Except poofs, obviously.
Technically though this quote from an interview with ITN, which most media seized on is, of course, true; "Frankly, the process is shambolic. There was no announcement in any party manifesto; there's been no green paper; there's been no statement in the Queen's speech. And yet here we are on the verge of primary legislation. From a democratic point of view, it's a shambles."
Perhaps next year we will finally find out how and why this policy suddenly appeared from nowhere to become such a Tory totem?
PS "By a margin of 2-1, people oppose the Government's proposal to make it illegal for the Church of England to conduct gay marriages. Asked whether its vicars should be allowed to perform such ceremonies if they wanted to, 62 per cent of people said they should and 31 per cent disagreed, with seven per cent replying "don't know".' The Independent.
The Indy also ran an editorial criticising the Archbishop of Westminster's unchristmassy message.
Schnore!
Posts
31% of people thought that even if vicars want to perform same-sex marriage they shouldn't be allowed to? Haha, that's depressing. Two people want to get married and a vicar wants to marry them and 31% of people who were asked think they shouldn't be allowed to.
ReplyDeleteTossers.
Such a weird poll, but that's The Independent for you...
ReplyDeleteSimilar balls from a high court judge:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20842884
A "minority issue"? WTF does that mean?
If a matter of inequality only affects a minority of the population we should just ignore it?
Stupid cunt.
'A "minority issue"? WTF does that mean?'
DeleteLike fox hunting?
Well, aren't all laws - in the strictest sense - minority issues?
DeleteThey're there to protect the individual, not the majority.
Plus, the recent census showed the number of married people in this country fell below 50%, so marriage itself is now "a minority issue".
DeleteTransgender people are probably less than 0.01%, but does a group's size now determine the merits of protecting it? I'm really fucked off with Coleridge, because he's using his barely-tolerated pro-marriage stance to aim a sideways stab at gay marriage, and just about every other judge in the country manages to keep their political opinions quiet. He's a practising High Court judge for fuck's sake - let's say you were fighting your ex-wife about who the kids should live with, and you're now in a gay relationship and she isn't. Would you want him hearing your case?
DeleteThe Times supported gay marriage. Has it switched sides?
ReplyDeleteI think the prominence the Times gave this had more to do with there being bugger all other "news" to report in yesterday's papers.
Delete