This is bizarre. You wait six years for a Government to do something you approve of and then two turn up on the same day.
First they announce that they are bringing in legislation to give gay couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples.
Then there’s a massive revolt in Parliament and the first reading on the bill to outlaw fox-hunting is passed with a huge majority. This last one was in direct opposition to the wishes of the Prime Minister who wanted some kind of wishy-washy compromise nonsense.
I almost feel like I have some respect for our Parliament again.
“I almost feel like I have some respect for our Parliament again”
Yes, I suspect that’s how they want you to feel. Don’t forget all the bad stuff, IMHO it far outweighs the good…
PerfDave: cynic.
Dave: Parliament hasn’t passed anything. The Commons has (again) voted against hunting. The Lords will (again) not do so, and it’ll be unresolved. That’s why the Government recommended the compromise. I suppose they could invoke the Parliament Act next year, but even then, I don’t expect to see anything happening.
Oh, and the gay partnerships legislation is still at the white paper “we might introduce this later” stage. Save cheers for when it gets into a Queen’s Speech.
Oh, I know that nothing is actually law and may not become so.
But I was much heartened by the fact that the commons was very happy to give Tony Blair a bloody nose. This cheers me up.
“To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them.”
I think that sums up my feelings on the matter with respect to fox hunting. If ever there was a reason for devolution of power to more local areas it was Fox Hunting. The urban majority enforcing their beliefs and morals on the rural minority.
With respect to gay marriage…Marriage was originally a religious institution given legal recognition by the state. We need to note the difference between religious marriage which is a ritual and rules determined by their own rites, and civil marriage which is a legal contract.
The state when creating the laws respected the religious limitations.
The state should throw off these shackles and call it “Civil Marriage”. I don’t understand how we’ve ended up with some new “institution” – its just marriage without those narrow-minded constraints.
It is about time then to extend this success above and remove the final taboos… Why limit to two people. If all people are consenting – have 3-4-5-10 people all under the legal contract of “marriage”.
Ironically, look at the old testament – they all had multiple partners.