Muslim, Sikh Groups Attack Britain’s Plans for Marriage Equality

The plan to bring marriage equality to Britain has come under attack from Muslim and Sikh leaders there, the Telegraph reports:

MuradFarooq Murad, Secretary General of the MCB, said: “Whilst we remain opposed to all forms of discrimination, including homophobia, redefining the meaning of marriage is in our opinion unnecessary and unhelpful.

“With the advent of civil partnerships, both homosexual and heterosexual couples now have equal rights in the eyes of the law. Therefore, in our view the case to change the definition of marriage, as accepted throughout time and across cultures, is strikingly weak."

In common with other Abrahamic faiths, marriage in Islam is defined as “a union between a man and a woman”, he said. “So while the state has accommodated for gay couples, such unions will not be blessed as marriage by the Islamic institutions.”

Lord Singh, head of the Network of Sikh Organisations, said the proposed reforms represented “a sideways assault on religion”.

“It is an attempt by a vocal, secular minority to attack religion,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

The 'Christianists' have already weighed in as well. In late February, Coalition for Marriage, the UK's version of NOM, put out this hideous video.


  1. bobbyjoe says

    “Whilst we remain opposed to all forms of discrimination, including homophobia…”

    No you don’t.

    If someone said “I’m opposed to all forms of racism, except for inter-racial marriage,” you know what that would make them?

    A racist.

    The press ought to call these bigots on their phony rhetoric every time they try to pull this crap.

  2. Rich F. says

    “a sideways assault on religion”

    I would recommend taking your religion and shoving it up your butt, sideways. Religious arguments are not valid in discussions of secular laws.

  3. Alex says

    Why do people always use the interracial marriage example when responding to bigotry from non-whites? That presumes that the non-whites are in favor of it. It’s not a good analogy.

    Better analogy here is simply would any of these non-Christians feel happy to only be allowed to have civil partnerships while Christians could have marriages? Would these non-Christians feel second class?

  4. ravewulf says

    Thing is it will only change the government’s “definition of marriage,” the “definition of marriage” for religions is independent from that.

  5. Chris says

    “In common with other Abrahamic faiths, marriage in Islam is defined as ‘a union between a man and a woman’, he said.”

    I’m pretty sure Islam allows for plural marriages, which kind of throws the whole “a man and a woman” thing out the window. The argument is, of course, silly on its merits, but the hypocrisy and blindness of religious leaders never fails to impress me.

  6. jamal49 says

    The big danger here: that conservative muslims, jews, sikhs, christians get together on this one issue and vote in unity whether in England or in America and deny LGBT people civil equality in all aspects of civil life. Scary. Stay alert. It might happen.

  7. Gregv says

    It’s disturbing when someone flees one of the world’s most backward countries, where no one who dissents from the norm is safe, and takes advantage of the openness of another nation, then, rather than treasure that openness and spirit of harmony, longs to dismantle ifreedom and make things more like back home in Pakistan.

    The only attack on religion here is the fact that the UK government plans to stipulate that same-sex couples CAN’T have their wedding officiated in a church or synagogue that wants to do so. This favors the anti-gay religions over accepting ones and is an affront to religious freedoms that should give no favor or disfavor by government toward one over another.

    Of course, if the Christian majority of England saw things as Murad and Singh do, these two men would not have the rights that Christians do.
    They should consider themselves fortunate that others in society are so accepting of them, and learn not to be so selfish toward others.

  8. jack says

    Western nations are making a big mistake in allowing large numbers of Muslims into our progressive societies. It has taken Western man centuries to defang Christianity and become liberal progressive societies. Most Muslims do not share our values. They will use our democratic process to try to elect people and enact laws that are contrary to our ideas of freedom and democracy.

  9. jack says

    Where are all the usual posts against religious bigotry? Just imagine all the posts we would be able to read if these Muslims and Sikhs were Catholics.

  10. Gaz says

    the bit I like is the “in Islam” – thing is YOU ARE NOT “IN ISLAM” YOU ARE IN THE UK!!
    if you don’t like it, get on a plane or boat and go back to Islam – problem solved!
    many foreigners come to the UK for “a better life” then immediately say the UK should be more like their country – well, why leave it then if it’s so perfect, go back home and have your better life there, leave the UK as it is

Leave A Reply