- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@brightonargus
All the latest news and view from the Argus
@theargusoffers
The latest offers and competitions from the Argus
@theargusguide
The best events in Brighton, Hove and Sussex
@ArgusMagazine
Features, interviews, TV, travel and lifestyle from the Argus
- Find us on Facebook
The Argus
The Argus - news, sport and leisure for Brighton, Hove and Sussex
The Argus Offers and Competitions
Keep up to date with all the offers, events and competitions from the Argus
Sussex MPs under fire over gay marriage (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Sussex MPs under fire over gay marriage
7:20pm Thursday 27th December 2012 in News By Anna Roberts, Crime reporter
MPs have been accused of “lacking integrity” over their views on gay marriage.
East Worthing and Shoreham MP Tim Loughton and Crawley MP Henry Smith both signed a letter accusing the coalition of acting without a mandate in relation to the issue.
They poured scorn on the Government’s consultation process and Mr Loughton has now commented on the issue on his own website.
He said he was not homophobic but that the Church of England marriage service defined marriage as “a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God”.
He said: “What has particularly annoyed me in this whole debate is the tendency for certain elements of the lobby in favour of gay marriage instantly to caricature anyone who is against as homophobic.
“In my case, certainly nothing could be further from the truth and as Minister for Children and Youth I particularly value the work I have done with LGBT young people and community groups.”
The Argus made repeated attempts to contact both Mr Loughton and Mr Smith to discuss this further but was unable to.
James Ledward, editor of Brighton-based G-Scene magazine, said: “I find it interesting that these elected politicians are now talking about needing a mandate to drive any change. They lack integrity.
“Did the Government have a mandate to scrap the primary care trusts when they were elected? Was that in their manifesto?
“To take the moral high ground on this issue while ignoring how they have behaved in the past says so much about the value beliefs of these individuals.”
Comments(54)
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
7:43pm Thu 27 Dec 12
Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?
mustaphaLeeko
says...
7:45pm Thu 27 Dec 12
Who would want to get married in Churches run by organisations that have hated gay people for centuries and tried to cure them?
Despite the fact some of them "like" their choir boys!
Mind you, they seem to think women are second class too, where are all the women Bishops, and women on the ruling synods???
Bunch of loons the lot of them!
It's about time that the role of the Church in the house of lords disappeared too.
Rant over!
Feel free to worship whoever you please, I shall worship the Great Pot Noodle, Chicken & Mushroom flavour. X
fredaj
says...
8:30pm Thu 27 Dec 12
sussexram40
says...
9:27pm Thu 27 Dec 12
censored
says...
9:31pm Thu 27 Dec 12
sussexram40 wrote:That would make infertile couples' marriages, late-life marriages and marriages between people who choose not to have childred equally nonsensical, no?
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
9:32pm Thu 27 Dec 12
What if I spill my seed? And what if the procreated offspring are broken? Does that invalidate the marriage?
And what happens if a couple are infertile?
Who makes all these decisions about people's lives with an imaginary man at the head of it all.
may as well be the wizard of oz.
Isaac Rinkfern
says...
9:50pm Thu 27 Dec 12
Seems that he is also unable to read "gay" letters too, as apparently he claims that the letters he has received have been "overwhelmingly on the anti side".
Maybe more people should write to him making it clear that the majority of people don't support the church dictating law.
fredaj
says...
9:51pm Thu 27 Dec 12
sussexram40 wrote:You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
Cyril Bolleaux
says...
10:17pm Thu 27 Dec 12
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
10:29pm Thu 27 Dec 12
Tring
says...
11:38pm Thu 27 Dec 12
Well, so what? We're not talking about the Church of England marriage service here, are we? It's civil marriage that is the point of debate: no church will have to marry anyone that they don't want to.
Frankly who gets married in a registry office or other licensed premises is not the business of any church, be it the Church of England or any other.
Maxwell's Ghost is probably right about the smokescreen though.
greenpaws
says...
7:36am Fri 28 Dec 12
I wouldn't expect any church employee to be forced to marry me in a gay marriage. However, those individual churches and vicars who choose to should be allowed. Canon law should not dictate over all.
In cases of belief I ask what is the harm?
Gay marriage would not change anything for people already married or who will get married in the future.
The current ban of gay marriage does though effect many people as it restricts people.
I do not believe the creation of religion was homophobic but interpretations and preachings often have been which de facto make opposers homophobic whether they're conscious of this or not.
We restrict people from murder due to the harm of another, gay marriage has no harm to another so the state should not prevents it. I'd go further, it's not the state's business to deny any couples to marry but only to provide the framework for couple to do so.
sussexguy
says...
8:04am Fri 28 Dec 12
As for the comment about "them" liking choir boys, are you suggesting that heterosexuals are not guilty of paedophilia? Perhaps you have never heard of Jimmy Savile?
Somethingsarejustwrong
says...
8:42am Fri 28 Dec 12
sussexguy wrote:But of course it is the business of politicians to create legislation to protect us and for that reason we should allow them to get on with it.
Why on earth do gay people want to be married in a church anyway? Surely a civil marriage is enough, providing all the legal requirements for the couple and there are plenty of ways to celebrate the union without having to resort to a religious ceremony. Religious organisations should be allowed to carry out their practices in a manner that suits them, however much the secular society may not approve. Providing they are not harming anyone else, it is entirely up to them to decide on how these are carried out. It is no business of politicians, who seem to be obsessed with bowing down to the demi-gods in Brussels, and the neurotic self-absorbed, so called liberal minded individuals always out to stir up mischief. They should just all shut up and mind their own business.
As for the comment about "them" liking choir boys, are you suggesting that heterosexuals are not guilty of paedophilia? Perhaps you have never heard of Jimmy Savile?
You are probably right about Jimmy, perhaps he applied to the church but couldn't get in?
My final point is that if there truly was a god then we would only have the one, rather than the four thousand or so that seemingly operate, Furthermore there would be no street drinking homeless people as god would have them all be banged up to ensure they did not make the streets look an eyesore.
lordenglandofsussex
says...
9:07am Fri 28 Dec 12
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:That is true and makes homosexuals hypocrites for wanting to marry in a church. They are a tiny minority and there are more important issues affecting this country that need sorting out.
Most people in the UK don't go to church so its all rather irrelevant.
Cameron and his band of nitwits are just barking up the wrong tree and come the next election he will pay for it.
Plantpot
says...
9:32am Fri 28 Dec 12
Cyril Bolleaux wrote:Totally go along with this.
The Church is not dictating the law it is representing the views of most of the people of this country. Most of the views above are just puerile anti Christian abuse. No positive arguments at all just snide comments.
Plantpot
says...
9:37am Fri 28 Dec 12
monkeymoo
says...
9:38am Fri 28 Dec 12
Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?
Plantpot
says...
9:49am Fri 28 Dec 12
monkeymoo wrote:Yawn
If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever)....
Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?
Morpheus
says...
10:12am Fri 28 Dec 12
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:Essentially sex is only for reproduction. It is a result of evolution and in every living thing but us it is entirely for reproduction except for a few submissive postures here and there. We have turned it into a profit making leisure industry.
And who said marriage was to procreate? Does that mean sex is for reproduction only?
What if I spill my seed? And what if the procreated offspring are broken? Does that invalidate the marriage?
And what happens if a couple are infertile?
Who makes all these decisions about people's lives with an imaginary man at the head of it all.
may as well be the wizard of oz.
Morpheus
says...
10:12am Fri 28 Dec 12
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:Essentially sex is only for reproduction. It is a result of evolution and in every living thing but us it is entirely for reproduction except for a few submissive postures here and there. We have turned it into a profit making leisure industry.
And who said marriage was to procreate? Does that mean sex is for reproduction only?
What if I spill my seed? And what if the procreated offspring are broken? Does that invalidate the marriage?
And what happens if a couple are infertile?
Who makes all these decisions about people's lives with an imaginary man at the head of it all.
may as well be the wizard of oz.
Angryoldman
says...
10:15am Fri 28 Dec 12
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:You are so right. Its just one big red herring with fox hunting to follow it. Rupert Murdoch runs this government and its policies.
The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals.
Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?
Angryoldman
says...
10:27am Fri 28 Dec 12
monkeymoo wrote:It wasnt Adam and Eve. It was Adam and Steve.
If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever)....
Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?
rfairweather@tiscali.co.uk
says...
11:00am Fri 28 Dec 12
lordenglandofsussex
says...
11:16am Fri 28 Dec 12
Angryoldman wrote:I don't agree with that.
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:You are so right. Its just one big red herring with fox hunting to follow it. Rupert Murdoch runs this government and its policies.
The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals.
Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?
Peter Thatchell and his chums are behind the scenes helping to whip up this storm- be there no doubt about that.
julesgemini
says...
11:59am Fri 28 Dec 12
Old Ladys Gin
says...
12:52pm Fri 28 Dec 12
Tring wrote:Yes but the churches lose valuable revenue by not conducting marriage.
Quote: He said he was not homophobic but that the Church of England marriage service defined marriage as “a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God”. Unquote
Well, so what? We're not talking about the Church of England marriage service here, are we? It's civil marriage that is the point of debate: no church will have to marry anyone that they don't want to.
Frankly who gets married in a registry office or other licensed premises is not the business of any church, be it the Church of England or any other.
Maxwell's Ghost is probably right about the smokescreen though.
I think that may have as much to do with it as anything else.
Old Ladys Gin
says...
1:11pm Fri 28 Dec 12
BURIRAM
says...
1:23pm Fri 28 Dec 12
fredaj wrote:I thought to have kids you had to have sex and who would do that without being married. Never heard of such a thing.
sussexram40 wrote:You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
monkeymoo
says...
1:45pm Fri 28 Dec 12
Plantpot wrote:Does that mean that you are so blinded and closed minded....that you limited brain is unable to answer the question?
monkeymoo wrote:Yawn
If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever)....
Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?
anonymous coward
says...
2:16pm Fri 28 Dec 12
I wish someone had told me that earlier! All those years of buying condoms when all I had to do was not get married.
Plantpot
says...
2:37pm Fri 28 Dec 12
monkeymoo wrote:No.
Plantpot wrote:Does that mean that you are so blinded and closed minded....that you limited brain is unable to answer the question?
monkeymoo wrote:Yawn
If Adam and Eve are supposed to be the first humans (ever)....
Why, in every picture, do they have a belly button!?
clubrob6
says...
4:33pm Fri 28 Dec 12
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:Im gay and you are right,most gays i know are quite happy with civil partnerships,marriag
The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals.
Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?
e is for straights between man and woman.I certainly dont want to get married especially in a church.I think its a issue thats being drummed into people to take your mind of the mess this governments making of everything.Accept a few gay activists the issue of gay marriage is not important to gays.As far as im concerned marriage is for straights and the whole gay marriage issue is now becomming very boring.
Somethingsarejustwrong
says...
5:04pm Fri 28 Dec 12
clubrob6 wrote:That's a very one dimensional view, why should you believe marriage is OK for straights and not gays?
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:Im gay and you are right,most gays i know are quite happy with civil partnerships,marriag
The gays don't seem to be going on about this issue as much as the heterosexuals.
Dare I suggest that the Tories are using this issue as a smokescreen to take the focus off the failing economy?
e is for straights between man and woman.I certainly dont want to get married especially in a church.I think its a issue thats being drummed into people to take your mind of the mess this governments making of everything.Accept a few gay activists the issue of gay marriage is not important to gays.As far as im concerned marriage is for straights and the whole gay marriage issue is now becomming very boring.
gusset snatcher
says...
5:05pm Fri 28 Dec 12
respondents thought there was 'little difference socially between being married and living together as
a couple'
So what's all the fuss about. I too believe it's being used as a smokescreen to detract attention from more important issues, like the impending collapse of the Eurozone and the dire state of the economy.
imnotpc
says...
5:53pm Fri 28 Dec 12
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
7:34pm Fri 28 Dec 12
The drive for this equality was made by a lobby group of gay couple's who had been in long-term relationships (40 years or more) who were finding they had no right to inherit property, pensions, no right to compassionate leave, no right to act as next of kin and other benefits that straight couples had despite paying the same taxes and living as couples. There were many court cases where judges were left dealing with civil matters and therefore it was easier to intorudce laws which made people equal.
Civil partnerships aligned these rights.
The gays never campaigned for the right to flounce around in a church in puffy dresses.
However, now the Tories seem to be making a big deal out of this gay marriage business and yet there are no public marches, no placards, not even any comments on these stories from gays.
If this issue were important to the gay community, I am sure Brighton's gay community would be leading the way and our local MPs would be bombarded with letters, but they aren't.
I really do think this is a Tory smokescreen to keep our focus off the economy.
hubby
says...
8:00pm Fri 28 Dec 12
However I would also like to think that all people are entitled to an opinion.
Even MP's.
Vigilia
says...
8:55pm Fri 28 Dec 12
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:Precisely.
Civil partnerships were created to enable homosexual couples to have the same financial, employment and other rights as those in heterosexual unions.
The drive for this equality was made by a lobby group of gay couple's who had been in long-term relationships (40 years or more) who were finding they had no right to inherit property, pensions, no right to compassionate leave, no right to act as next of kin and other benefits that straight couples had despite paying the same taxes and living as couples. There were many court cases where judges were left dealing with civil matters and therefore it was easier to intorudce laws which made people equal.
Civil partnerships aligned these rights.
The gays never campaigned for the right to flounce around in a church in puffy dresses.
However, now the Tories seem to be making a big deal out of this gay marriage business and yet there are no public marches, no placards, not even any comments on these stories from gays.
If this issue were important to the gay community, I am sure Brighton's gay community would be leading the way and our local MPs would be bombarded with letters, but they aren't.
I really do think this is a Tory smokescreen to keep our focus off the economy.
This nonsense is simply tampering with the English vocabulary to no sensible purpose and underlines today's obsession with minority issues when there are infinitely more important things for the nation to be focused upon.
We are talking about barely 1.5% of the population wanting their perfectly legal and legitimate status to be termed something it can never be and that is the union of a man and woman in matrimony.
When they "marry," which is the husband and which the wife? When one dies, is the survivor the widow or the widower.
Of course homosexual couples must have all the legal protection enjoyed by married people as they have today without corrupting the language in this meaningless gesture.
Fight_Back
says...
9:20pm Fri 28 Dec 12
Marriage should be allowed for same sex couples. The Church ( yes you know, the bigoted, corrupt, child molesting, under age sex organisation and very very very very RICH organisation ) has NO right to dictate what marriage means or who can get married.
MP's from any party have even less right to do so !
It's time we started to burn church people at the stake !
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
9:54pm Fri 28 Dec 12
Marriage is actually a legal term which unites a male and female in either a register (not registry) office or a church.
Gays can have a civil partnership and then have a blessing in a church, which many vicars already do, so there is no reason for a legal change.
However, there was a very interesting feature in one of the broadsheets recently which set out the challenges of ending a civil partnership, which ironically, sollicitors say is far more difficult than ending a marriage.
Cyril Bolleaux
says...
10:05pm Fri 28 Dec 12
Fight_Back wrote:Why don't you go down to All Saints, Hove tonight. You could help the church people who are providing a night shelter for the homeless - all done on a voluntary basis. Or you can carry on spewing out your poison. I wonder which you will chose?
I thought of reading all the posts on this thread and then decided just to post anyway !
Marriage should be allowed for same sex couples. The Church ( yes you know, the bigoted, corrupt, child molesting, under age sex organisation and very very very very RICH organisation ) has NO right to dictate what marriage means or who can get married.
MP's from any party have even less right to do so !
It's time we started to burn church people at the stake !
Vigilia
says...
11:23pm Fri 28 Dec 12
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:Once again, precisely.
vigilia, there are people here who believe marriage is purely about a service in church.
Marriage is actually a legal term which unites a male and female in either a register (not registry) office or a church.
Gays can have a civil partnership and then have a blessing in a church, which many vicars already do, so there is no reason for a legal change.
However, there was a very interesting feature in one of the broadsheets recently which set out the challenges of ending a civil partnership, which ironically, sollicitors say is far more difficult than ending a marriage.
This whole nonsense is purely semantic.
I'm Redbrick but would have hoped that those who were intellectually gifted to attain Oxbridge educations would see it as such. The whole argument is about nothing but grammar and vocabulary. No man or woman can conceivably "marry" another man or woman.
Politicians, at local or national level, have become so obsessed with minority issues that they no longer represent their electorates. No politician is placed in a position of legislative power to indulge his personal, or party political, idiosyncrasies. They are there to represent the hopes, aspirations and wishes of the democratic majority.
The question of homosexual "marriage" is simply absurd.
funkyyoyo
says...
11:57pm Fri 28 Dec 12
funkyyoyo
says...
11:59pm Fri 28 Dec 12
Cyril Bolleaux wrote:lol
Fight_Back wrote:Why don't you go down to All Saints, Hove tonight. You could help the church people who are providing a night shelter for the homeless - all done on a voluntary basis. Or you can carry on spewing out your poison. I wonder which you will chose?
I thought of reading all the posts on this thread and then decided just to post anyway !
Marriage should be allowed for same sex couples. The Church ( yes you know, the bigoted, corrupt, child molesting, under age sex organisation and very very very very RICH organisation ) has NO right to dictate what marriage means or who can get married.
MP's from any party have even less right to do so !
It's time we started to burn church people at the stake !
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
8:13am Sat 29 Dec 12
Ilyich
says...
11:48am Sat 29 Dec 12
Somethingsarejustwrong
says...
4:47pm Sat 29 Dec 12
Ilyich wrote:Obviously failed to provide any benefit to you, given your ramblings.
Bible of Christian people very clear about taking day off on Sunday. Would prefer to see MPs address the sacrilege and threat to moral state of nation posed by Asda, Tesco et al in ignoring this direct edict from bibble to rest. Direct command to not go to work at least one day a week one of the most sensible parts of the whole thing.
I'll have one of whatever he's on springs to mind! :-)
imnotpc
says...
6:25pm Sat 29 Dec 12
Vigilia wrote:exactly...and very well said.Its about time something was said for the poor old majority for a change.This is just plain old boring filth and noone gives a toss.Please can we move on now
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:Precisely.
Civil partnerships were created to enable homosexual couples to have the same financial, employment and other rights as those in heterosexual unions.
The drive for this equality was made by a lobby group of gay couple's who had been in long-term relationships (40 years or more) who were finding they had no right to inherit property, pensions, no right to compassionate leave, no right to act as next of kin and other benefits that straight couples had despite paying the same taxes and living as couples. There were many court cases where judges were left dealing with civil matters and therefore it was easier to intorudce laws which made people equal.
Civil partnerships aligned these rights.
The gays never campaigned for the right to flounce around in a church in puffy dresses.
However, now the Tories seem to be making a big deal out of this gay marriage business and yet there are no public marches, no placards, not even any comments on these stories from gays.
If this issue were important to the gay community, I am sure Brighton's gay community would be leading the way and our local MPs would be bombarded with letters, but they aren't.
I really do think this is a Tory smokescreen to keep our focus off the economy.
This nonsense is simply tampering with the English vocabulary to no sensible purpose and underlines today's obsession with minority issues when there are infinitely more important things for the nation to be focused upon.
We are talking about barely 1.5% of the population wanting their perfectly legal and legitimate status to be termed something it can never be and that is the union of a man and woman in matrimony.
When they "marry," which is the husband and which the wife? When one dies, is the survivor the widow or the widower.
Of course homosexual couples must have all the legal protection enjoyed by married people as they have today without corrupting the language in this meaningless gesture.
Levent
says...
6:38pm Sat 29 Dec 12
fredaj wrote:What a surprise!!
If gay marriage annoys the church then I'm all in favour of it.
Levent
says...
6:50pm Sat 29 Dec 12
fredaj wrote:That's not the view of The Bible.(You know, the book Christians take as their authority, and the book you hide your hatred for really well). And why do you expect tolerance for your views, when you show zero tolerance to anyone opposing your beliefs? Does religious freedom exist or not? Or is the Gospel according to "Fredaj" now deemed the final authority on all things, and rides rough-shod over all others' beliefs?
sussexram40 wrote:You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
Take it Personally
says...
1:21pm Mon 31 Dec 12
fredaj wrote:LOL me too
If gay marriage annoys the church then I'm all in favour of it.
fredaj
says...
8:38pm Tue 1 Jan 13
Levent wrote:But marriage isn't just for people who use one particular book for their terms of reference, is it?
fredaj wrote:That's not the view of The Bible.(You know, the book Christians take as their authority, and the book you hide your hatred for really well). And why do you expect tolerance for your views, when you show zero tolerance to anyone opposing your beliefs? Does religious freedom exist or not? Or is the Gospel according to "Fredaj" now deemed the final authority on all things, and rides rough-shod over all others' beliefs?
sussexram40 wrote:You can have kids without marriage and you can be married without having kids so to say the "purpose" of marriage is to have children is just nuts.
The purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children I thought. People of the same sex can't do that so the whole thing about gay marriage is nonsensical in my view.
You are free, religiously or otherwise, not to marry if you are not planning to have children or because you are infertile or because you are too old meanwhile though, everyone is equally free to marry or not marry for their own reasons.
Morpheus says...
7:30pm Thu 27 Dec 12