10 2 mins 10 yrs

The oxymoron that is Gay marriage remains a big issue for a small number of people. These include the Prime Minister and his cohort Nick Clegg. However the earth is beginning to move from under their feet…

David Cameron is set to give his MPs a free vote on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, after a major rebellion by his own ministers. Downing Street initially suggested that the Cabinet and junior ministers could be required to support the plans when new laws allowing same-sex marriage are debated in the Commons. However, after a series of senior government figures expressed their dismay at the development, Number 10 sources pledged to allow MPs to vote with their consciences. Gerald Howarth, a defence minister, welcomed the decision, saying last night that it was “absolutely right and proper” for MPs to be allowed a free vote.

It is absolutely RIGHT that politicians can vote on this issue according to their conscience. I suggest  that the only reason Cameron has made this concession is because he knows that the rebellion is building. He also knows it is a vote loser. So WHY persist with it? Simple – it’s all about marriage,  a political marriage of convenience to the Lib-Dems. He is triangulating in order to stay in power.

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

10 thoughts on “NOT SUCH A GAY DAY?

  1. It’s POLITICAL, not IDEOLOGICAL.

    Yup and the NAACP (National Association of Coloured People) have backed Obama in his (politically inspired) approval of gay marriage. That organisation is lining up behind a brother for political purposes. Because, if he’s re-elected, his opponents are going to feel his wrath, financially and even legally.

    The Pope better pray that romney wins next november. Cause if obama wins I can’t wait to see how he treats the Catholics if their current 43 law suits filed in Federal court against ObamaCare succeed in bring the Obamination down.

  2. “The oxymoron that is Gay marriage”

    David, no need to be so pessimistic, surely some marraiges must be quite gay 😉

  3. It is smarter politically to let them all vote as they please, and more important from a legitimacy standpoint to have it that way.

  4. Additionally, giving that the bulk of the Labour Party and almost all of the Liberal Democrats are going to back it, means its a meaningless gesture. It will pass, especially if Labour are whipped.

  5. Mahons,

    “It is smarter politically to let them all vote as they please, and more important from a legitimacy standpoint to have it that way.”

    Agreed. Given that a majority of the electorate support gay marriage, our representatives will surely reflect our wishes—and not the wishes of lying, unelected Lords Spiritual (now there’s an oxymoron for you, David).

  6. I have no problems with gays getting some legal recognition for a union which provides the same breaks in terms of inheritance etc as marriage (man and woman) but, given that a heterosexual union and a homosexual union are not the same, why do gays insist on attempting to appropriate the term ‘marriage’? Surely there are other terms which would serve the purpose, or is the purpose to degrade the meaning of ‘marriage’?

  7. Allan,

    I’m heterosexual and married, and have no problem whatsoever with gays “attempting to appropriate the term ‘marriage’.

    Why should you have a problem with it? Do you feel threatened, you poor lamb? 🙂

  8. Richard – it’s quite straight-forward. There is a difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality so, when you declare that you are married, your declaration of heterosexuality would be superfluous because ‘marriage’ is for heterosexuals and your preference is for a female as a sexual partner: no guessing needed. If you said that you are ‘unioned’ or ‘bonded’ or whatever term would bcomee appropriate for the homosexual arrangement, it would indicate that your preference is for a male sexual partner and no guessing would be required.

Comments are closed.