Millband backs Government proposals for Gays to marry in church.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....rnment-proposals.html

Isn't it marvellous how opposing politicians can forget party politics and come together over such things, yet fail when it comes to the more important matters, which would be more beneficial for the nation as a whole?

[ichkeria]

Well it isn't a party political issue is it?
I'm sure Ed would back the Government's economic policies if they WERE beneficial :-)

[jake-the-peg]

No money involved in this issue!

Always easier to get agreement when there's no money involved

Still if the CofE doesn't like it there's an easy answer:

- disestablishment: bye bye don't let the door hit you on the bum on the way out

[Thatcherite]

Frankly I'm amazed that governement or opposition have the spare time to get involved in these sorts of non issues.

[Essell]

Shouldn't this decision be up to the church? Please write and tell me why I am wrong ....

[tamborine]

Churches are private property and only open to invitees. Nowt to stop gays having their own church/temple/mosque/sacred tree for the deed; Hampstead Heath could be the first venue :)

[jno]

the church is subsidised by the public in various ways (eg support for their religion-based schools, presence of bishops in the House of Lords legislating our lives). So no reason why the public shouldn't have a say in what they get up to.

[youngmafbog]

I'm with Jake. Lets hope the Fairy Story peddlers flounce off in a huff.

Nothing like a bit of bashing the Bishops.

[Gromit]

It is interesting to note the OP and the Daily Mail choose headline Milliband and Gays marrying in church, when he is merely not opposing the Government (who have a majority anyway so do not need his support).

Shouldn't the headline scream
CAMERON AND CLEGG FORCE THROUGH GAYS MARRYING IN CHURCH (while Labour with a minority look on).

But that woyld give the impression it is not Labour's fault which is how the Mail wish to present this story, and Old Gits fall for it.

[youngmafbog]

i think it was CLEGG rather than Cameron who is just a weak pawn in the liberal demands.

The liberals are a right shower. no wonder they have never been in power, priorities all wrong everywhere. I have nothing against Gay marriage and couldn't care less in what goes on in Church (no I was not married in a church, registry office that is now a strip club! ) but there are much bigger fish to fry like..

Oh yes taxing hard working folk who save.

[Gromit]

// The Liberals... have never been in power //

History not your best subject youngmafbog?

It was a long time ago, but the 1906 election win gave them 400 seats and a huge majority. Lloyd George and Churchill are easily forgotten.

[MarkRae]

> Lloyd George and Churchill are easily forgotten.

I've never even heard of them...

[ummmm]

Google them, Mark!!

[anotheoldgit]

Wrong once again on all on all counts Gromit.

The Daily Mail headline was:

GAY COUPLES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY IN CHURCH, SAYS MILIBAND AS HE BACKS GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

My headline was:

MILLBAND BACKS GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS FOR GAYS TO MARRY IN CHURCH.

Neither said:

MILLIBAND AND GAYS MARRYING IN CHURCH

Which doesn't make any sense whatsoever, which says a lot about you.

/// Shouldn't the headline scream
CAMERON AND CLEGG FORCE THROUGH GAYS MARRYING IN CHURCH (while Labour with a minority look on). ///

????????????????????????????????????????????

You will never make a Sub-Editor with headlines such as that, so don't give your day job up, just yet.

In ending I will ignore the very rude 'Old Gits' referral in the knowledge that you, yourself will be one, one day.

[anotheoldgit]

> Lloyd George and Churchill are easily forgotten.

/// I've never even heard of them... ///

And then we criticise Cameron for his lack of historical knowledge.

I hope you have heard of Cameron, by the way. :0)

[Gromit]

If you find Old git offensive, why are you stupid enough to have it in your user name?

Labour and Milliband are totally irrelevent to your post and the Daily Mail story.

[sp1814]

AOG

Party politics ARE put aside when issues of national importance are at hand.

However I question whether this is a case of 'forgetting party politics'. Perhaps it just happens to be that all three main parties agree on this point.

It just happens occasionally.

Also, isn't the whole point of a democratic system based on parties promoting equal, but opposing views on important matters? We as a nation don't agree with each other on a wide variety of matters, so why should our politicians?

[pdq1]

What right have politicians to tell the church they must marry gays in their establishments? Trying to act superior is fallacious when God supercedes the lot and he doesn't agree with it.

[sp1814]

AOG

I backtrack. I didn't read the article properly, and I suspect you may have maxed the same mistake a me.

Milliband ISN'T agreeing with Coalition proposals.

The government is changing the law to allow gay couples it have civil marriages.

Milliband is proposing the following:

"the reforms should go further by enabling churches and faith groups to conduct ceremonies if they wish to."

So he's not really concurring with the government's position, is he?

Unless I'm reading it wrong.

[Bazile]

//"the reforms should go further by enabling churches and faith groups to conduct ceremonies if they wish to." //

I dont follow that - is there anything stopping them at the moment , if they wish to ?

[sp1814]

pdq1

That's not what Milliband is proposing - he's saying that churches should be allowed to marry gay couples if they so wish.

At the moment, it's illegal.