« Boris explains City Hall's policy on playing fields (in front of an aquarium) | Main | VIDEO: Could Boris become PM? The Daily Politics does some vox pops »

August 20, 2012


Sally Roberts

Bravo Boris!

Colm Howard-Lloyd

Quite Right too. The logical libertarian view is that loving couples should be allowed to marry. Civil Partnerships were an important step, but the inequality of a separate sort of arrangement for homosexual couples perpetuates the offensive notion that their relationships are less valid. The instruments of state should reflect this equality.


Yay Boris! Thanks man, appreciated!

Mark Fulford

Marriage is a national, not a religious, institution. That's why atheists can get married, any why same-sex couples should be able to get married too.


Oh dear. What will the right-wingers do now that their favourite Cameron replacement is clearly not a "Real Conservative"?


Equal civil marriage - fine, something I support unequivocally. Trying to compel religious cults who currently don't accept equal religious marriage to do so - not something we should be involving ourselves in.

Malcolm Dunn

I would echo Giles comment above. I don't disagreee with Boris Johnson but just wish that he'd save more of his comments for things he is actually responsible for.

We the People

I don't believe in religion or have a faith.

What puzzles me is this Gay Marrage issue. Frankly I don't care one way or the other what people do behind closed doors. But why all this gay marrage stuff - there are no votes in it! Unless it is another move closer to realignment with the Lib Dems, which has to be on the cards at the end of a 5 year parliament at a national level..

Dave B

@We the people
I think it's just London politicos way of saying they dislike everyone else.

"...the Civil Partnership Act 2004 granted all the rights of a married couple to anyone who registered for such a union"



Despite the predictably silly remarks of Giles, being right-wing need not mean opposition to gay marriage. I support gay marriage although its advocates ludicrously pretend that gay couples are seriously oppressed without it.

As for Johnson's credentials as a leader of the Tory Party, no one is fooled by his 24/7 self-publicity machine. Like another Eton-educated member of the Bullingdon Club, I would not trust him further than I can throw him. His badly-concealed ambition doesn't alter the fact that he is making lots of centre-right noises but would almost certainly throw in his lot with the left.....like the current PM who is in office but not in power.

Edward Huxley

I don`t know how many support Out 4 marriage, but 593,638 have signed up to the Coalition for Marriage, Johnson is entitled to his opinion of course, but this will lose him a lot of support. Also the amnesty for illegal immigrants which he favours is another mistake.


I guess I would be considered right wing by my admirers and detractors although I lack to consider myself right of centre. Either way I am not a great fan of Boris (stopped reading the Speccie when he was editor)occasionally amusing though he may be. As for gay marriage, I don't think it is a good idea, it must never be imposed on the church, and were it ever permitted should result in the simultaneous abolition of civil partnerships or their extension to heterosexuals (which will never happen). I would see the abolition of the European Arrest Warrant as a more pressing issue of freedom.


The gays are out in force telling all normal people how wonderful gay marriage will be.
This is a big vote loser and Boris and Dave are not in communication with the Conservative Membership on this or they would know that Conservative Members are leaving in droves on this single issue.
There are 5 million Catholics, 5 million Anglicans, 2 million Moslems, many Conservative Members and others who do not want their marriage or their children's marriages redefined by a Liberal Democrat influenced minority party.
Boris and Dave started out as Conservatives and now have decided to e on the side of a campaigning vocal minority group.


How things have changed.

In Friends, Voters, Countrymen (2001), Johnson wrote that "if gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog."

'Dearly beloved we are gatthered here today to celebrate the joining together in holy matrimony of Dave, Boris & George along with Basil their beloved Jack Russel terrier, I'd like to apologise for the large mess on the church carpet, the verger is clearing it up now'

If there's votes in it why not I say!

It doesn't add up...

Boris is obviously serious about not wanting to become leader.

David MacDonald

One might as well be in favour of men giving birth (which, arguably, would be “fair”). It’s unnatural so it cannot be

We the People

"One might as well be in favour of men giving birth"
Posted by: David MacDonald | August 20, 2012 at 03:08 PM

Actually David, there was a transexual who gave birth earlier this year. Whether you would call the transexual a male is another thing!

These politicians are out of touch and have just bought into the letfs agenda on this type of thing. As usual the left promote their agenda far better than the right ever do.


Fantastic - well done Boris.

Anyone should be able to get married, irrespective of sexuality!

Cameron - hurry up now.

Phil Kean


I told you. The Conservative Party has been thoroughly infiltrated by Liberals.

Whether or not Gay Marriage is right, it will cost Cameron's Party thousands of votes. Mind-boggling.

David MacDonald

“Anyone should be able to get married, irrespective of sexuality! “

Then two siblings should be able to “marry”? Deep affection between siblings is not universal but is not uncommon either and adult siblings quite frequently live together. There would be a problem of recessive genes there were any issue but, since meaningful consummation between same sex people is clearly impossible, that requirement will have to be removed from the Bullingdon* Boys’ redefinition of marriage.

Were there any Bulingdon girls, I wonder? Perhaps there lies the root of their problems (e.g. being unaware of the price of a pint of milk).


David MacDonald - No, a same sex relationship is exactly the same as a heterosexual relationship in that they both feel the same love of each other. Throwing in anything else shows your lack of understanding of homosexual couples. The love a heterosexual couple have is exactly the same type of love homosexual couples have for one another (and this is the key, it's the type of love!) Loving your friend, sister or what ever else is a different type of love.


Reply to We the People's comment "What puzzles me is this Gay Marrage issue. Frankly I don't care one way or the other what people do behind closed doors. But why all this gay marrage stuff - there are no votes in it! Unless it is another move closer to realignment with the Lib Dems"


It isn't a move closer to realignment with the LibDems, it IS a move to follow the objectives of the EU. ANY policy which is uniformly followed by senior members of LibLabCON generally means it is an EU policy.

This is no different.



My dictionary says that marriage is the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. Strangely enough that is exactly how I see it. How can a government change that? We have all come to recognise that politicians are deeply flawed and no one in their right mind would allow them to decide such deeply personal issues.
The British people will not to be treated in this way. Let the politicians put the matter to the people.


Luke - presumably you would support marriage for polygamists who love one another or do gays discriminate against polygamists and only want marriage for single sex couples?


got to say im not from london and im fed up with hearing about boris now.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Most Updated

Other Pages


  • Extreme Tracking