Having pushed a bill through parliament for which his party has no mandate, Cameron is asked if he would now grant the right (grant the right, mind, cheeky sods) to heterosexual couples to engage in civil partnerships. Set aside for a moment that I thought this is what we did when we tied the knot at a register office in preference to a place of worship along with all of the baggage that comes with invisible supernatural friends; his response is interesting.
The prime minister replied: “I will obviously listen carefully to what he says. But frankly I am a marriage man, I am a great supporter of marriage. I want to promote marriage, defend marriage, encourage marriage.”
“The great thing about last night’s vote is that two gay people who love each other will now be able to get married. That is an important advance. I think we should be promoting marriage rather than looking at any other way of weakening it.”
Another way of weakening it? So, er gay marriage did that, then? Is that what he is telling us?
Frankly, I don’t care about the matter one way or another, simply because I do not believe that this should be a matter for the state to be poking about in – indeed, it is not up to ghastly little liars, charlatans, thieves and popinjays to “grant us the right” (as it should not be theirs to grant) to marry; that is for us – and in the case of religious institutions, for their rules that the believer subscribes to – not Cameron and the rest of the braying oiks in the commons. That there should be laws passed in parliament about this is absurd – it should be governed by common law between individuals, not statute.
If Cameron believes so much in marriage, then to marry is something he may do (indeed, he has done), so that’s all good then. Y’see, there’s his marriage, my marriage and everyone else’s marriage. Guess which one is any of Cameron’s business?
According to some rather tongue in cheek (oops, pardon) legal opinion it is now legal for a man to marry his biological brother or son? Or a woman to marry her sister or daughter?
Advocates of “The love that dared not speak its name”, (but now seems never to shut up)didn’t think that one through.
Actually, that would have been a better way.
The only LEGAL union is a “register office” one.
If you want a church or other “wedding ceremony” – fine.
This gets EVERYONE off the hook.
Much too sensible, of course.
I don’t think he’s confused, at all. I think he knows exactly what he’s saying and doing whilst smirking to himself that he seems to have got away with it.
He’s saying that a civil ceremony isn’t equal to marriage which can only be a religious ceremony conducted in church. “Joined in Holy Matrimony” and all that.
Soooo, what was that about the C of E and their opt-out ? Not worth the paper it’s written on. They’ll soon see.
Not today, not tomorrow and perhaps not for the length of time it takes to force through the various courts.
But one day.
What will happen is that a pair of gays will walk into a church asking to be married knowing full well that they will be refused. They will then screech “discrimination” and take the matter to the courts, which will, sooner or later, decide that Cameron’s law is in breach of the HRA.
They pulled this nasty little stunt with small businesses, what makes anyone think that they won’t do it with the C of E?
Correct. But don’t bother going to Chaps Hotel with Mrs L and demanding a room. They are allowed to discriminate against heterosexuals.
“Cameron’s law is in breach of the HRA.
Yet they’re both in breach of “God’s Law”.
Oy vey, the Hubris of Man. 🙄
That’s assuming God exists, of course…
Aye well, Cameron says does and one would assume that the rest of His followers and especially His “representatives” on Earth are absolutely adamant that He does. I believe God made himself absolutely crystal clear on the subject in the accompanying instruction manual and several times.
The Message is: Love your fellow man, ok fine… just keep your pants on and light the blue touch paper if you must but please stand well back.
Sooooo, WTF some churches think they are playing at in blatantly disobeying Him I really don’t know but He ain’t gonna be happy come Judgement Day.
You’d think that might bother them a little bit. 😐
Not really, Christianity as the successor to Judaism ( in the opinion of the Church ) is not automatically bound by the religious laws of the Jews. As for the opt out, well the C of E is discovering that there’s a downside to being in bed with the state for four hundred years ( platonically of course ).
Anxiously awaiting the “Campaign for Legalising Polyandry and Polygamy” but ‘concerned’ that it might not allow hetero-sexual men to establish harems?
Brilliant, cant wait and seeing as it will have to go both ways to fulfil Equality Law…. I’ll have a plumber, a builder and an Asda Delivery Man please.
The rest I can probably do for myself LOL