says:

    “Where is the Campaign for Equality in Divorce?”

    Mrs Guido becoming a problem?

    We’re all here for you.

  47. 143
    Joss Taskin says:

    Shouldn’t Gordon Brown, Ed Balls et al face disqualification from public office for the banking crisis ?

    • 216
      Blowing Whistles says:

      Ahh the RBS thing rears its ugly head again. Have Read the article but was at a loss to see the name of former Chief Executive Gordon F Pell in the named names list.

      Still Gordon did acknowledge ‘in writing’ 11 April 2006 that issues of moneylaundering (At a particular Branch in Scotland) had been brought to his attention. Gordon wrote because as he stated – Quote

      “As Sir Fred is currently away from the office, I am replying on his behalf given my responsibilities for Retail Banking Services” …..

      Sub-note Barclays got off by the skin of their teeth because it was RBS who in the end bought into ABN AMRO. Lucky old Barclays.

  48. 145
    David Minibanana says:

    Attaboy, Red Ed !!!

    ‘Miliband spurns Brown’s job pleas as he warms to Blair’.


  49. 146
    Diesel says:

    Could not agree more on the gay marraige front.

  50. 148
    Mitt Romney says:

    My ancestors moved to Mexico because the United States would not allow one man to marry as many women as he wished, and that’s a freedom of religion question too, wouldn’t you say? It really wasn’t the Government’s business then and it isn’t the Government’s business now to tell two, or three, or four consenting adults… you get the point…but I gotta get elected, so I play at being for traditional marriage, though you and I both know I could basically not give two shits considering my background. The real sticking point is adopting children, let’s get right down to cases.

    But hey, it’s not like hetero’s having kids are getting married in droves either, is it? Some slut has five kids by as many fathers, never marries anyone, one tomcat impregnates the whole neighborhood, never marries anyone…that’s more like what’s going on in your country and mine. Anyone who says that a marriage is just for the purpose of raising kids had better get some of these brood mares and studs married, if they’re serious about that idea.

  51. 152
    Baron Hogwash says:

    Ooo two fathers days in one!

  52. 155
    Mrs God seeks divorce says:

    @Bleedin’ unnatural? I will tell you what’s unnatural, believing that men in frocks control marriage, even though God himself never married. Do you not think that is strange? What is it with God? If anything God promotes, no marriage, no family, just live your whole existance on your own plotting for the annihilation of your one and only adopted child. That is bleedin’ unnatural.

    • 183
      Bleedin unnatural says:

      It’s true I’m afraid Mrs God… it is bleeding unnatural. Now calm down & carry on with your kniting.

      While I’m at it, what I can’t stand is the way some “luvvies” act like de.men.t.e.d. alleycat show-offs, and if you don’t like their beha.vio..ur, it’s your fa.u.lt and are labelled some kind of phob..ic. If they would just shut up about their practices, they just might be tolerated more.

      Peeece be with you!

  53. 157
    David Cameron says:

    I am delighted to say that I have broken my pledge on “Bonfire of the quangos”

    Good Afternoon

  54. 159
    AC1¾ says:


    Nice, clean, fat Filipino lady with a pretty, chubby face. Must have a son so I can roger him senseless while she does the cleaning. Marriage could be an option if buggering and cleaning are good.

  55. 161
    Khazarian Khast Lead says:

    More Insanity:
    “Swedish Left Party Chapter Wants To Make Urinating While Standing Illegal For Men”

    • 170
      Anonymous says:

      Lefties really are insane aren’t they?

      • 174
        Khazarian Khast Lead says:

        Tyranny without any fun, they’re even banning more than 3 shakes…………………
        Watch out for the PP Police

      • 345
        Stand up stand up I says:

        Us chaps will have to take a “stand” against this nonsense!

    • 213
      The International Men's Loo Cleaners' Union says:

      Normally we do not engage in policy debates. However, we should like to go on record as saying that this suggestion, while it seems to have the merit of making our job easier, would produce redundancies in the long haul by requiring fewer cleaners due to the shorter duration of cleaning time, meaning more loos could be cleaned in a workday by a smaller workforce. This may seem to be self-interest on our part in maintaining our membership and dues subscriptions, but we should like to pose the question: What will YOU do with all the shithouse cleaners who will lose their jobs, and with their families? Have you completely costed out this proposal economically and socially? We should say you have not!

  56. 164
    Aunty Matter says:

    I’ve been trying to work out how often the BBC have had someone on who opposes the Euro or EU. Farage has I think been on Newnight once, but I’ve not seen any other sound bite from UKIP

    Also, I saw Nigel Lawson on Sky today, but I can’t remember him being on BBC for a long time.

    It is interesting that the only ‘opposition’ to the Euro comes from those pro Euro scum like Mandelson.

    • 167
      Khazarian Khast Lead says:

      And David Bellamay got banned from the BEEB cause he doesn’t believe in anthroprogenic global warming.

      • 196
        Anonymous says:

        You’ve got to hand it to Bellamy though, he could have gone along with this bullshit and carried on with a lucrative contract no doubt. He’ll be vindicated in the end though, but don’t expect the fucking BBC to apologise for any of it. We’re all being tricked into a marxist/green agenda where a few individuals will become stinking rich off of carbon trading and other green bollocks.

        • 204
          Khazarian Khast Lead says:

          The powers that be are still pushing the agenda, kind of reminds ya of the monkey who gets his hand trapped because he won’t let go of that juicy nut in his mitt.

    • 168
      Aunty Matter says:

      Ha, just seen Farage’s tweet above, what a shock.

    • 290
      Unbiased BBC says:

      The BBC Charter obliges us to be BALANCED. We take this obligation very seriously. It is not true that the vast majority of our editorial staff are so called progressives and anyway even if they are, progressives occupy the centre ground. Ergo we are balanced.

  57. 177
    Anonymous says:

    there is no equality under the law for fathers in divorce and at this rate there never will be – it’s not as if this isn’t known about anyway – the powers that be, wrethed as they are, don’t have the guts to change things – the prejudice of judges is not what MPs especially tory ones want to deal with

  58. 182
    anonymous says:

    in another epic announcement via the DT Iain Duncan Shit proves again how good a nazi he is. Now he’s declaring that workers who go on strike will lose any benefits they may be entitled to eg working tax credit.

    Does this man/ creature/fuckwit/ shithead not understand that his persistent denigrating of the workforce will rise back up to bite him.? He continually aims to make workers and the poor worse off against what could be seen as the United Nations expectation that governments take care of their populations. IDShit and his tory bedfellows are in danger of breaching this fairly basic, human requirement – they are not exercising their ‘duty of care’ – still can’t expect a load of fascists to do that can we???????

    • 189
      Bleedin unnatural says:

      If you want money, work for it & stop sponging.

    • 200
      shit happens says:

      @ anonymous

      Take care of yourself you lazy bastard, and stop expecting other people to pick up the fucking tab.

    • 232
      UKIP.I.AM says:

      Do you and your moronic socialist buddies not realise that in order to get this country out of the mess that Gordon Brown and co created, people have to work for a living? How the hell do you expect to get growth when people will strike at the drop of a hat and then expect to get paid by taxpayer for doing so? Many people on low incomes have been taken out of taxation altogether. If immigrants are more than happy to come here and work then why shouldn’t British people? What right do they think they have to turn this country into another Greece? Who exactly does that help?

      We have a good example of greedy workers with those working in London transport jobs. The unions are just as greedy and bent on destroying Britain as they ever were.

      • 357
        hiccup says:

        so there you have it, from the horses mouth, so to speak


        You people really are STUPID and swallow the PROPAGANDA as if it was breakfast cereal

  59. 205
    Eric says:

    The government aren’t proposing to force churches to marry same sex couples any more than they are forcing them to marry couples where one is (or two are) divorced – as the Prince of Wales discovered.
    And the church refused to marry a man to his deceased wife’s sister for decades after it became legal.
    As to the ‘one man and one woman’ cry – what about King Solomon who had wives (and concubines) by the hundred?
    And if marriage is for procreation, what about women and men who are infertile?

    None of the arguments seem to stand up to even a cursory examination.

    • 219
      time to invoke godwins law says:

      Er, they’re not arguments in the logical sense are they you fucking numptie? They concern peoples belief systems, ie what they BELIEVE to be true. You’re marching all over those beliefs like the fucking Nazi that you know doubt are.

      • 230
        johnnydee says:


        that’s all right then. I thought this was a place for some rational discussion & debate. I didnt realise that if someone retreats into an Old Testament/Mormon/Scientology corner & trumps my facts with their sky-god and says I must be stoned to death for holding a different belief, that’s OK with you all.

        Or maybe it’s just *you*. I se that you resort to the playground tactic of name calling, to disguise your inability to argue a reasonable point.

        Back to the Dark Ages it is, then!

        • 240
          I hold these truths to be self evident says:

          “Back to the Dark Ages it is, then!”

          You see you’re at it again, dissing someone else’s belief system that they’ve had for millenia just because it doesn’t happen to chime with your beliefs. I call that fascism.

          • johnnydee says:

            Well, I cant help it if you don’t know the difference between a murderous 20th Century political phenomenon and polite disagreement.

            Galileo, who said “and yet, it moves”, before the Inquisition sentenced him to house arrest, was simply stating facts before the faithful. He didnt swear or portray his opponents as violent thugs, either.

            Now, you may not be the commenter at 6.02pm, but you agree with him: my sarcasm is deemed ‘dissing’. You are trying to make me change my words or style, but you seem to be quiet at the use of ‘dickhead’ up thread.

            Why is that?

          • I hold these truths to be self evident says:

            “Back to the Dark Ages it is, then!” to describe other peoples cherished beliefs is polite disagreement is it? Oh well.

            As for Galileo, I’d suggest he might have been a bit wary about what he said on that occasion, what with people losing their heads and being burnt alive, etc. BTW, why don’t gays start their own fucking church instead of trying to impose their ideas on another? Then they could call it WTF they wanted to, marriage, schmarriage, whatever. Just a thought.

          • The Paragnostic says:

            What Galileo did do, johnnydee, is to characterise his opponents as idiots – that is what upset the Catholic hierarchy and eventually put him beyond the pale.

            He didn’t know when to stop pushing – much as today’s ‘gay rights’ activists don’t seem to see that religious marriages for them are not a sensible or legitimate aspiration.

            Religion is silly – but people have the right to be silly if they want to. Civil partnerships are as far as you have a right to go – beyond that intrudes on other peoples’ deeply held prejudices, and will only lead to a backlash.

          • infinite and beyond says:

            Paragnostic, you’ve been around for 50 + years I guess, do you really think that’s enough time consider and to dismiss the idea of a god, or is it other peoples idea of what they think god is that you don’t like?

          • The Paragnostic says:

            I considered and dismissed the idea of a god or gods at the age of four, and have seen nothing in the intervening half century or so to make me rethink my position.

            I can see the attraction in a belief – the addition of some meaning to life is highly tempting, but since there is no reason to include gods in my outlook other than that addition of meaning, I remain an atheist.

        • 333
          Anonymous says:

          @ johnnydee: Still posting your weak, arrogant, self-satisfied, lefty ignorance I see, but gone noticeably very quiet on your 193 post earlier where you were proved to be completely wrong by ‘Aunty Matter’ in her post 208 replying to you. A quick lesson in debating for you: I think Aunty has amply demonstrated an ability “to argue a reasonable point”. Part of the “rational discussion and debate” you claim to crave is to come back with a better counter-argument or have the good grace to admit that you were wrong. You, however, when presented with actual facts, which destroy your ill-informed opinions, choose to just ignore the inconvenient truth, hoping no-one will notice. Don’t be so patronising to presume to lecture others on the etiquette of “rational discussion and debate” when you fail to understand it, or continue to ignore it yourself when it suits your purpose. Until you can go back and acknowledge that Aunty Matter got the better of you and you were wrong I want to hear no more from you on here.

          • Anonymous says:

            Further you actually accused Aunty Matter of posting lies. She then proved they were not so I think at the very least you owe her an apology for traducing her as a liar. Or is resorting to the “playground tactic of name calling to disguise your inability to argue a reasonable point”, as you accuse others of, ok as long as it is you that is doing it? The irony or is it hypocrisy? Typical lefty, do as I say not do as I do.

          • Johnnydee says:

            Yeah, some here are debating. some are just throwing insults around though. I’d be more impressed about your telling me “you want to hear no more from me” if you said the same to commenters who call others in debate “dickheads”. Till then, I want to hear no more from you, mr or mrs or ms Anonymous. Um, wait.. You didn’t leave your name…!

  60. 207
    Mrs God seeks divorce says:

    @B-unnatural. I agree. Maybe if we give them equality, they will stop whining. Fingers and knitting needles crossed. :)

  61. 212
    Jimmy says:

    Mark Guido’s words, if this goes through, Strasbourg will make gay sex compulsory.

    No doubt this (let’s call it) argument will be fully developed in your soaraway Sunday Star.

  62. 217
    confused says:

    is it oestrogens or something in the water supply that is causing all this gayness ?

    • 234
      whoremoans says:

      Wierd is wonderful ? A birth developemental failing – imbalance? Distrust, shyness of the opposite sex? – As opposed to menage a trois or more, where straight hetero sex with multiple partners is desired and carried out.
      Oestrogens in the water tends to reduce male virility so theoretically a lesbian should not be affected , if you ignore the fact that some females may have abnormal levels of testosterone.

      • 239
        confused says:

        Is it correct that the debauchery and wotnot of the Roman empire in it’s later stages was a symptom of lead poisoning from the plumbing ?

        • 251
          Ubend [I wont] says:

          More like Europe’s failings – Too fast- too far. Rich v poor. But the Romans employing non qualified Polish plumbers using inferior materials should never be ruled out.

        • 258
          xmas cracker says:

          Yeah, that’s where the saying, “lead in one’s pencil” originated.

        • 259
          Тасhуbaрtus says:

          The idea that lead poisoning cause the Romans to become witless degenerates, and that this was the cause of the fall of the empire, is a myth first circulated in Rudolf Kobert, ‘Chronische Bleivergiftung im klassischen Altertume’ in Paul Diergart, ed., Beiträge aus der Geschichte der Chemie dem Gedächtnis von Georg W.A. Kahlbaum, Leipzig, Deuticke, 1909, pp. 103-119 — just hop along to your local library.

          That said, the Romans did have pretty high exposure to lead, not just in their water supply but also because a lot of their cooking vessels were made of lead or high-lead pewter. Their common sweetener defrutum, made by boiling figs down to a paste in a lead pan so that the acid in the fruit caused the formation of intensely sweet lead acetate, was remarkably poisonous. I think that they also sweetened sour wine by putting it in lead vessels, forming the same substance. (This was certainly done later, in the 18th century, and gave the upper classes chronic colic.)

        • 262
          Tachybaptus says:

          Τhе іdеа thаt lеаd роіsоnіng саusе thе Rоmаns tо bесоmе wіtlеss dеgеnеrаtеs, аnd thаt thіs wаs thе саusе оf thе fаll оf thе еmріrе, іs а mуth fіrst сіrсulаtеd іn Rudоlf Kоbеrt, ‘Сhrоnіsсhе Blеіνеrgіftung іm klаssіsсhеn Аltеrtumе’ іn Раul Dіеrgаrt, еd., Bеіträgе аus dеr Gеsсhісhtе dеr Сhеmіе dеm Gеdäсhtnіs νоn Gеоrg W.А. Kаhlbаum, Lеірzіg, Dеutісkе, 1909, рр. 103-119 — јust hор аlоng tо уоur lосаl lіbrаrу.

          Τhаt sаіd, thе Rоmаns dіd hаνе рrеttу hіgh еxроsurе tо lеаd, nоt јust іn thеіr wаtеr suррlу but аlsо bесаusе а lоt оf thеіr сооkіng νеssеls wеrе mаdе оf lеаd оr hіgh-lеаd реwtеr. Τhеіr соmmоn swееtеnеr dеfrutum, mаdе bу bоіlіng fіgs dоwn tо а раstе іn а lеаd раn sо thаt thе асіd іn thе fruіt саusеd thе fоrmаtіоn оf іntеnsеlу swееt lеаd асеtаtе, wаs rеmаrkаblу роіsоnоus. І thіnk thаt thеу аlsо swееtеnеd sоur wіnе bу рuttіng іt іn lеаd νеssеls, fоrmіng thе sаmе substаnсе. (Τhіs wаs сеrtаіnlу dоnе lаtеr, іn thе 18th сеnturу, аnd gаνе thе uрреr сlаssеs сhrоnіс соlіс.)

          • confused says:

            all that been said you dismiss the idea that they were suffering delusions and the like because of lead poisoning ?

          • Tachybaptus says:

            It would give you nerve damage, but not delusions etc.

        • 269
          The Paragnostic says:

          Debauchery and wantonness was not a defining characteristic of the late Roman Empire – Tiberius and Caligula were both 1st century, and they outdid their later counterparts in the debauchery stakes.

          What did for the Roman Empire was a a combination of economics and demographics – the Romans ran out of opponents to rob, and population movement from the East added to the pressure on the borders. Much like Labour running out of pensions to loot, while inviting the dregs of the world to settle here and claim benefits.

          • How is debauchery and wantonness in NE Hants?

            It is doing very well in Istria… :-)

          • The Paragnostic says:

            CRMM – I haven’t been debauched or wanton for a year or so.

            Have to admit I’m missing it – I may have to call my occasional lady for some relief :-)

          • confused says:

            I haven’t any idea about it but I would have thought that if the input to the brain was fucked up then that might well make you delusional.

          • Tachybaptus says:

            Well, we have the most of the population of Rome during most of the time of the empire suffering from high lead levels in their diet. And we have the 18th-century British upper class giving themselves lead poisoning with German white wine doctored with lead acetate. And in the 20th century, we have a large part of the urban population of Scotland full of lead too, from drinking very soft (and therefore slightly acid) water that leaches the lead off the piping. Are they all suffering from delusions? I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

          • Seems pretty clear to me, Tachy, that we have a hybrid phenomenon at work here. A pathological condition induced in a subset of the population then more readily absorbs a badly developed dogma (which sufficient numbers are bound to develop in time) in turn creating progeny of that ilk en masse.

            No wonder they call themselves the Labour party…

  63. 220
    non believer says:

    Not sure what all the fuss is about. Evolution / Man / woman / progeny/ blessed by Religous institutions .
    Recent developements that wish to promote gay loving relationships between man /man or woman / woman -Just require a modern day parallel multi-religious body – previously mentioned in the good book.
    Gays should begin their own Religious entity. A Church / Synagogue / Mosque or Non specific belief Organisation of Sodom /Gomorrah for same sex couples to tie the knot .
    Same God for all. Just the building would differ to humour the different requirements of those individuals participating.

    • 228
      give them 15 inches and they want more says:

      They just like to appropriate other peoples toys and smash them up. It’s what they do.

  64. 224
    Pearly Gates Social Services says:

    Mr Fawkes. God will not be given access to his only son Jesus. God actively played a part in Jesus’s downfall and in his subsequent brutal crucifixion for God’s pursuit of Glory and the complete obedience of man on earth.
    Jesus would now like to distance himself from his psychopathic parent and his narcissistic tendencies. We support this and believe that it is Jesus’s interest to put the crucifixion behind him and we will help facilitate the healing process, giving Jesus access to facilities such as counselling and group therapy as and when he needs it.
    As for marriage, it is absurd that God’s advocates i.e men in frocks wish to control marriage, considering God never married himself. God’s marrital status remains unchanged, we have to accept that he has no marital experience and therefor should not have a say in matters of a marital nature. We will review this if or when God’s single unmarried status changes. Until then we have asked God to stay out of matters that does not concern him.
    ~Pearly Gates Social Service~

    • 237
      trinity says:

      The sex of the Holy Ghost has never been discussed. Perhaps it’s Ms Ghost.

  65. 227

    Do we know Mrs Fawkes view on the last part? ;-)

    • 246
      gramma says:

      Mrs Fawkes is not only a proponent of farther for just his, but also farther for just hers

  66. 231
    brooooooce says:

    “”…Send the robber barons straight to hell -
    Greedy thieves who came around
    And ate the flesh of everything they found
    Whose crimes have gone unpunished now
    Who walk the streets as free men now
    And brought death to my hometown.””

  67. 241
    Anonymous says:

    This whole “gay marriage” proposal was concocted by the Cameroons as just another pre-emptive grovel to the Guardian/BBC mentality. The gays hadn’t even asked for it.

    Quite how much longer the Cameroon camp can continue insulting and alienating their own natural supporters (and voters), while pandering to people who will never give a Tory-led government the time of day, remains to be seen.

    But I suspect the current Cameroon proposal to abolish some of the British Army’s most famous regiments, while “ring-fencing” the DfID’s £11 billion annual handout to various corrupt and incompetent Third World regimes, may prove to be the final bullet.

  68. 253
    nellnewman says:

    The state has a duty to say, under civil law, that all men and women are equal in whatever relationship they choose. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

    I don’t think the state has the right to decree what any religions should agree with. That is down to the people that choose to join them.

    It’s not for the state to determine religious boundaries anymore than it is for religions to determine state politics. Which is why there should not be bishops in the HoL,

    • 311
      clog says:

      In Holland only Civil marriage counts Nell [ for hetero and gay couples] Believe a Church / Synagogue/ Mosque ceremony is available after the Civil marriage but possibly only for the hetero variety.
      Religion still rules the party make up though with both the Christian Union and Christian Democrats usually providing 3rd of the 150 seats in government

  69. 254
    UKIP.I.AM says:

    Looks like, Greece have voted to remain lepers, spongers and parasites. Who’d a-thought it?

  70. 261
    Ed Miliband says:

    I’m lost for words about what to say next on this blank sheet of paper.

    • 277
      Tay King-dePisse says:

      Eddie my lad, you’re just lost, full stop. Now do us all a favour, and say next, that you’re sorry for impersonating a human being with a working brain.

  71. 263
    God is Gay says:

    God is single in the larry grayson sense. He is not an advocate for family or marriage. God is gay.

    • 280
      Anonymous says:

      Ooh ‘ello, I thought it was only a matter of time before god (Ben Summerskill) turned up.

  72. 268
    • 270
      The Paragnostic says:

      Spanish researchers, eh?

      Next thing they’ll be telling us that a property based credit boom is sensible economics, and that it all started in America…

    • 300
      Lou Scannon says:

      So what’s this special clock that you use to determine that everything else around it is slowing down ?

      • 321
        The Paragnostic says:

        I think the point is that viewing the observed effects as an accelerating expansion is no different from what you would see if a static universe was experiencing a progressive slowing of time.

        Of course, we will never know (even if we were immortal), since if time stopped, we would not notice – our perception would be the same either way.

  73. 289
    Well it's a thought says:

    Bye bye Greece, hope you enjoy the new shackles you have just ordered from Germany.

    • 318
      Blowing Whistles says:

      The EU behemoth is not quite dead yet – but it is dying slowly and painfully. It ought to be put out of its misery – and the misery it has caused for so many people throughout Europe – while so many political pygmies just don’t get it. Its over.

  74. 291
    Anna says:

    My daughter today sent me the most heart-wrenchingly beautiful photo of her two-week-old son fast asleep in bed with his father, on Father’s Day. I can but hope they’ll defy the statistics and last the course. But if they don’t, although it’s my daughter, I’ll be right in there defending my grandson’s right to see his father.

    • 294
      nellnewman says:

      The basic right of every child is that he/she should have equal access to both parents.

      The only proviso being if a parent is abusive then the child should be shielded.

    • 305
      bullshitter-watcher spotter says:

      That’s a lovely piece of bullshit, dear.

  75. 293
    Don't believe all you read in the comments. says:

    Looks like the word has gone out on the political homosexual telegraph to get down to Guido and create a crowd.

    • 295
      nellnewman says:

      Really? And what is this crown going to do?

      • 297
        nellnewman says:

        sorry meant crowd!

      • 302
        Tay King-dePisse says:

        Well, nellnewman, the “crown” will prosecute (A) anyone who tweets that gays are someone you wouldn’t mind seeing hurrying up and dying, or (B) anyone who rides a tram observing that there seem to be a lot of gays moving into the area lately and maybe they should have stayed where they were. Can’t have people making offensive remarks; that sort of thing just isn’t done anymore, you see, and someone’s got to see to it good manners are enforced! And that’s where the “crowd” come in…

  76. 301
    Jane Birkin from Paris says:

    A marriage is a union of one man with one woman.

    Two busboys can’t marry.

    It is as simple as that.

    End of debate

  77. 303
    Gordon Brown MP says:

    I was behind Tony Blair all the way.

  78. 307
    Fools gold says:

    rolling news on bbc news .holland and germany go through.Netherland and denmark go out.

    • 313
      Kickin' a ball aba'ht! Yeah! It's so kewel! Kickin' a ball abah't. says:

      Is this something to do with “footie”?

      No doubt all of Europe’s footie-mad mong scum are obsessed.

      Humans, however, are not interested.

    • 315
      Anyonmous says:

      In the long, hot summer of 1982, I cycled nude around Holland whilst puffing my way through 14 grammes of the finest Red Leb.

      No one batted an eyelid at my nakedness but someone did *borrow *£100 from my wallet while it was, temporarily, parked in the youth hostel at Meppel.

      To the c unt that nicked it: If YOU are reading this, I could quite do with that money now.


  79. 312
    Ah! Monika says:

    The Prince of Wales has warned of the “catastrophic” consequences of inaction on issues such as climate change, at a UN sustainability conference in Brazil.

    • 324
      Sometimes trees don't want to be hugged says:

      He would wouldn’t he? He has a direct financial interest in pushing the green agenda though his biscuit peddling.

    • 328
      another 20 years please Queenie says:

      is that oul duffer still going on about that nonsense

    • 349
      Climate, change your knickers says:

      It’s all a lot of hot air, you know.

      By the way why can’t we have a dogastrophe for a change?

  80. 323
  81. 325
    What a waste says:

    Have to say Politicians don’t half talk a load of Bollocks. Phil Hammond who is actually one of the better MPs has just said the new submarine reactor will last 40 to 50 years.

    FFS that has always been the Bull shit. If that were true then we would only be on a second nuclear gen sub now.

    But politics aside. Why scrap the reactor and turbine generators when the submarine is past its prime? The back end of a nuclear boat is well capable of supplying a city with electricity long after the front end is out of sneaky date.

    • 334
      Baroness Waziristan of Dewsbury says:

      What the hell has the decommissioning of old nuclear submarines got to do with Gay Marriage?

  82. 329
    Blowing Whistles says:

    For the benefit of those who keep forgetting it
    Article 19 – The UN declaration on Human Rights (1948)

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expressions; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

    Shame is – many governments don’t quite want Ordinary people to have such a right ‘nowadays’. It doesn’t quite suit their purpose now; and why would that be?

    • 350
      clunk click beep says:

      No, you misunderstand. The original meaning/purpose of that was to allow commie Marxist bollox to be spread freely without interference/objection from others. Doesn’t work the other way though – just ask Mr Putin for an update on all this.

      • 371
        Blowing Whistles says:

        Au Contraire Clunky. It is for quote of original “Ordinary people” to use and cite – to protect themselves.

        Now catch up with whats been happening over the past 15 to 20 odd years.

        I will be as polite as possible – but certain groups have been empowered with screaming out all manner of discrimination – for some of the most pathetic and lilly-livered reasons.

        I have to quote just a few words published in the MOS by Peter Hitchens (I don’t care what your opinion of him is – its of the “content” of what was published that matters) Our National and regional governments are disproportionately represented by far too many The quote > “militant political Homosexuals”. The Press & Media have gone to great lengths to not properly explain – How David Laws MP tried to conceal his ‘wrongdoing’ over expenses – by invoking – Anti-homophobia laws.

        Dears – you cannot use anti-homophobia laws in order to conceal corruption fraud etc. Criminals exist in all walks of life – don’t ‘abuse’ the laws in order to attempt to silence those who have the lawful right to cry foul. Criminals and expenses cheating MP’s should not be allowed to hide behind any law.

  83. 332
    I guess God does have a sense of humour after all says:

    Greece playing Germany in the Euro 2012 on the 22 June, you couldn’t make it up!

  84. 338
    Observer says:

    Why did Dave feel it necessary to mess with marriage when the previous administration had provided gay couples with a widely accepted parallel alternative to marriage in the form of the civil partnership? The PM is well into the traffic-cones-hotline territory of unnecessary meddling.

    • 342
      albacore says:

      Well, if doo-doo was heaping way over your head
      So you really didn’t want to get out of bed
      And you hadn’t a clue what a leader should do
      Might you, perhaps, regress into fairyland, too?

    • 352
      Policy doc says:

      Perhaps he felt his administration needed another ‘puff’ – as if there aren’t enough in HoC already.

    • 366
      Aunty Matter says:

      Probably another one of Clegg’s ideas.

  85. 339
    Anyonmous says:

    Hey! If things in la-la land ever get too much for your brain to handle, join me in Second Life where things are really bad. I don’t have the address to hand.

    • 341
      not a machine says:

      Tell me is LSD some sort of financial instruement acryonim ?, “we all live in a yellow sub wealth keeeping machine ” EU should take it as anthem

  86. 343
    Trigger says:

    Leverson is a?
    Off topic, but I am fucking fuming that this ‘Lever’ prick has the balls to complain about ‘Gove’s’ opinion.. I thought opinion was what he was seeking? Evidently I was wrong and Levertwat is a cnut of the highest order!

    • 353
      Policy doc says:

      They do say justice is blind. He personifies it perfectly. Not sure where deaf, dumb and stupid fit on this matrix.

    • 368
      Well it's a thought says:

      He has so much whitewash on his glasses, he can’t see what he’s supposed to be trying to sort out.

  87. 358
    Strangely Anonymous says:

    One thing very noticeable on this site, having ‘read’ it for several years now, is that those who make the profound or serious or interesting comments are the ones who have no replies.

    Meanwhile, the baying, irrational, plainly stupid nazi herd argue about rubbish, things that are not even true or real, long held biggotted opinions that would never find the light of day anywhere else are expressed to highlight even more their crass idiocy and fascist tendencies.

    There’s no wonder the country is in and can’t get out of the fucking mess it is in

  88. 361
    Aunty Matter says:

    Are the Tories really going to let another lefty twat run the BBC? No doubt it will be Clegg’s idea.


    Cam-moron needs to stop listening to Clegg.

    • 364
      Well it's a thought says:

      Jobs for the boys or girls, jobs for real people you gota be kiddin.

  89. 362
    jgm2 says:

    Those who do not learn from history are condemned to rep*eat it:

    Time line

    2001: Maximum Imbecile hires one million public sector workers and pays them with increasing amounts of borrowed money until 2008. Hard-of-thinking hail ‘miracle economy’. Perpetual boom proclaimed.

    2008 – present: Perpetual bust arrives.


    It gives the president strong backing for his tax-and-spend programme.

    These results mean the Socialists will not have to rely on the support of the Greens or far left to push through their plans to hire more public workers

    • 367
      Well it's a thought says:

      Seems all politicians are chipping away to the destruction of their countries, can’t really understand why as most countries have a lamp-post capacity or maybe they know the public are so brainwashed by tv that they know they can get away with their own agenda’s

  90. 363
    Raving Loon says:

    Ask 100 people what’s the more important issue:

    1) The exact legal treatment of marriage
    2) A referendum on EU membership

    What do you think the response will be?

    • 375
      Johnnydee says:

      If we all had our human rights put to a vote, we’d never have votes for women. Those in power rarely give it up, and have to be persuaded of the reasons and need for change .

  91. 369
    MarkAustin says:

    To my mind, the main issue is not religious marriage: as an atheist I consider all forms of religion ridiculous, but that the opponents of religious marriage are attempting to make it illegal for those religions (e.g. Quakers and Reform Judaism) who want to do this to to do it. This is wrong in principle.

  92. 373
    Anonymous says:

    So, in 2003 or whenever it was, Miranda Sawyer wrote: “One, improve sex education. We need to empower teenagers so that they are equipped to deal with the complicated situations that sex can bring. *Two, tighten laws against paedophilia.* And, three, lower the age of consent to 12. Actually, I’d be open to an age-gap system such as exists in the Netherlands and Portugal…” where she tells us that age of first sex and teen pregnancies are lower then in the UK. So, not a proposal which is designed to appease Percy men then. This is not Guardian leader policy, and is marked clearly as her personal statement from that time.
    I should say my comment “it’s a lie, why do you tell lies?” is an overreaction. The author is published in the Guardian, and she says it would benefit the youth to protect them from abusers. The slur Aunty Matters makes is a misrepresentation of Miranda Sawyers view, and her intention. But not a clear lie. I withdraw that and apologise.

Seen Elsewhere

Ex-Sun Hack Cleared After 582 Days on Bail | MediaGuido
11 Times Boris Denied He Would Stand for Parliament | Buzzfeed
Attacking UKIP’s Posters is Counter-Productive | Guardian
Sarkozy Tried it on With Hollande’s Ex | Times
Another Spare Room Subsidy Cut Success | Harry Phibbs
Rich Now Have Less Leisure Than Poor | Economist
UKIP’s Immigration Policy Promotes Migrant Entrepreneurs | Breitbart
Another Feminist Lecture | Laura Perrins
UKIP Posters Bad Economics But Good Politics | James Delingpole
Tories Losing to UKIP in Scotland | ConHome
UKIPers Will Come Home in 2015 | Sun

Guido-hot-button (1) Guido-hot-button (1)

A confused Nick Griffin says Nigel Farage is a shill for the City, forgetting that City banks want to stay in the EU:

“Farage is a snake oil salesman, but a very good one. His supposed anti-immigration stance is all smoke and mirrors, as is his carefully cultivated image as a ‘man of the people’. The truth is that UKIP is a pro-immigration party that exists to lobby for the interests of the City of London.”

Alexrod says:

It’s money innit.

Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads