“Ultimately, the proposed legalisation of same-sex marriage represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of marriage,”
-Lord Carey-Former Archbishop of Canterbury
Well perhaps a paradigm shift for how you define marriage Mr Carey. Some might say the proposed legislation just makes it more inclusive.
Today The Lords may attempt to kill the passage of the bill with yet more knit picking and wrecking amendments. Lord Dear, an ex police chief will attempt to beach the bill on the rocks. Oh Dear.
Legislation to legalise gay marriage returns to the commons today (UK) which will inevitably put a spotlight on any MP who opposes it. I include abstainers in the no vote as in this case it’s a pretty clear cut yes or no proposal.
On Friday the Church Of England issued a statement that in the event of gay marriage becoming law the prospect of abolishing the current civil partnership arrangements or extending them to opposite sex couples would cause ‘confusion’.
Maybe those who say gay marriage will dilute the meaning of heterosexual marriage and what it means are somehow fighting to save the benefits of heterosexual privilege. It’s a status thing isn’t it? And it’s change. People hate change. And some people really get off on enforcing a hierarchy,still if only in their minds.
My marriage is better or more ideal than your marriage, they will continue to say. Same old, same old.That we’re still hung up on marriage as the top of the relationship tree and don’t recognise long term partnerships in common law is lamentable enough. Laws don’t always change attitudes. Sometimes attitudes prompt legislation and other times the road is long and equality takes longer to achieve in practice.
Look at the equal pay act of 1970. That was meant to pay women the same as men for performing the same job. We’re still fighting that one despite the legislation of equality.
To the opposer’s of legalising gay marriage I refer them the recent debate in the New Zealand parliament and the comments of Maurice Williamson who attempted to address their concerns.
When Nick Clegg sold his soul to facilitating a Conservative government he said”the poor should not be compensated for their predicament”. It’s a point of view I suppose. He failed to mention that he’d help the Conservative’s kick the vulnerable and disabled when they were down rather than make sure they were in the best position to help themselves.
He failed to apply ‘muscular liberalism’ as I see it. He merely facilitated policies informed more by prejudice than fact.
Apparently winning is the new compassion.
I’m still torn about these upcoming local police and crime commissioner (PCC) elections in the UK. On the one hand they’re cynical politicised toss. On the other they’re a mammoth waste of money.
The options are, for me anyway; first up is don’t vote. None of the muppets standing are worthy of my vote and the whole thing is politicising the police. By voting I’m rubber stamping that premise like a lemming on a coach tour to Beachy Head. No thanks sunshine.
The downside of that kind of stroppy sulking in the shadows at the school disco type behaviour is that fringe parties with possibly extremist aims get a shoe-in to the political process on the backs of voter apathy. Must I really be forced yet again to vote for yet another muppet that doesn’t represent me in order to tactically thwart a candidate that holds an extremist viewpoint that also doesn’t represent me? Really? I’ve often had to vote tactically all my voting life and it never made a blind bit of difference. I bloody despair at extremist political parties but aren’t I engaging in tactical democracy throttling by trying to artificially bolster anybody else but the extremist candidate? Th-th-that’s ‘democracy’ such as it is currently defined sadly. Life isn’t fair and democracy is skewed and often decidedly undemocratic and unrepresentative for many. Shut up. Put an X on a bit of paper and treat it like a nice game of pin the tail on the donkey and live with the inevitable consequence of voting for the least worst Muppet on offer.
So who knows maybe I do have to head butt my idealism into the rain sodden gutter alongside the chugger who overplayed his hand and used up four whole steps to get to me and decide a vote is better than no vote (but only just), but campaign in whatever small way to make the system more representative in future (oh joy, more speak-your-weight identi-kit replies on expensive headed parliamentary paper from my local MP as I chip away in my own modest way at a large immovable object with a blunted tooth pick).
Of course I could really have a dummy spit and spoil my ballot paper in protest by writing my objection to these elections on the ballot paper. Somebody said the ballot papers would have to be read out to the candidates if voter turnout was critically low in order to establish the likely political hue of the ballot spoiler (which just sounds akin to the old darts game show Bullseye’s “Let’s see what you would have won” scenario). I can’t really believe that and my non vote will just get added to the expected record low voter turnout figures in an attempt to justify the whole sorry farce.
Lastly I could vote for the independent candidate of whom I know bugger all save a few online sound-bites-as-personal-bio contained within the candidate’s self penned biography. Frankly all the candidates just basically say “I’m a bit good me and I should know because I am me”. What does that tell me?
Sorry that ain’t democracy in my e-book. It’s just a game of vote for the least worst muppet but have sod all influence over quite what a balls up they make of it all until the next PCC elections where you can choose another Muppet. And repeat.
I don’t like it but the whole sorry episode makes me feel like I’m being forced to play with my own faeces in order to legitimise my continuing access to the toilet.
I didn’t say I was good at analogies now did I?
There is no point in England’s dreaming…
This poll in progress shows the depth of hostility towards the privatised utilities but with none of the three main political parties committed to anything other than more privatisation the public will have to keep it’s wish fulfilments confined to on-line polls.
“The fact is that newspapers are an adornment to our society. We would be lost without them,”
- Chris Blackhurst, editor of The Independent newspaper defends his industry ahead of the apparent upcoming criticism that will be part of the Leveson inquiry final report.
Really? I can think of a great swathe of newspapers that would enhance our culture by just not being there.