http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22585093

I'll never understand his thinking on this. The only thing that comes to mind is he tries to widen appeal, but he's so cack-handed at it! Hug a hoody, hug a polar bear, Big Soc., and now gay marriage that even seemed to have taken those interested by surprise. And now we have demands for heterosexual couples to be allowed civil partnerships

The Beeb might wanna fix that bit about the letter, the way it mentions Ed and Nick

TBH for a good while I've been stating that all "legal unions" should be called civil partnerships and that "marriage" should be confined to religious institutions with no legal implications.

I should point out that that would probably be my ideal world choice too, I just think it's hilarious that Dave inadvertently kickstarted a movement

As long as there is a way of two people signing up to formalise their relationship, or commitment to each other, in the eyes of the law who the hell cares what its called.

Surely the fact that they have two innies or two outies rather than one of each between them shouldn't matter a damn.

As I didn't get married in a church, I assumed I was in a civil partnership, I find the whole thing very confusing.

I do find the point interesting though - with the legislation as it's proposed at the moment, gay couples will have access to both marriages and civil partnerships, whereas heterosexual couples will only have access to marriages. Surely it would be better just to rationalise the whole damn thing. Personally, although I have no plans (and indeed little interest) in partaking in either, I think if I did decide to make that sort of public statement/commitment about my relationship, I'd definitely prefer something 'civil' over something religious.

Jon

Civil partnerships should apply to everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the wife and i had a register office marriage then 6 months later had a wedding blessing in the church of our choice
we are seriously thinking of renewing our vows in 3 years time as that would be our 25th anniversary

i cannot see why this cant be the case in same sex partnerships ...

Why to Tory activists try and kill their own party?
Poll after poll shows that the majority of UK citizens supports gay marriage, so why do they try and self destruct over it?

Because so many of them are good "christians" and believe that it is against gods will. Failing of course to observe the prime tenant of jesus "love thy neighbour" and it allows them to vent thier bigoted hate filled views whilst pretending to be nice people.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2

It's more than that. They think along the lines of Edmund Burke.



To this world view; traditions represent a set of collective wisdoms that have withstood the test of time, and the moral fabric of society is a delicate and complex thing that shouldn't carelessly be tinkered with. They see a developing society in which people just do things because they want to do them, and expect to have things because they want them, and this strikes them as a creeping moral decadence.

For them, modernity is spoiled by self-indulgence. People don't take their responsibilities seriously enough. There is reckless marriage leading to wanton divorce; parents that simply walk away from their offspring, or fight over them and deny each other access to them. In a society of convenience and shrink wrapped disposable commodities, people, or so they fear, have come to treat each other as similarly short term propositions.

For them, this has the inevitable result that a generation of sybaritic ingrates who have never even had to compete for the honours awarded evenly to all at a school sports day, will march (in a slothful, slouchy manner) to calamity. It doesn't help that they read the Daily Mail, and thus are convinced this has already happened.

What matters for them are two things: Firstly, that it all started with people unraveling social institutions for their own petty benefit. And secondly, that it all has to end with a new moral covenant, when a chastened and failing society realises they were right all along, and everyone abandons their self-indulgence and gets serious about responsibility. In a very genteel way, they are actually political revolutionaries, who happen to be trying to turn the wheel back to it's 361st degree.

The important thing for everyone else to understand, is that this isn't a single knee-jerk reaction. It is part of a cohesive mythology. It's all part of the same simplified, Manichean fairy tale of good men and women standing firm against modernising corruptions that drives every variety of raving doofus to mount the battlements. Whether it is the unwashed anti-globalisation protestor, or the mildly angry vicar, makes very little difference.

The essential mythical construct in each case is largely similar, only the specific details of which over-imagined malign force they hope to confront differentiates them.

Gay Marriage 'Wrecking Amendment' Rejected

http://news.sky.com/story/1093523/gay-m ... t-rejected

What a shambles.

Oookay. So we're having a wedding in October but not in a church or with any religious affiliation, I'm calling it "getting married" the implication being it's the legal thing. In my view the religious part is the bit that is most open to interpretation and "Marriage" hasn't been synonymous with "in a church" for lots of years, regardless of the location of the wedding, it's still the start of a marriage?!

I'd got further and make religious wedding non legally binding and just a custom and make everyone have civil partnerships.

What will you do to appease bridezillas? I agree, they should all have equal standing.