Coffee House

Attorney General to reject warnings of gay marriage legal challenge

10 December 2012

1:36 PM

10 December 2012

1:36 PM

I understand that when the gay marriage bill is published, the Attorney General will make clear that the chance of a legal challenge at the European Court of Human Rights to religious institutions that don’t want to marry gay couples is ‘negligible’.  As Isabel says, what wavering Tory MPs think of this legal opinion will be key to determining how they vote.

The debate inside the Tory parliamentary party about this issue is becoming increasingly rancorous. There’s real fury among some MPs about the language being used by some of the opponents of same-sex marriage.

[Alt-Text]


David TC Davies decision to opine on whether parents want gay children has infuriated many MPs. They wonder whether Davies had given any thought to how this dabbling in the stuff of other men’s souls would go down with those he was talking about. A consequence of this is an increasing willingness to have this inter-party debate in public. One Tory MP told me, ‘Tory splits is preferable to Tories don’t like gays.’

It is understandable that gay marriage is causing such divisions in the Tory party—both sides are making conservative arguments to support their position. But having this conversation in civil terms would be preferable to the trading of barbs.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • http://www.formerdistrictattorneys.com/ Takakjian & Sitkoff LLP- Crimi

    Although, a lot of people still neglect the gay marriage but once the term is legalized nobody can do anything against it. Discussions need to be held upon the legality of this sensitive issue. All the experienced criminal defense lawyer and legal prosecutors need to find a way for this situation.

  • Theodoxia

    Dominic Grieve must think, or be hoping, that backbench Conservative MPs were born yesterday. Homosexual activists have form for vexatious action against Christians who do not approve of their practices, and will be impatiently waiting for their next opportunity to exploit the “human rights” argument in order to cause trouble for their enemies.

  • Bickers

    thought there was a clear definition of the meaning of marriage i.e. a legal (& religiously recognised) binding between a man & women that provides a potentially stable environment for the procreation & upbringing of children.

    I understand only a very, very small minority of couples that want to have their relationship ‘recognised’ are gay & that these people can have their version of ‘marriage’; it’s called a civil partnership, which I understand gives them similar legal rights?

    How can gays get married in church when such a relationship goes against the teaching of that church; surely that is the height of hypocrisy and interference in an institution’s customs (whether you believe what they preach or not)?

    Given the above why does the State want to trample over the rights of the majority (including various religious denominations) to pander (yet again) to a minority that have already been recognised and catered for.

    I repeat again, marriage has a clearly defined meaning that has been at the core of our culture for hundreds of years.

    Mr Cameron, concentrate on the priorities and not feel good, metropolitan, BBC/Guardianista nonsense.

  • TomTom

    James Forsyth is another Wykehamist with no idea of how the people in this country regard the puppet show in Westminister and someone as inconsequential and irrelevant as Dominic Grieve, son of a QC and public schoolboy QC himself. These people are simply not relevant and might as well be Norman Overlords

  • Bardirect

    I’m far from convinced that Grieve merits the position of a top law officer. With a non lawyer as Lord Chancellor political loyalties and expediencies appear to be overriding legal expertise and principles. By the way did Grieve advise on the the validity of forcing this non manifesto policy through without a mandate?

    • DavidDP

      “By the way did Grieve advise on the the validity of forcing this non manifesto policy through without a mandate?”
      The mandate comes in our constitution from the confidence of the monarch, which is traditionally given to those able to command the confidence of Parliament. As such, provided the Commons passes the law, it has a mandate under UK constitutional practice.

  • salieri

    Never believe in the certainty of any ECHR challenge until a British politician has described it as ‘negligible’.

    • Vulture

      I was going to say that we are piling the faggots on our own funeral pyre but that might be,misunderstood. David Davies was only articulating a plain fact. It is only in our topsy-turvy age, when all values have been inverted, that anyone would question the obvious truth that most parents don’t want their children to be Gay. Fifty years ago homosexual acts were illegal. We’re well on the way to making them bloody compulsory.

      No wonder the Imams are rubbing their hands in glee : and frankly, they are right. Our society is becoming one that is not worth saving. We have wrought our own destruction and we m ight as well hand it over to the Mullahs to work their magic now. Frankly, it could do with a bit of a purge..

      • DavidDP

        “We’re well on the way to making them bloody compulsory.”
        Could you provide a link to this? Policy proposals, green papers, any thing like that will do.
        Also, why is a society in which consenting adults of the same sex can conduct a relationship freely not one worth saving?

        • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

          No one is talking about a relationship, so don’t try to subvert the argument. We are talking about a forced redefinition of marriage which will deliberately cause harm to those who reject the redefinition,

          • DavidDP

            “deliberately cause harm to those who reject the redefinition,”
            How will it do so?
            But, also, that argument does work both ways. You are for example deliberately causing harm to people who do accept the redifinition (as you put it).

            • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

              There is no harm at all to gay men. No one is trying to get them sacked. No one is visiting their B&Bs just to take them to court. No gay religious leaders are being arrested by the police.

              The harm works one way only, it is directed at and intended to harm those who stand for any of the institutions of British society which the state does not yet control. This includes the family, the churches and presently the press – who will soon find that they are forbidden from criticising gay men at all.

              And is that Ali Buchan or is it another post by DavidDP? Who knows, though he clearly uses both accounts to talk to himself – and which other accounts?All those supportive of ‘gay marriage’ appearing here perhaps.

              • DavidDP

                They are not free to get married depite their wishes. That is a harm being imposed on them by the majority. Removing that harm will not automatically result straight people being harmed. One can see that from the fact that gay marriages elsewhere have passed without major incident.
                “who will soon find that they are forbidden from criticising gay men at all.”
                Again, this appears to be a legisltaive proposal of which I can find no record. Going to be a bit of a pain for me when facing another interminable television appearance by Alan Carr, not being able to say he isn’t funny.
                “And is that Ali Buchan or is it another post by DavidDP? Who knows, though he clearly uses both accounts to talk to himself – and which other accounts?All those supportive of ‘gay marriage’ appearing here perhaps.”

                Perhaps I’m you……….Not suffered from any blackout periods, lately, have you?

                • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

                  Really? You are that ignorant of current affairs? There are many instances of people who have been arrested for criticising or condemning homosexual acts. Google and you will find them all. Some result in prison, others in a night in the cells.

                  People who run a business and do not believe that homosexual acts are a virtue are also liable to be made bankrupt. I am surprised you are unaware of this as well.

                  It is no longer possible to walk around with a placard saying ‘Homosexuality is sin’. It is, however, possible to insist that every British made soap has to have several gay couples who kiss at the slightest opportunity. Is there not room for even one programme to avoid this happening so that it represents the 99% of people who are not engaged in homosexuality?

                • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

                  Using your perverse logic, a man must be allowed to marry his sister because if he cannot then he is harmed. Likewise he must be allowed to marry his mother or suffer harm. Should he be allowed to marry a 15 year old? If not then he is certainly suffering harm. Indeed it would seem that what you are calling for is that marriage has no meaning at all since you are saying that anyone must be able to marry any other person, and surely persons, or they are being caused harm.

                  Marriage, in your terms, simply means that a number of people, unspecified, have some sort of unspecified relationship with each other.

                • DavidDP

                  Actually, it’s using your perverse logic. The moment you say that there is an institution for two people to legally commit to a union, then you need to answer the questions you’ve posed.
                  In particular, if you yourself are going to pose the test, you need to explain why marriage must be restricted to a male and female coupling. I eagerly await this reasoning.

                • Ali Buchan

                  I agree with David. That is the required explanation. And any answer that argues ‘that’s the way it has always been’ is, frankly, not good enough.

                • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

                  Ah…. Ali Buchan (a DavidDP pseudonym) agrees with DavidDP. What a surprise.

                • Ali Buchan

                  I was hoping you’d say that!

                  It’s all part of our loony-left conspiracy to subvert traditional British society by undermining the very foundations on which it was built.

                  Grow up.

                • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

                  Actually I think what was happening is that when you were trying to post as one person the IP address and cookie were identifying you as the other and changing the identity of your posts.

                  Ali Buchan and DavidDP are clearly the same person, and you have had to create a Disqus account to allow you to continue to post as two people at once.

                • Ali Buchan

                  I did genuinely want to discuss, debate and increase my understanding of a subject that’s close to my heart. I’m sure the other DavidDP did, too.

                  Neither of us were being aggressive; we were just trying to make reasoned points. And even if it was two people posting under different names, why not just debate the points as they’re raised?

                  I really think you need to be a bit more circumspect and, as patronising as it may sound coming from a 29-year-old kid, grow up a bit.

                  I’m sorry that its come to this.

                • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

                  Very clever. I see what you are trying to do there. You are trying to define marriage according to your own terms and then require others to justify their position in relation to yours.

                  But of course your definition is NOT the definition of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, NOT two people. So your game won’t work.

                  I don’t need to explain why marriage, which has as its definition the union of a man and a woman, has such a definition. The fact is that it does have that definition, just as much as by definition 1 + 1 = 2.

                  You need to justify changing the definition, you cannot, unless you redefine the definition in the first place. Marriage is not about two people saying they love each other – another attempted redefinition on the fly used by the loathsome Cameron. It is the union of a man and woman.

                  Therefore two men can never be married. They do not meet the requirements of the definition of marriage. Nor can marriage be redefined because all that does is to make a totalitarian and violently forced redefinition of the word rather than the reality.

                  This is what Stalin did. It is what Hitler did. It is what all totalitarians do, and Orwell exposed it very clearly.

                • http://twitter.com/robvsnature Rob Broome

                  You really need to take a break and look back at the rubbish you’ve been posting.

                  I’m not gay but if gay people get married (really don’t care if it’s man-man, man-woman, woman-woman) then it will have the grand total of zero impact on my life. The only possible objections to this are 2 things,

                  1. Homophobia…but those people are against gays in general, not just marriage.
                  2. Religion. And long gone are the days when some mythical sky pixie gets to define how people live their lives in this country, if you want to live your life as defined by doctrine and scripture go to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

                  The fact is most people in this country couldn’t give a toss if gay people get married or not…but with the reactionary views of people like you it’s pushing more of us in the yes camp.

                • Baron

                  Rob, if Baron married Muttley, his labrador, it will have a zero impact on your life, right?

                  You in favour then?

                • http://twitter.com/robvsnature Rob Broome

                  Have you obtained Muttley’s consent?

                • DavidDP

                  “You are trying to define marriage according to your own terms and then require others to justify their position in relation to yours.”
                  Surely we are both arguing with respect to our definitions of marriage? You feel it is confined to hetrosexuals, I don’t. And neither does the OED, which acknowledges that it does extend to gay couples in some countries.

                  “I don’t need to explain why marriage, which has as its definition the union of a man and a woman, has such a definition. The fact is that it does have that definition, just as much as by definition 1 + 1 = 2.

                  Except that mathematicians do not simply accept that 1+1=2, the have a proof for it. This analogy still requires some explanation as to why the definition is as it is.
                  Further, the answer has to go as far as explaining why it can never change. Words are not numbers, they are not static. Words and terms can and have changed their meaning and usage over time in response to societal use.

                  “You need to justify changing the definition, you cannot, unless you redefine the definition in the first place”
                  Well, yes, but that’s the point really. My justification for the change is that partially the usage has changed (gay marriage is after all already extant elsewhere) and that partially we see that there is in fact no reason why two women can’t get married. At least, no reason so far put forward.

                  “Marriage is not about two people saying they love each other – another attempted redefinition on the fly”
                  Actually, this is a good point, but not perhaps in the way you mean it. For example, several centuries ago amongst the upper classes, marrying for love was indeed something nonsensical – marriage was an overtly political and economic act, with love a bare consideration. People married in support of political alliances for example; it wasn’t necessary even to have met the future spouse. However, for lower classes, it was in many cases about love above all else. Here we see two different defintion of marriages that were in fact concurrent with each other in the same society, let alone a change from one to the other. And in fact marriage has moved to become more above love than anything else, with its political and economic aspects (at least in the West – other cultures still very much act on an economic basis) dropped. This can be seen by looking very much at the marriage of the Prince of Wales compared to the marriage of his son; it is arguable that Charles’ marriage to Diana was more about dynastic issues, not about love, whereas the idea that WIlliam would not be able to choose his bride based on who he loves would strike most people as bizarre to the extreme now. Thus, marriage has become much more about love than it ever was; the term has changed and this is perhaps indeed one reason why the idea does not strike most people as problematic .

                  “Nor can marriage be redefined because all that does is to make a totalitarian and violently forced redefinition of the word rather than the reality.”
                  That logic would suggest that words and terms can never change their meaning wthout “totalitarian and violently forced definition.” This is clearly a nonsense. To use a politically neutral example, the word awful no longe means what it used to mean, and this was acheived without violence.
                  In the case of marriage, people already seem willing to expand the definition, as in the OED example, and the government’s move is more a reflection of that than anything else. Finally, in any event, the government does not appear to be using any violent measures to change the law to allow gay marriage.

                • Baron

                  DavidDP: “You feel it (marriage) is confined to hetrosexuals, I don’t”.

                  But this is exactly coffeehousewall’s point, for centuries marriage was defined as an institution in which the two genders conceived, raised children. Then your lot come along, say nope, it’s different. Well, why not make it even more different, go for bigger numbers, either way, one men as many women as he can make happy, one woman, as many men as she can handle.

                  It won’t harm you, will it?

                • DavidDP

                  Look, I am genuinely interested in your response to why marriage must be restricted to male and female. It’s very rare I find there to be an issue without substantive arguments on both sides, but I am struggling with the issue of gay marriage as all the arguments again appear to be based on religion or self-held defintiions of what marriage should be about, or are linked to wider notions of offence which are not inherently linked.

                • Baron

                  Marriage has developed as a societal construct that ensured the best rearing of children. Given that it takes time to bring a child to maturity, a contractual bond between a man and a woman in the solemnity of the church with all the trappings and stuff, aided the coupling, made it more permanent, infused it with more than a business arrangement could offer. It remains true to this day that children raised by a biological farther and a biological mother do better in life than kids raised in any other setting. The heterosexual family works well, it’s the best of all the options on the table.

                  Why change it? If the gay people want the same blessing they are free to go for a similar arrangement, can call it gayriage, conduct it in the setting more appropriate to their taste like gay bars. Simple, David DP.

                • Ali Buchan

                  How would this affect an unmarried couple, one of whom is known to be infertile? Can they get married?

                • TomTom

                  Must the individuals be age restricted ? Surely two 5 year olds could marry……..?

                • DavidDP

                  There are many instances of people not, aswell. For example, you seem to be quite at large and at liberty.

                  The refusal of services to minorities is a contraversial one, although it is less linked to the issue of gay marriage and more to the general one of dealing with offence and minorities. This can easily be dealt with seperately to gay marriage.
                  For example, you can have gay marriage and allow B&B owners to refuse to provide services to gay couples. The two are not mutually exclusive points.
                  “It is no longer possible to walk around with a placard saying ‘Homosexuality is sin’. ”

                  Generally speaking, it’s not possible to do many offensive things. Walking around with a placard with other offensive words tends to also end up with legal confrontations. But again, this is more about the general framework for offence and minorities and can be dealt with seperately to gay marraige.

                  “is, however, possible to insist that every British made soap has to have several gay couples who kiss at the slightest opportunity.”
                  Where are these rules? Would be interesting to see them.

                  “Is there not room for even one programme to avoid this happening so that it represents the 99% of people who are not engaged in homosexuality?”
                  So there are no programs with heterosexual couples in?

                • Baron

                  DavidDP, for all the musings you seem to be a couple of brain cells short of a brain.

                  Get it into your cranium, this is the age of equality, if you get something everyone else must get that something, too.

                  And you wrong if you think one cannot offend. One can, easily, but one has to be careful whom one offends. If it’s a Christian, a smoker, someone born here who fought in the WW2, then it’s fine. Avoid though offending people of the protected phyla though, like the gays, that will definitely get you down.

                • TomTom

                  “you can have gay marriage and allow B&B owners to refuse to provide
                  services to gay couples”TOTALLY WRONG. Under EU LAW relating to EMPLOYMENT Discrimination in The Single Market you are not permitted to refuse or withhold Services – and THAT is the basis of legal action in this area

                • Fergus Pickering

                  99%? You should get around more. And you shouldn’t be watching soaps. They rot the brain. Might possibly turn you (gulp!) into a homosexual;.

                • TomTom

                  Well that’s not a problem, but being mentally incapacitated like you Fergus and confined to an asylum is

      • Tarka the Rotter

        ‘Piling faggots..?’ Can you say that in this context? Just asking…

  • cocojiambo

    Once again, the minority ruling the majority.

    • DavidDP

      I’m unsure as to what this means as an argument, but regardless, polls suggest that more ar in favour of gay marriage than against.

  • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

    Who cares whether MPs are furious at what other MPs think and say. Do you think that this is an issue of such irrelevance that it should be conducted as if it did not matter at all? I am furious that any MP might suggest that the population of this country should not be allowed to speak on this subject and be heard.

    If you believe anything that the Attorney General says then you are as great a fool as if you believed anything David Cameron might say.

    If this bill passes into law the first arrests and dismissals will start the week after. Have you really thought what will happen in a Catholic school when it is stated perfectly reasonably that there is no such thing as gay marriage? Are you so detached from reality in the Westminster bubble that you are not aware that there are gay activists just waiting to get people sacked, businesses bankrupted and organisations closed?

    This is serious. Trying to pretend it can all be sorted over a cup of tea is offensive.

    • Mistral

      Well said! i share your fears.

      • telemachus

        Do not encourage this stupidity

        I say again

        *

        I have rarely read such a stupid post.
        I went to primary school in the 1950’s
        Every night I looked under my bed
        I never found any reds.

        • TomTom

          You must have been one very sick child to think Burgess, Philby, Maclean or Blunt were under your bed…..or Cairncross, or Gott

        • Baron

          You haven’t read stupid posts, telemachus, because you don’t read yours.

    • Heartless etc.,

      AGREE! . . . . . . there is no such thing as gay marriage . . . – an unnatural bastardised concept spawned of Bliarist claptrap.

      Meanwhile, the H2B, in his arrogant wisdom, refuses to acknowledge the entirely NATURAL benefits of a God-given herbal plant used for centuries in easing otherwise hard-to-bear pain, – and don’t give way to the equally arrogant arguments that contemporary pharmaceutical products provide a satisfactory answer.

      • DavidDP

        “there is no such thing as gay marriage ”
        Yes there is-gays can get married in several countries already.

        • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

          No they can’t. It is an impossibility. Brave New World had a Ministry of Truth that used words in the same way that you promote.

          • DavidDP

            “It is an impossibility”
            But it isn’t – there have been weddings and marriages in quite a few countries, all recognised by the relevant authorities as being marriage in the eyes of the state as with those of different sexes. And, oddly, the world hasn’t come crashing down because of it……

            • TomTom

              Egypt ? Pakistan ? Iran ? Syria ? Libya ? China ? Ghana ? Nigeria ? Uganda ? Kenya ? Japan ? Vietnam ? Taiwan ? Joran ? Saudi Arabia ? Qatar ? Bahrein ? India ?

              • DavidDP

                No, I don’t believe those have gay marriage. But I don’t believe we model ourselves on them either. Unless you are saying we must do what they do, which is a point of view, but I’m personally not sure I’d want the UK to be like, say, China or Nigeria.

                • TomTom

                  Why what is wrong with China ? Our wonderful trading partner and a shining example to our [political elites ….or Nigeria….where Christians are regularly murdered by Muslims…..doesn’t that make you glow with pride at a Commonwealth State purging Christians and selling oil to Shell ?

          • telemachus

            Marraige is a word
            Civil Partnerships are two words
            Supreme Unmitigated Indifference are three words

        • Heartless etc.,

          You think I – and others who share this view – even care?

          [No reply necessary]

          • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

            Sorry, which person are you posting as? DavidDP the married man, or Ali Buchan the unmarried gay man?

            • DavidDP

              Um, what?

          • gubulgaria

            Of course not, and if you were in a majority, in either the country or the House, then you wouldn’t have to.

            As it is – good of you to go down without a fight – you’re showing more sense than I expected.

        • TomTom

          Then they should go there. If they are really good they can find ones that have gay polyandry and feel real privileged. If they go to Belgium they can avoid incest laws, if they go to France they can have a lower age of consent.

          • DavidDP

            Yes, they could go there. But the law here could also be changed to allow it here without much of a problem.

            • TomTom

              Could also allow Polygamy, Muslim Divorce, Polyandy, Child Brides, Female Genital Circumcision, where would we stop ?

    • DavidDP

      “are not aware that there are gay activists just waiting to get people sacked, businesses bankrupted and organisations closed?”
      Are they hiding in your closet?

      • TomTom

        You really should lkk into the groups that go and get Christian B&Bs Guides from Churches and target the owners then

    • gubulgaria

      He’s right, they’ve got the concentration camps ready, don’t be lulled into a false sense of security by our superior numbers – think about how much time they spend at the gym.

      True conservatives need to organise to fight fire with fire – infiltrate their institutions, enter Europe’s great fashion houses at the bottom and work our way up, and yes, we will have to marry each other to avoid arousing suspicion, but any man who truly loves his country will not shirk from the task.

      This will not be the first war won on the playing fields of Eton!

    • Ali Buchan

      Out of interest, from a Catholic perspective, what happened ‘in Catholic schools’ when the institution of limbo was abolished. Did ‘something’ become ‘nothing’ overnight? Did the institution still exist, even though it was said not to exist? Did the babies that went there immediately ascend to heaven? Or did Catholics have to accept that doctrines on the reality of existence change? Can marriage change, too?

      And, anyway, perhaps it’s fair to argue that marriage isn’t exclusive to Christianity, so the law should reflect what the government believes is best for society, present AND future, taking into account prevailing opinion, predicted prevailing opinion among tomorrow’s societies, strength of arguments, historical and religious background etc.

      Different people will come to different conclusions, obviously, but please don’t believe that there are not a great many people who wish to see this legislation come to pass.

      • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

        More cobblers. Marriage is an institution that is universally between a man and a woman. That is what it is by definition. The description of Christian doctrine, especially on matters which are not clearly revealed is something completely different.

        No one is confused about what marriage is. It is a union a man and a woman. This government is not confused either. It wishes to destroy the institution and there are plenty of useful idiots willing to support them in this.

        • DavidDP

          “It wishes to destroy the institution”
          How will it destroy my marriage?

          • Ali Buchan

            Excellent question! Fingers crossed the institution lasts long enough for me to get married. Sounds like it’s a race against time!

            • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

              It seems that DavidDP is now getting very confused about which account he is posting as since in one post he says he is married, and in the next post replies to himself and says that he is not married.

              • Ali Buchan

                For the sake of clarity, I’m 29, Christian (though not in your eyes), and unmarried.

                • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

                  Very interesting…. posts by DavidDP have now reappeared as by Ali Buchan. Very revealing.

                • DavidDP

                  So, what you are saying is that the Spectator is in on this conspiracy?
                  Not that you may have misread something, that would be too simple…….

                • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

                  No, I definitely didn’t misread anything DavidDP/Ali Buchan.

                • DavidDP

                  So, the Speccie is in cahoots with allowing me to post under different names and changes retrospectively any mistakes I may have made by posting under the wrong name?
                  Righto.

                • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

                  Ahh… So the Ali Buchan/DavidDP tag team are posting at the same time. What a surprise. Are you using two browsers to make it easier to use the different accounts?

                • Ali Buchan

                  This is hilarious! I hope some moderator in the Old Queen St offices is watching this and laughing at us!

                • DavidDP

                  Well, it is really silly.

                • Ali Buchan

                  I think you need to cool down a wee bit. By means of trying to help, I’ve signed up to Disqus. Hope that helps…

                • TomTom

                  What does “Christian ” mean ? I find the term incomprehensible in this culture

              • DavidDP

                I think you need to take a bit of a deep breadth and recompose yourself.

        • Ali Buchan

          I’m not sure it is totally different, as regards the point I’m trying to make.

          My point was that this piece of church dogma, clearly revealed enough to be definable and real for many hundreds of years, changed from existing (which involved tormenting unbaptised babies) to not existing. I would argue that’s a more extreme change in the definition of a doctrinal term than allowing marriage evolve into ‘a godly union of two people’ – or even more than two.

          Rather than trying to destroy the institution, perhaps, by increasing it’s inclusiveness, it will be preserved for many generations to come. Just a thought.

          • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

            Has anyone noticed that DavidDP is talking about a post by Ali Buchan as though it were his?

            I think that this is evidence that the gay marriage lobby are active and are using multiple accounts to bolster their presence!

            • Ali Buchan

              Is that a response to my post above? Thought I might get a more well-considered reply.

              Only joking…

              • http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

                So that is your response to being outed as someone running multiple accounts to support a position. That’s the actions of a troll.

                • Ali Buchan

                  I suspect DavidDP is as bemused as me, right now. I’m just here to debate an interesting issue, not to irritate you. I’m trying to support my position with logic and reason, that’s all.

            • DavidDP

              “Has anyone noticed that DavidDP is talking about a post by Ali Buchan as though it were his?”
              I think you need to calm down, old chap.

      • TomTom

        Marriage is an institution with Polygamy and Polyandry in some cultures and you ask Ali Buchan, why not in Britain ? why not indeeed ? Why not abolish Incest as in Belgium ? Why not have dowries as in India ?

    • Grumpy

      Thinking about the case of that chap who posted on Facebook that it was a step too far and got demoted and pay cut because a lesbian colleague objected and wanted him sacked made me wonder what would happen to a Minister/Priest who refused to marry a gay couple. Would their house be burnt down or their family abused .As far as teachers go there are bound to be instances where wee Johnny tells Mum that “teacher seemed to favour man/women marriages instead of same sex ones”…………6 months at her Majesty’s pleasure methinks.

      • telemachus

        It truly is like a virus
        I would save your ire and irony for a real issue

    • RKing

      I never used to give a fig about the issue of gays (or whatever they want to be called) but I must confess that your analogy has given me some cause for concern.
      When you think about whatt some of these extreme charactors have said and done in the past and how they have managed to win court cases under the present system, because someone else didn’t share their views, just imagine what is to come!!

      Well put Coffeehousewall.

      • telemachus

        This is scaremongering bilge
        Civil ceremonies, marraige, live in sin
        Who cares
        For Gays or Heterosexuals.
        Now if you move on to gay adoption you will get some true argument

        • RKing

          Before you start spewing your bilge just think about the kids involved.

    • David Lindsay

      Jack Straw, the MP for Blackburn, now claims to
      be in favour of same-sex “marriage”, which is not, and has never
      been, the formal policy of his party. If he really has changed his mind, then
      that is only because he is retiring. He would never have dared face an
      electorate in which every other non-Muslim was a Catholic, or possibly vice
      versa, on that basis.

      In Scotland, the single most reliable indicator
      of being a Labour voter is being a practising Catholic. The desire for
      this whole business just to go away on the part of Labour MPs from there, from
      the North West, from the West Midlands, and from pockets elsewhere (for
      example, the constituency in which the largest town is the Vatican City State
      of Consett, a town increasingly full of Poles on top of the Anglicised Irish) is now
      somewhere between desperation and despair. Oh, and remember that the SDLP MPs
      take the Labour Whip.

      This thing is never going to reach Third Reading in the
      House of Commons. Sections of the Conservative Party in both Houses are going to make sure
      of that. But theirs will not be the greatest joy at that turn of events.

    • telemachus

      I have rarely read such a stupid post.
      I went to primary school in the 1950’s
      Every night I looked under my bed
      I never found any reds.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here