14 2 mins 15 yrs

It’s true. A dead man has swung a vote in favour of homosexual rights at the Northern Ireland Assembly. After a two-hour debate at Stormont, 39 assembly members voted in favour of a DUP motion censuring government plans to introduce so called "equality legislation" for gays, lesbians and bisexuals and 39 against it. Because the vote was tied, it did not go through, but get this….

Sinn Fein/IRA West Belfast assembly member Michael Ferguson died in September. The St Andrews Agreement Act enables parties to use the vote of an assembly member who has died but has not yet been replaced. And so it was that even though Ferguson is long since in his grave, his vote was cast in favour of the pro-sodomite lobby. Only in Northern Ireland is it considered possible to use a DEAD MAN’S VOTE to enshrine pro-Gay legislation – shocking. How did Sinn Fein/IRA know what Ferguson thought on this issue?

It’s interesting to also observe that WHILST unionists voted against the gay activists legislation nationalists and republicans were all in favour of it. I wonder which part of Roman Catholic theology embraces homosexuality perversion, exactly?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. David,

    Sinn Fein and the SDLP both believe that voting in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church would make Unionists fear Rome Rule. Sinn Fein would happily ban Catholicism to impress the unionists with their secularism.

    The DUP should reach out to consevative Catholics. Their votes are winnable.

  2. LOL, nice point, Henry.

    >>It’s interesting to also observe that …unionists voted against the gay activists legislation ..<<

    Anybody any ideas why this should be so and why nobody is much suprised by it?

  3. ‘his vote was cast in favour of the pro-sodomite lobby.’

    Homosexuals do not hold an exclusive proclivity in that particular activity.

    I’d say this is more party political than religious. Shock Horror!

  4. <Q>Sinn Fein would happily ban Catholicism to impress the unionists with their secularism.</Q>

    yeah, right – that’s why they support a woman’s right to choose. SF is hardly secular.

  5. I’d have thought that quite a lot of Sinn Fein’s and the SDLP’s constituency wouldn’t be happy about this.

    One point that seems to be overlooked is what happens to gay clubs, bars, travel companies and so forth, if the egislation goes through? Does it become illegal to cater exclusively to homosexuals? There is such a thing as being careful what you wish for.

  6. The whole discrimination thing makes me uneasy. Discrimination in itself isn’t bad – it’s how society works. We discriminate when we appoint properly qualified Doctors to be surgeons. There was discrimination in yesterday’s vote after all – Neither David nor I could have walked in and cast our vote.

    What next ? Some deluded man decides to sue God for discrimination because he doesn’t have a uterus and cannot become pregnant?

  7. I think that most forms of Equality legislation are pretty totalitarian in their implications, MR.

    Quite why the State should make it a criminal offence for individuals and businesses to cater exclusively to homosexuals or heterrosexuals escapes me.

  8. Sean, quite right.

    Mad too, discrimation like extremeism, moderationa and compromise are vices or virtues depending on the subject they are operating on.

    I would do away with a lot of the disciminations laws excpept in the public sector, where I would come down even heavier on unfair discrimination. If any boarding house wishes to restrict their accomodation to blond eye’s blue eyed, hetrosexual BNP card carrying members, it should be allowed to. They are resticting thier customer pool and I wouldn’t want to give them my business anyway. It is another area where I think that there is a differenece between what people should not do and what they should be prevented from doing. I oppose unfair discrimination but that is a differnct thing from advocating that is is legislated agaisnt.

    I don’t see it as "pro sodomite", even given SMCGIFF’s point. Opposing unjustified discrimination against black, homosexual, straight haired, non disabled men, does not make me one.

  9. Sinn Féin’s community, unlike that of Unionism, may be Catholic but they accept a need for equality. They have seen the effects of discrimination.Someone can accept that homosexuality is against their religion and still allow someone the free will to make their own choices.

    It’s called equality

    I relation to Michael and his views, I knew him and I have no doubt that he would have voted the same way as Sinn Féin. He was against discrimination in all its forms.


    A rather ridicilious comment concerning Sinn Féin banning the Catholic religion in order to suck up to Unionism.

  10. Who says you can’t take it with you? A bizarre technicality that all parties can assume the blame for (the issue is immaterial).

  11. If that were to happen, (and I am not asking for that, apart from anything else I don’t want any of my friends to die,) who would get to decide on how to vote. The party leadership of all the parties would be no longer with us.

Comments are closed.