Saturday, 9 February 2013

That Law

Six months ago, without an election manifesto mandate David Cameron decided out of the blue that the government would propose a law giving gay people the right to marry. At a stroke he was going to change the definition of a word that had been sacrosanct for a couple of thousand years.

Why did he do this? Well I very much doubt he did it for the gay community. I would rather think he did it because it was a vote puller. His speech about the ‘wonderful institution of marriage should be shared by everyone’ was no more heart felt than I am PM. Some of our most dangerous criminals are kept in institutions. Why does Cameron want to commit everyone to institutions.

What he did with this legislation was to raise an army of fascist sympathisers against those who, for whatever reason, oppose the bill. All the pro gay marriage supporters have been whipped up in to a pack of baying hounds who at the click of David’s fingers bellow BIGOT at any one who is not ‘pro’ or just urges caution. I do not believe that all the 400 who voted ‘yes’ voted because they wholeheartedly support the bill. Rather that they voted yes because they feared the fascists would tar and feather them if they didn’t.

Me? Personally I can’t see what was wrong with the Civil Partnership. Did that not give the gay community the legal security they wanted or did I miss something? I don’t really care one way or the other, although my life experiences says I should, just as long as it doesn’t become compulsory.

1 comment:

Mark said...

Sorry for the delay - I'm a bit behind with my reading at the moment... (something to do with my kindle idiots guide to the Quran - which is actually proving an enlightening read).

As a early 40's gayer, the amount of media coverage in recent months about this whole gay marriage bil has made me furious. In fact, it's even driven a wedge between quite a few friends who seem unable to just accept that NOT all us puffs, WANT/NEED/ give a flying *art about being "married". Like you pointed out, for me, a Civil partnership is enough... it gave my better half and I the legal protection we need... and it certainly made it easier to ensure when I had an operation last year, my pension rights wouldn't get swallowed up in the event of my death.

If I were cynical, I'd suspect they (and I'm actually a support of DC/NC AND think the Lib-dems act as his conscience to some extent), had sneaked through some legislation the country would have been otherwise been up in arms by, using this gay marriage press coverage as a Smoke screen.

For me - it's simple... the churces are no different to ANY other club/instutution... if you don't like THIER rules... you don't join. If a slimming pool makes me wear a hat to use it's pool (despite bing bald and having more hair on my back!) I STILL have to obey the ruls - or I can go swim in the cut.

I hope it dies down shortly as frankly, there really are MUCH more important things going on in the world that NEED support, reporting on.

Right- time to get back to allah.

Regards
Mark