Calamity Oh Calamity?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9843165/Gay-marriage-could-cost-Conservatives-power-poll-suggests.html

Blimey, We live in a country that is teetering on the edge of financial ruin, being changed out of all recognition due entirely to past and present mass immigration polices, slowly being devoured into a single European state, experiencing mass unemployment, a lack of housing, a diminishing health service, poor quality education, and getting increasingly involved in other country's problems.

These a just a few please feel free to add to them.

And yet on the subject of 'same sex marriages', we read that it could bring the Tories down, and Tory MP David Burrowes warns the Bill will divide party, divide country, and divide church and state and "some Conservative MPs described the findings as a “wake up call” to David Cameron", also plans to introduce tax breaks for married couples will not be in next month's Budget, due to it.

What the heck, just give gays 'marriage' status, it is no big deal in the scheme of things, especially when there are much more pressing problems such as those I have outlined, that David Cameron and his chums should be attending to.

[VHG]

I have no problem with civil partnerships amongst gay couples.

It is right and proper for a gay couple to recognize their relationship on a legal footing.

However I would never again vote for ANY party that brought in gay marriage.

[pdq1]

The churches don't want it! Most gays don't want it! It seems only Cameron thinks it important. Just goes to show the judgement of the man who also feels it necessary to take on the whole of the problems of Islam.

[boxtops]

If he's going to do a referendum on the EU, perhaps he'd like to add a second question on this topic, so he can see what the population feels about this.

[FredPuli43]

Since when has a fifth of the party's voters dictated a party policy, when the majority are against it?

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// Since when has a fifth of the party's voters dictated a party policy, when the majority are against it? ///

After they got the 'Whip' out.

[jackthehat]

I know that I have a personal interest in this issue, but even if I hadn't, I still think I'd be puzzled by all the furore the matter generates.

[woolleysheep]

keeps people being concerned about the wrong things, they are called diversions

[sp1814]

pdq1

Why do you say "most gays don't want it".

Are you sure about that? I o key ask, because I know it's patently untrue. All the polls I've seen in gay press show staring support for marriage equality.

Are you basing your position on a poll that I've not seen, or a general feeling you get when talking to gay friends?

Also, should we be giving credence to the Chuch's position on civil matters?

[anotheoldgit]

/// Also, should we be giving credence to the Chuch's position on civil matters? ///

Since the Church are in the business of marriages, they have every right to take up a position on such matters.

[sp1814]

AOG

Should be really be worried about the effect this Bill will have on the Conservative party? They were equally divided on the Civil Partnership Bill, with

Conservative Party MPs were split on the issue, and as we are seeing now, the party leadership at the time did not issue a whip mandating MPs to take a particular stance on the Bill, instead allowing its MPs a free vote.



That decision was described by some in the British media as an attempt to demonstrate a shift to a more inclusive, centrist approach under the leadership of Michael Howard, and as a departure from the alleged active opposition to LGBT Rights under the leadership of Iain Duncan Smith.

Conservative MPs were split 67 in favour to 37 against at the second reading of the Bill, and 43 in favour to 39 against at the third reading. Around 30 Conservative MPs did not participate in any of the votes.

So could we not conclude that the strong opposition back in 2004 didn't rend the party asunder, so the current opposition (from a far smaller proportion of Conservative MPs) might not either?

Also, if you look back at news events in 2004, the are certainly a number of issues which wereof more pressing immediate concerns than the Civil Partnership Bill - but the law was implemented.

Oh and lastly...it's not Cameron who's spending time and effort on this. It's the Anglican Church and the C4M pressure group.

[sp1814]

AOG

The word 'civil' is key here.

Why should the Church dictate on what is a civil matter.

[FredPuli43]

"After they get the Whip out", aog ? The Whip is there to enforce the party's policy by ensuring that MPs vote for it in the House. So I ask again, when has it been the case that party policy has been decided in favour of what only a fifth of its own voters want and the majority are against?

[sp1814]

FredPuli43

The majority of the country is in favour of the marriage equality bill (there have been a number of polls supporting this).

And Cameron is giving Conservative MPs a free vote on the matter.

[mushroom25]

whilst the government has promised its MPs a free vote on this bill, there's still the possibility of considerable opposition from the house of lords.

the government's level of commitment to this legislation will be judged by whether they dare invoke the Parliament Act (and thus bypass Their Lordships).

[FredPuli43]

Yes, mushroom, since the bill is neither a finance bill nor one set out in the election manifestos of the parties forming the government, the Lords may play a significant part. But does anyone doubt that they will pass it, free vote or no? Opponents seem more vociferous than numerous

[mushroom25]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21312111
seems the "grass roots" of the party believe the matter will lose them the next election.

since there's no snowball in hell's chance of a tory win in 2015, the government may as well "whack it through" (as Boris said), and then set about rebuilding support for an election challenge in 2020.

[LoftyLottie]

"What the heck, just give gays 'marriage' status, it is no big deal in the scheme of things, especially when there are much more pressing problems such as those I have outlined, that David Cameron and his chums should be attending to. "

I completely agree. What does it matter. Whose life will be changed by it. I agree with Jack too. I can't see that it will make any difference to anyone.

[saxy_jag]

Ardent royalist though I am, it's about time the affairs of state were separated from the church. Church leaders have to accept that they no longer influence the day-to-day lives of the majority of people in this country and have no place in government. If they want to ban gay marriage within the confines of their own institution then that's up to them, however bigoted and unreasonable that may be, but they shouldn't have any say on what civil registrars do.

Opponents are also banging on about the 'sanctity of marriage'. I say what sanctity in an age where it's almost normal to go into a marriage in the full expectation that it will not last and they can 'always get a divorce if it doesn't work'?

[ladybirder]

Agree sp, it is no business of the church, it is a civil matter. Bring it on, it will make no difference to my life but will make lots of others very happy.