Coffee House

David Cameron backs gay marriages in church

7 December 2012

2:05 PM

7 December 2012

2:05 PM

This week marks seven years since David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative party, and he has celebrated the occasion by making an announcement that will certainly keep things lively among his MPs and grassroots. Joe Murphy reports in the Standard today that he will allow religious groups to host same-sex weddings in their places of worship.

The Prime Minister made clear this lunchtime that he would allow a free vote, appearing on the lunchtime news to say:

‘I’m a massive supporter of marriage and I don’t want gay people to be excluded from a great institution. But let me be absolutely 100% clear, if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn’t want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it. That is absolutely clear in the legislation. Also let me make clear, this is a free vote for Members of Parliament but personally I will be supporting it.’

[Alt-Text]


Labour has already said it will place a three-line whip on a vote to introduce civil marriage for same-sex couples, but a source I spoke to today said: ‘We simply have not made a decision yet.’ The party will wait for the PM to unveil details to MPs next week before deciding how to approach a vote allowing religious ceremonies as well.

The free vote for the Tories is essential if the PM is to avoid uproar in his party, especially as there are cabinet members and other senior ministers who oppose the plan. But as Peter Bone tells the Standard, the issue won’t just divide the party, it will ‘outrage millions of people and hugely damage the government in electoral terms’.

Tory MP Stewart Jackson tells me:

‘Surely this will be killed in the House of Lords. They have no mandate, and the government cannot use the Parliament Act as this wasn’t in the manifesto.’

Nick Clegg has been pushing for the legislation to be extended to religious institutions who choose it for some time. The reason Cameron has acquiesced is also partly because those drawing up the legislation warned they could not exclude religious institutions from the Bill. The big test for those Tories who are wavering is whether those locks that the PM is pushing for which will prevent organisations such as the Church of England – the new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has already made clear that while he wants a respectful dialogue with gay marriage campaigners, he does oppose the plan – from being forced to conduct same-sex ceremonies against its will.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Aeneas9

    There is no proposal North nor South of the Border to introduce “Gay Marriage”, an expression which appears nowhere in any Government paper on same-sex marriage.
    The same thing applies to Equal Marriage, a definition of which I have failed to elicit from any politician except one, whose definition was same-sex which , sholuld it be legalised, automatically introduces a discrimination against bi-sexuals and is therefore , by definition , not Equal.
    Equal marriage can only be realised by throwing it open to any pairing or grouping wishing to avail themselves of it, irrespective of any Law ,Civil or Moral.

  • Aeneas9


    Tory MP Stewart Jackson tells me:
    ‘Surely this will be killed in the House of Lords. They have no mandate, and the government cannot use the Parliament Act as this wasn’t in the manifesto.’

    Reduction of the homosexual age of consent wasn’t in New Labour’s Manifesto but was forced through by using the Parliament Act.

  • aardvark10

    It is very clear that Telemachus simply exists tio put forward left wing clap tarp even even more to provoke people on here into an argument. But when you read from him that “I believe Ed Balls is the future” it must be clear to all real thinkers that replying to his provocation is quite simply a waste of time – life’s too short!

  • Peter Treadwell

    Please could someone enlighten me? At present, religious organisations are not forced to perform straight marriages. They very often refuse to do so. So why are some people convinced that they will be forced to perform gay marriages?
    I have a feeling that I am missing some kind of point, but I’ll be jiggered if I can work out what it is.

    • Daniel Maris

      Human rights legislation – aggressive judgements by politically motivated judges.

  • v

    At last. Treat everyone as you would like to be treated. Love is what Jesus was trying to teach. When you love someone no matter what they look like or what vessel there soul is in. Love is all that matters. One day you wil be judged by how kind and understanding you where to everyone you met along the way.What will you say? So dont treat gay people like they are evil, in fact all the gay people I know are more in likeness of the creator the people I know claiming to be Christian!

  • paranormal-palace

    sweet gay people can get married, but you still can’t have a joint what the hell ?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Vitaly-Klitschko/100003020592266 Vitaly Klitschko

    Breaking news: David Cameron outed as William Hague’s closet transexual lover.

  • Malfleur

    Now that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have thrown their support behind the buffoon Cameron and his intellectual catemite telemachus on this issue, we must finally, once and for all write off the Conservative Party as a serious political party,and as one whose role is now disclosed for all to see as the ally of those commissioned by forces behind the scenes to break our country apart and to feed the pieces to Brussels unelected goons. The millions of pounds which the Daily Mail reports today are paid by British taxpayers to reduce the farting of Colombian cattle should be paid instead to UKIP to deploy as it sees fit in its attempt to reduce the flatulence of our political class.

  • mikewaller

    Would it not be simpler if church’s came up with special wedding services expressly for those intending the have children and bring them up in accordance with the relevant faith? This would place older brides and grooms in the same group as gays and raise issues issues in respect of those intending to adopt, be they gay or straight. But it would narrow the argument to a helpful degree.

  • NAVESTOCK

    There is polling evidence that this is a vote loser. Mr Cameron is already in trouble with parliamentary party and electorate re Europe. Does he want to be REPLACED by someone who will do a deal with UKIP (as unprecendentedly Vice Chairman Fabricant just proposed) and not come up with something as needlessly provocative as this? Even the gay former LABOUR minister Mr Bradshaw says that there is no demand in gay community for this and gay Tory FORMER PPS Conor Burns signed the MP’s letter AGAINST it.

  • GayMan

    As a gay Christian, I would love to proclaim my love for my partner under the eyes of God…presuming we can find a vicar prepared to marry us. Can anyone tell me why I should be prohibited by law from doing that?

    I’m not sure I can see what harm it would do to anyone. That’s why comments against the plan, like a few of those expressed here, sometimes feel like homophobia, rather than well-reasoned arguments for the legitimate preservation of an institution.

    My parents have enjoyed a long and happy marriage, and I want to enjoy that, too, not just a long and happy civil partnership. Surely it’s not just about procreation – how would we treat a man and woman known to be infertile?

    • Daniel Maris

      You’re confusing a number of different things here. Marriage is both a religious and a legal institution.

      There are plenty of Churches where you can go and marry your gay partner, “proclaiming your love for your partner under the eyes of God”. Denominations that allow marriage include Unitarians, Quakers and Swedenborgians. If your current denomination doesn’t allow it, you can of course seek to change the views of your denomination or transfer your allegiance to another denomination. In other words, you are free to enjoy whatever religious form of marriage you like.

      However, the legal institution of marriage has always been focussed on procreation (which is why consummation is still its defining mark) and the union of one man and one woman.

      But your argument of “personal empowerment” doesn’t just apply to you does it? Are you going to stop a Muslim man, following the word of God in the Koran, from “proclaiming his love for his partners under the eyes of Allah”? If you believe in monogamy, what is your argument for preventing him from having his cherished beliefs recognised in law?

      • Ron Todd

        If we go with personal empowerment as the only criteria for what is allowed would we have to let the Muslim following the word of his god stone you to death?

        • Daniel Maris

          Quite.

    • Colonel Mustard

      The problem is not so much prohibition but compulsion. Compulsion of those who dissent from religious conscience. Cameron says they won’t be forced. But we all know how the militant lobby works. Equality laws and the ECHR will do the rest. Your right to get married in a church will be bought at the price of priests being put in jail. There is no mechanism to stop this, especially when devout religious conscience is already being scorned as bigotry rather than respected.

      At the same time, the same people (mainly) are demanding that we respect the devout religious conscience of the Muslim faith and proposing legislation to coerce that. There is a mixed message and a double standard here of which people like you, are unfortunately the shuttlecock driven between.

      I might wish that you could find a vicar happy and willing to marry you, but that others who demurred might be allowed to and not subject to the coercion of the state or the abuse of others.

  • Triscan

    David Cameron’s over the top support for same sex marriage suggests that in fact he is a secret agent for UKIP, probably been a sleeper for a number of years who has now been activated by his handlers to ferment dissension among Tory voters in order to increase the United Kingdom Independence Party’s prospects in the next General Election!

  • Nick 78

    God creates gay people. Yet believers in his word think that the best way to live life by his rules is stop people he created getting married in a place of worship.

    I must confess I am at a loss as to why so many Tory MP’s are opposed to this. At least it gives them something to moan about other than Europe I guess

    • Orson_Cart

      Do gay atheists not exist?

  • Peter

    I am a Muslim and Gay, but i have a problem.
    I wish to get married in my local Mosque, but
    If i ask for this, they won’t marry me. They will kill me and my partner.
    My partner and i, could change and become Christians, but
    If i do this, they will kill me and my partner.
    Please David C, can you help me.

    • Fergus Pickering

      No Peter, there’s nothing he can do except declare a holy war. All YOU can do is keep quiet alas.

    • Daniel Maris

      You could appear in a well known BBC soap series set in the East London. Then you will find that eventually you and your gay partner are accepted by the local Muslim community after a bit of formulaic soul-searching. See? – no problem in Luvvies La-la Land.

  • Fergus Pickering

    Seems a lot of fuss about nothing. Am I missing something?

  • Magnolia

    I’m late with this and it’s taken a bit for me to click but back in November James told us that Nick Boles had ditched “that Phillip Blond nonsense, we indulged in” in a post entitled ‘Where the Tories were wrong on modernisation’ on 8th Nov 2012.
    I’ve just heard Phillip Blond now, on The World Tonight, wipe the floor with Matthew Parris over gay marriage and Blond describes it as authoritarian.
    That might explain why the rest of his ‘modern’ ideas have been dumped.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    Can supporters of gay ‘marriage’ explain why their proposals are restricted to unions of 2 people? If marriage is not to be restricted to 1 man 1 women as per the last,…. years what possible justification is there for it to be restricted to only couples?

    • Sweetpea

      If you want a polygamous marriage perhaps you should begin a campaign to have your right to one recognised; I’m not sure why supporters of gay marriage should undertake this work on your behalf.

      • Daniel Maris

        Sweetpea,

        That doesn’t follow. He’s asking you to explain why polygamous should not be allowed if all that is key is personal fulfillment. Or are you saying three people can’t be part of a loving union. And if you are saying that, aren’t you the prejudiced one?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Simon-Fay/1127268875 Simon Fay

    “I was manoeuvered into place as a pro-EU & Common Purpose man, and I will govern as such”

  • Edward Sutherland

    I see Dave’s given another “cast-iron guarantee” ( “… let me be absolutely 100% clear”). Phew! so as an opponent of gay marriage in churches I need have no worries. But didn’t he give similar assurances regarding the Lisbon Treaty?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Simon-Fay/1127268875 Simon Fay

      Given what he has turned out to be (as trailed by those who ran his leadership campaign) why would anyone in their right mind vest any hope of keeping a promise in the cvnt?

  • HooksLaw

    Your headline seems totally at variance with what Cameron said. The Spectator continues to go downhill.
    Cameron says he supports gay marriage. He said it was a free vote. He said that churches would not be forced to officiate at a gay marriage.

    • Theodoxia

      In making this new announcement that churches would be “allowed” to conduct same-sex marriages (contrary to the previous policy) Cameron was giving his backing to same-sex marriage in church. He is also opening the door to every militant homosexual activist in the country to make mischief for churches through the courts: Cameron’s promise that nobody will be forced to participate against their will is worthless, as recent history demonstrates. It’s likely that churches not wanting to get caught in such vexatious legal battles will have to stop conducting any marriages. Somehow, though, I think that mosques will not have the same trouble, as the imams often have their own methods of dealing with difficulties.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Absolutely correct. As usual the furore around the entitlement places a neat fog over the consequences. For a fine ideal we descend into chaos again and our society is needlessly ripped apart.

    • MirthaTidville

      And of course their is a Father Christmas isn`t there Hooky?????

  • Edmund Briffa

    The Conservative Party has lost my – and my family’s – vote in National and Local Elections. A Prime Minister and Party that allows gay ‘marriage’ is not ‘Christian’ – whatever that may now mean in the Protestant community. Homosexuality by any other name remains an abomination.

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

      I agree. I will work with all my energy to ensure that my sitting Conservative MP is not re-elected. The Conservative Party is a fraud and should be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act. I consider this the most anti-Christian Government in recent history and my local MP consistently votes against Christian and traditional English principles.

  • Madame Merle

    A this moment in time, do Cameron and Clog really think that gay marriage is one of the country’s priorities?

    The desperation of gays to be married has little to do with equality, the civil partnership satisfies that, and everything to do with challenging the social structure and forcing religions to do their will.

    When the gay couple have a child (with the help of a third person who provides the necessary egg or sperm) will they claim the right to go to the altar as a happy trio?

    Gays love a good fight and marriage is an opportunity to challenge social convention.

    • TomTom

      It is in the circle of advisers and Pr men in their midst. It is simply pandering to Courtiers

      • Malfleur

        and they are nihilists.

    • Daniel Maris

      Yes, when – as Fraser says – we have a national emergency on our hands with youth unemployment (and I would add with mass immigration as well) it does seem to be a very strange priority. And if you were looking for social reform, well maybe you would look at banning arranged marriages, which cause so much unhappiness to thousands of young people, or actually arranging for just one prosecution maybe in relation to female genital mutilation, or legislating against male genital mutilation, or preventing drug use among young school age children, or…any number of other things…but gay marriage? I think the public mood is that that civil partnership were a good and welcome reform and it can stop there thankyou very much. Marriage must remain as a monogamous union of a man and a woman, the cultural function of which is to provide a solid foundation for procreation and the raising of children to adulthood.

  • David Lindsay

    Now that the debate on marriage is open, let us make the most of it. Any marrying couple should be entitled to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 with regard to grounds and procedures for divorce, and any religious organisation should be enabled to specify that any marriage which it conducted should be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly.

    Statute should specify that the Church of England be such a body unless the General Synod specifically resolved the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses, with something similar for the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, which also exist pursuant to Acts of Parliament, as well as by amendment to the legislation relating to the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy. Entitlement upon divorce should be fixed by Statute at one per cent of the other party’s estate for each year of marriage, up to fifty per cent, with no entitlement for the petitioning party unless the other party’s fault be proved.

    That would be a start, anyway. The marital union of one man and one woman is a public good uniquely and in itself, and the taxation system, among so very many other instruments of public policy, ought to recognise that fact. It ought to recognise marriage as a unique public good, to which civil partnerships (which, never having needed to be consummated, ought not to be confined to unrelated same-sex couples) are not comparable. And it ought to recognise marriage as a public good in itself, whether or not there are children, a related but different public good of which other forms of recognition rightly exist.

    • salieri

      Please tell us, DL, what is this amazing thing you do so with such apparent facility to the English language? Do you perhaps write your prose in Turkish first and then use an online translation programme? What’s the secret?

      Forgive me for asking. I don’t mean to be offensive. It’s just that I can’t understand what you are trying to say, no matter what the subject of your contribution or its worth. You take individual words, each of which has recognisable meaning in isolation, and then jumble them up in outlandish configurations; you add a couple of rogue subjunctives for effect; and you then frenziedly multiply your subordinate clauses with Proustian hypotaxis (without, it must be said, Proustian elegance) and at the same time remove basic conjunctions, until your sentences collapse under the weight of their own stupendous pomposity. And then you keep doing the same thing for several more paragraphs.

      Who taught you to write like this? I really, really want to know, so that I can bring a private prosecution against him/her.

      • David Lindsay

        Oh, what fun! I am having the same sport over on Ed West’s Telegraph Blog, with the pro-drugs lobby, who likewise are capable only of abuse when confronted with that thing previously unknown to them, someone who does not spontaneously acknowledge the rightness of their position. But even they are not as bad as the homosexualist lobby. No one is.

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

          I’m sorry but salieri is correct, and is not abusing you. Your post is incomprehensible in some subtle manner.

        • salieri

          But I don’t have a ‘position’. I just can’t understand what you mean.

        • ButcombeMan

          Language is about communication. You fail on all counts.

          You may be playing with yourself, while you write such impenetrable prose, as you do.

          What you produce It is utterly worthless ejaculate.

      • IRISHBOY

        salieri, what Classical elegance and deft argument! And how cheering!

      • Baron

        salieri, my blogging friend, this posting of yours must rank amongst the best ever, you’re not only right, you also offer a perfectly logical dissection of David’s contributions, and so wittily that reading it has engendered a bout of laughter of a capaciousness and longevity not experienced by the barbarian from the east for a long time, thank you, sir.

        David seems to possess a massive amount of facts, yet the way he shares them with us suggests he has no desire any of it should rub off on us. A rare gift that.

      • Madame Merle

        Quite so, salieri, DL has all the communicative skill of a lawyer.

      • Colonel Mustard

        I had no problems reading it or understanding it and I think it a fine advocacy.

  • MirthaTidville

    If I were Farage I`d be rubbing my hands in glee…….Cameron is the gift that just goes on giving doesnt he…..

  • Troika21

    Gay marriage can be supported on the sensible, conservative principle that:

    it’s none of the states god-damn business who people marry

    or my, or your business, for that matter.

    Honestly, why is this such a problem?

    • Baron

      So, Troika21, on the same sensible conservative principle, would you allow two spinsters to marry?

      Honestly, would it be such a problem?

      • Troika21

        I thought we’d been over this – yes, and no, to your questions.

        What is it with you and spinsters, anyway?

    • FrankS

      None of the state’s business? But it’s the state that carries out the wedding!

      • Troika21

        True, but I mean it as –

        Why should the state be allowed to meddle in individuals personal lives, by preventing people from doing something that has no cost to them, the state or wider society?

        • Colonel Mustard

          They do that all the time. Since 1997 the state has made a fine art of criminalising people for offences without victims.

    • Theodoxia

      So the state has no business legislating on the age of consent, either? Is it a conservative principle to allow polygamy if that is what people want? Has the government any right to prohibit bestiality?

      • Troika21

        Has the government any right to prohibit bestiality?

        Just because we would allow one thing, does not mean that all others follow.

        What, exactly, is wrong with polygamy?
        Not my cup of tea, but why should it be denied to others who want it?

        And lastly, and most importantly for me:

        Governments do not legislate morality (can you imagine what would happen if they did?), they make laws that preserve and promote the State.
        If the state can get out of the way, it should.

        Why is it that so many conservatives believe in de-regulating our economy, but not in de-regulating our lives?

        Once you start thinking of these rules as ‘regulations’, rather than ‘morality’, getting rid of them becomes very conservative indeed.

        • Ron Todd

          Polygamy allows men to have multiple wives but not women to have multiple husbands. It is practiced by cultures that do not treat women well and sometimes, how often we cannot know involves one or more of the women being coerced. So I think it is legitimate for a society to oppose polygamy by having state pass laws against it. Likewise as marriage should be a free contract between two people it would be legitimate for the state to oppose any marriage that involves coercion. This of course includes restrictions on the age that people can get married. In this country the state is responsible for the cost of medical treatment for that reason the state should be allowed to restrict cousin marriages.

          • Troika21

            Polygamy allows women to have multiple husbands, don’t be ridiculous. Its simply that life, marriage etc have been so male dominated that that’s how its usually conceived.

            In the Western context, polygamy is usually practised as ‘polyamory’, and is a network of interrelations, who may or may not romantically or sexually involved, but might have partners who are. So whilst polygamy is usually thought of as a central person and a bunch of spokes, it does not have to be that way.
            And in any case, if many women did, legitimately, want to all marry the same man, why should they be prevented from doing so?

            • Ron Todd

              Polyandry is having multiple husbands and is not common. The societies that practice polygamy are also the societies that oppress women, in many cases it is difficult to determine exactly how willing the women are. If many consenting women agree to live with one man I have no objections just call it something else and only give official recognisation to the one, if any couple that are legitimatly married.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Ridiculous. The government is seeking to legislate morality all the time.

  • DavidDP

    An excellent Conservative position – boosting marriage in society and getting the state out of the way of people living their lives as they wish. There are no good arguments for the state preventing two consenting adults from getting married if they wish; why would the state know better what people want than the people themselves?

  • Elgarsrondo

    Well they do in mine Daveyyy12. Good on him.

  • IRISHBOY

    Let’s look a few years down the line, or “going forward” in current socialist patois, and guess how long it will be before primary schoolchildren will be arrested for committing the “hate-crime” of referring to Mummy and Daddy? When will the words mother and father be removed from birth certificates? (As in Spain).
    Camoron’s time would be better spent (well it would be better spent if he sat and did nothing at all) looking at the reasons why hundreds of thousands of primary schoolchildren are being arrested for thought crimes. This is an absolute disgrace, and among the most pernicious elements of so-called liberal socialism, and naturally will remain something The Spectator will never address.
    It’s high-time this magazine reverted to being something more than a soft-political version of Dempster’s Diary.

    • DavidDP

      I’ve looked several years down the line- none of that’s going to happen. Gay people will just. Get married. No one else will be affected. Amazing., or not….

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

        The Government has already stated that any teacher refusing to promote gay marriage will lose their job without any recourse. I expect to see priests in prison before the next election for refusing to submit to this anti-Christian subversion of language and institution. The family remains one of the last independent centres of authority, the state is seeking to undermine it every way it can, and now, by redefining the word marriage in an impossible manner it will do so.

        • HooksLaw

          You can’t be gay and Christian?
          Gays can’t be baptised into the church?
          Gays can’t be confirmed?
          Gays can’t take Holy Communion?
          Gays can’t be buried in churchyards?

          What a load of homophobic crap you UKIP loony lot bang on about.
          What kind of church do you want? What kind of church is it you go to? Explain where Jesus condemned homosexuals.

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

            Of course you can be a Christian and face homosexual temptations. You can even be a Christian and fall into homosexual sin. But you cannot be a Christian and consider homosexual practice as a virtue. Just as you cannot be a Christian and consider heterosexual practice outside of marriage a virtue.

            You seem ignorant of the difference between facing temptations, giving into temptations and not even considering a certain sin to be sin and celebrating it. These different conditions require different treatment,

            I don’t sense that a discussion of Christianity will be of much value with you, unless you wish to become a Christian. If you don’t then the Christian response to homosexual sin, and other sins, is not really any business of yours.

            • HooksLaw

              As the church of England itself says,
              ‘In the 1950s the Church of England’s Moral Welfare Council was
              one of the major influences that led to the setting up of the
              Wolfenden Commission, supporting its recommendation to abolish the law against male homosexual activity and to set the age of
              homosexual consent at 21, which became law in 1967.’

              Strictly speaking the Church of England does not believe in sex before marriage it says ‘fornication and adultery which are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise ofcompassion’
              It says ‘that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal’.

              The Church however regularly marries fornicators and adulterers.

              In the face of all of this ‘falling short of an ideal’, we get bucketloads of quasi religious crap and outright bigoted garbage. Are you all afraid homosexuality is contagious?

              As it happens I do not see the point of homosexual marriage, but I do not see the point of ‘ordinary’ marriage if there are no children. That means I suppose I support fornication.
              As a result, and bearing in mind the vast amount of adultery we see to go with all the fornication, I am afraid I cannot get energised by the issue of gay marriage.

              • TomTom

                Wolfenden was a fraud who never revealed his son was an alcoholic homosexual. Normally self-interest is a reason to exclude someone from such committees

          • acorn

            Can you show where he promoted it or condoned it?
            Separate church from state and let everyone have a state marriage and go to church afterwards if they want to.

            • TomTom

              Time to abolish The State which is not representative of anybody

          • TomTom

            When he refers to The Torah as a 1st Century Orthodox Jew wearing Orthodox Jewish clothes and quoting from Leviticus

          • Fergus Pickering

            Indeed it is perfectly possible that JC….

            • TomTom

              Jesus was the name of a 1st Century Orthodox Jew – “Christ” is a Greek word applied after his death when Hellenic Culture added non-Jews to the congregation…….but Jesus was a Jew as Henry VIII was a Roman Catholic from birth to death

          • Archimedes

            “Explain where Jesus condemned homosexuals.”

            Not that I’m religious or nuffin, but I reckon Sodom and Gomorrah were kinda a condemnation. Maybe this:

            “And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor’rah than for that town.”

            Hardly a ringing endorsement of the LGBT community, now.

    • Curnonsky

      Dave must realize that his task is just beginning – if it is the proper role of the State to re-order traditional social conventionsto conform with the latest trends, then why not address the shocking discrimination that almost everyone practices in choosing their “life partner”? Can any decent, thinking person deny that bigotry based on gender, race, religion, body shape, hair colour, class etc. is rampant? If he means to be consistent in his drive to de-toxify his benighted party, then the next logical step is a state-run lottery to assign conjugal partners. Perhaps Boris, who has done so much field research on this topic, could take on the job of Mate Selector-in Chief?

  • Matthew Whitehouse

    It’s so much harder being a “tory in Power”. You just cannot get away from the fact that most of Britain supports gay marriage (i dont) You cannot be Prime Minister and say gays cant marry

    • will defens

      Sadly not one gives a dam. If he had said he will levae at it is he would not have lost a single vote because the people who want it are not going to vote for him anyway.

      Gay Marriage will be a brief period. Most ethnic minorities disagree with it but will just ignore it.

      • DavidDP

        Ethnic minorities are gay too and some of those may want to get married. No reason why the shouldn’t be able to.

        • Davey12

          You will find that Homophobia is a tad higher in the the ethnic communities. Current demographic trends suggest that this gay renascence may be brief period in history.

          I’m buying share in crane companies.

        • MirthaTidville

          Try going to a mosque and telling them that you are gay……do let us know what their response was…would be interesting

    • TomTom

      Most of Britain supports the Death Penalty but Cameron does not. Most of Britain supports Immigration Control but Cameron does not. Most of Britain does NOT support gay “marriage”

      • Fergus Pickering

        Yes it does, TomTom me old darling. Just not the people that YOU know.

    • Hugh

      ” You just cannot get away from the fact that most of Britain supports gay marriage”

      What poll did you have in mind?

      • Sweetpea

        How about this one:
        http://www.populus.co.uk/uploads/OmGay_Rights.pdf

        Support for gay marriage even outweighs opposition in the US as Nate Silver shows here:
        http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/

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

          The question is weighted to generate a positive response. If you ask ‘Should the Government be allowed to redefine the meaning of marriage?’ you will get a very different response.

          • Sweetpea

            Wow! What is it about folks on the right being unmoved by facts and refusing to accept new information? Most polling shows that support for gay marriage outweighs opposition; please carry on burying your head in the sand – there’s a reason why it’s more than 20 years since the Tories won a majority in Westminster: they’re out of touch.

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

              I think 15 years of unrestricted immigation and the deliberate growth of a benefits culture has more to do with it. Recent polls all show a rejection of the perversion of gay marriage.

              The aim is to undermine marriage and then allow polygamy. Make the words marriage, mother, father and family mean nothing at all, and encourage even more immigration of those who don’t share our values, culture and traditions.

              • Sweetpea

                The aim is simply let people get on with their lives in their own way. I won’t judge you in the way you judge others; but I am relieved that we will never again have a government led by people who share your prejudices.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  If only that were true. The aim is far from simply letting people get on with their own lives in their own way. It is about conformity. One can get on with one’s life in one’s own way provided that it conforms to the current groupthink. If not, one attracts abuse as a bigot and “out of touch” and all manner of other pejoratives, including ageist taunts.

                  I don’t have any issue with gay marriage but it saddens me to see the persecution of homosexuals replaced by the persecution of devout Christians. Those responsible should not feel pleased with themselves for their clever and scornful words but only deep shame for their hypocrisy.

                • Sweetpea

                  Please don’t characterise my comments as being either ageist or anti-Christian. It is the Tories – and particularly those on the right of that party ( the Tory Taliban?) – I have accused of being out of touch.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I don’t have to characterise them. You were the one who wrote “I won’t judge you in the way you judge others; but I am relieved that we will never again have a government led by people who share your prejudices.” which is a nice piece of “non-judgemental” judgement and neatly demonstrates the bigotry in play. You are proposing not to let (some) Christians get on with their lives in their own way, whether they are old or not, or Tories or not. And if you think this project won’t end in their persecution for non-conformity you are sadly deluded. They are already being openly abused for daring to express these personal opinions.

                  Perhaps the gay marriage lobby might show the same respect for people of conscience as they demand for themselves.

        • Hugh
  • Bill

    Let’s ban old people from using the internet. After all, you don’t get old people using the internet in the bible. And many of them are using taxpayer subsidised internet from their nursing homes. That would shut the spiteful old bigots up.

    • Archimedes

      Yes, and then let’s burn anyone that disagrees with us – it worked for witches after all, and you don’t see many of them running around today, do you?

    • Colonel Mustard

      So you are as spitefully bigoted towards the old as you accuse them (all?) of being toward gay marriage?

      And this is not about “banning” anything.

      Your comment really, really sucks.

    • TomTom

      The level of your discussion suggests you should consider shutting up

    • salieri

      ‘Bill’, I deduce from that hilarious second sentence, that you’re having a tease. A very nice one, too. But please assure the blogging world you’re not really the unpleasant cretin that you seem.

    • MirthaTidville

      And some people doubt that the Churches wont be forced into marrying gays…….Bill`s attitude tells you all you need to know…

      • Colonel Mustard

        Sadly, yes. The replacement of one form of prejudice and persecution by another. Progress? Doubt it.

    • Ron Todd

      You don’t get anybody using the internet in the bible. I am 53 should I be allowed to use the internet or not.

      • 2trueblue

        Thats where his education did not kick in. Just another stupid mutt.

    • 2trueblue

      Who do you think paid for you to grow up and have the freedom and education you seem to be unaware of? Ah forgot you didn’t. you are just stupid.

  • Daniel Maris

    It might be thought not a very serious issue, the best response being: well bugger me! But there is a serious side to this. If we allow the gay lobby to change the meaning of marriage in one important respect (union of people from the opposite sexes), then there is every prospect others will change its meaning in other respects – and the one that really worries me is allowing polygamy – more harmful than heroin to a society – to get a grip in this country (well, more so than it has already).

    • 2trueblue

      The trouble is we have allowed people into the UK who have more than one wife and the ball is already rolling. Cameron is a big disappointment, he appears to have no backbone or real ideas about what, where, when, on the big issues that are framing our lives. The country is being run for minorities.

      • Daniel Maris

        Yes, a polygamous marriage should be an absolute ban on naturalisation. For UK citizens entering into polygamous marriage should be a serious offence.

        • 2trueblue

          Ah, you and I abide by the law, and if we did not we would have the full force of the law clamp down on us, but for those entering the country it does not seem to apply. Why? Does it mean that those entering the country seeking safety have more rights than those of us who live here, and contribute in every way, including behaving in a lawful manner?

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

          The current regulations allow for polygamy as long as the British citizen goes abroad to break the law. We are picking up the tab already for these illegal families.

          Cameron’s main interest is not minorities but himself and his own advancement. This is because we have allowed career politicians to take over Government. Like all careerists they are only interested in themselves.

  • Tony, Somerset

    Yet again Cameron allows himself to be diverted from the main problems of the day to pontificate on an issue that in the main is only of interest to minority groups within the M25.

    • Adam Nixon

      Nonsense. Quite a few gay people, and quite a few friends of gay people, live outside the M25. Pleae don’t condescend.

  • TomTom

    Time for an alliance of Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and Sikhs to protect Religion from The State. It is time for a fundamental split and a return to the 17th Century where the basis of the current political system was laid. Time to revoke the Act of Union, Disestablish the Church of England as Cromwell did, and to restructure Parliament and the Monarchy

    • Matthew Whitehouse

      Churches dont get on with each other do they? Protestants want gay marriage Catholics dont! How your system would work i just cant tell…

      • Dr Crackles

        Protestants want no such thing and if you don’t know this talk to some.

        • http://twitter.com/adlingtonj John Adlington

          Quakers do and they’re protestant. Can’t see the Wee Frees being too chuffed about having to do it.

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

            Quakers are not Protestants. Half of them are essentially Deists, if that. They could be called Non-Conformists, but they share nothing in common with traditional Protestants.

      • TomTom

        No. Protestants do not. Do you know any Protestants ? You talk of “Churches” which are institutions – the nature of Protestants is that they are INDIVIDUALS accountable for their beliefs Sola Scriptura, Sole Fide, Sola Gratia. There is simply no basis for the Modern State – it is a Threat to Liberty and to Conscience and should be dismantled. Who does Cameron think he is ? Khomeini ?

        • DavidDP

          If its about individuals and liberty and conscience, then the proposal to allow those who want to conduct gay marriages and those who don’t not to seems rather compatible. Let individual gays get married if they wish, in ceremonies conducted by those who want to give them. Those that don’t want to get married or conduct such ceremonies don’t have to.

          • Madame Merle

            Yes, it’s awfully good of Cameron to say that they won’t be “forced” to marry gays.

            Who does he think he is?

            • Colonel Mustard

              He knows he is safe saying that because the decision is not his but Brussels. He will shrug his shoulders like Pilate and say “But Brussels made me do it”.

          • Baron

            No, sir, it ain’t about any of it, it’s about equality, a concept that will eventually bury us all as it takes away one freedom after another.

          • TomTom

            Marriage is a Public Ceremony where people can object. I do.

          • TomTom

            The Vicars in the Church of England have a dual role. They are Priests and they are Registrars able to issue Wedding Certificates. The two roles become incompatible

          • Colonel Mustard

            Naive. Those who don’t want to conduct such ceremonies will be criminalised and jailed, whatever assurances are given. This is not about gay marriage but another agenda entirely, of which gay marriage is merely a convenient catalyst.

        • Ron Todd

          I was brought up Presybeterian, I do not agree that there is no place for the state. Yes in some circumstances the state can restrict freedom, but without a state would we not just have the strongest imposing their will on the weekest?

          • Baron

            Ron, two things on sex are hard to deny – we enjoy it, and we procreate by it. The State should legitimately interfere with the latter but not the former unless health of the citizenry is at stake. Gay couplings have BA to do with the latter, hence it is of no business to either the boy or anyone else who governs us.

            As it happens, those in charge are incapable to run a country, hence they keep messing up our private lives.

            • Ron Todd

              I see marriage as a contract not just between two people but also between the couple and the rest of society. The couple get the right to have legitimate children recognised by the state and able to inherit. Less important now than in the past. The couple get certain financial benefits again less important now than in the past. In return they benefit society by bringing up children in a way that is unarguably is best for the children and therefore best for society in the next generation. So I do think that marriage is one of the things that the state has a right to have some say on. Single sex marriages cannot have children by natural means and I do not believe that the children they do have; however well individual couples might bring up children; in general do as well as the natural children of a standard family.

              • TomTom

                The State had NO role in marriage before 1756 so what is your point. There was NO Civil Registration of Marriage before 1837 – so what exavtly is your point ?

                • Ron Todd

                  Even if the state had no role society did. If you can’t tell what my point is tough. The state or the church has for a long time regulated who can marry and for the last 500 years that has been an estiblished state church.

          • TomTom

            Which is what we have at present. The Housed of Commons dictates what you can say, do, believe

          • Malfleur

            The role of the state is to keep the sewers functioning and a military in being capable of protecting the people.

    • DavidDP

      Why? Religions will be able to carry on as they wish. What are they being protected from? And how come they need protection, when the group of people who are being discriminated against by the state should apparently put up with not being allowed to Get married? Why should the state get in the way of people like that?

      • Vulture

        You are clearly a historical ignoramus. You imagine that history moves ever forward, overcoming the occasional blip, into the broad, sunlit uplands of progress, where Gays will marry, the birds and bees will twitter in blue skies and all will be well forever more amen.

        In fact, history is cyclical and we are in the final cycle of decadence before the arrival of the barbarians. And, you know what? Gays won’t be allowed to marry in churches then because there won’t be any churches. And there won’t be any Gays either.

        Ask your friendly local neighbourhood Imam if you don’t believe me.

        • Malfleur

          The barbarians have breached the walls. They are now in the city.

      • TomTom

        Brothers and Sisters cannot get married. Fathers and daughters cannot get married

      • TomTom

        Religion is under attack from The State across all fronts just as when The Pilgrim Fathers set sail for Plymouth Rock and they had a Protestant Colony until the IRish and Italians arrived in the 1850s and destroyed the New England and East Coast culture bringing gangs and civic corruption. This State is at war with its religious faith

    • Malfleur

      Count the muslims out – they want to take over the state.

  • In2minds

    This is really important, yeah!

  • Robert

    “Civil partnerships were enough.”

    Let’s say then that gay people can get married and straight people can have civil partnerships. Or white couples can get married but black and mixed race couples can get CPs. Or – and this would be consistent with the ‘marriage is for raising children’ argument – couples where one party is infertile or the woman is aged over 50 – have to have civil partnerships rather than marriages.

    Suddenly civil partnerships don’t seem so ‘separate but equal’ do they?

    • Archimedes

      Let’s say that men can have a penis, and women can have a vagina. Suddenly gender doesn’t seem so “equal”, does it?

  • Bluesman

    The Chordatically Challenged One indulges, yet again, in displacement activity.

  • Robert

    “Justin Welby has already made clear that while he wants a respectful dialogue with gay marriage campaigners, he does oppose the plan – from being forced to conduct sam-sex ceremonies against its will.”

    Well since no one is going to force the church to hold same-sex marriages against its will, we have to conclude there’s some other reason.

    After all, churches are free to marry divorced people, but no one has successfully used the law, the Equality act, the Human Rights Act, etc to force them. So why should gay marriage be any different?

    • TomTom

      Who is Justin Welby ? I don’t recognise his authority or position as having any divine revelationary impact. I really don’t care about his opinion on anything

    • MirthaTidville

      Because this is the thin edge of the wedge ….the militant gay lobby wont stop until they have got what they want….

  • Bob Dixon

    Its the economy stupid!

    • MirthaTidville

      Ah too hard pile that one old boy

  • Archimedes

    It might be pragmatic to split the Conservative party in the long run, but it seems a bit unnecessary right now. He should enshrine in law the right of religious institutions to discriminate in line with their beliefs. If the two were done at the same time, he might be able to achieve a balance that most people agree with, and that actually would change the image of the Conservative party in the process.

    • Baron

      Archimedes, equality reigns supreme in this age of ours, the boy if fully aware of it, any legislation ringfacing churches’ right to say no will be swept aside in first attempt by any court of law at a stroke. No question about it, sir.

    • TomTom

      Cameron cannot enshrine anything in law because it is subject to the ECJ. The whole Civil Partnership thing came from the EU Directives on Workplace Discrimination as part of a widening remit. Do you wonder why this issue is currently on the agenda in France, Germany and the UK simultaneously ?

  • Daveyyy12

    Have not got a clue what this guy is doing..

    It seems our elites inhabit a different world to me. In my world no gives a dam about gay marriage.

    • dalai guevara

      Well so be it. But is it not rather that whilst the church should not interfere with state business, the state should not interfere with church business?

      If the CoE, Catholics, Muslims, Jews et al do not want to accept such policy, surely it is the state’s duty to provide alternative arrangements – and be done with it.

      • Davey12

        Strange, lefties spend there lives insulting the institution of marriage but get exercised about gay marriage. To the left marriage and families must be destroyed. They have a pol-pot year zero policy towards marriage. Especially for the working poor.

        The most surreal is how the left is now pandering to Islamists. We have left-wing politicians standing shoulder to shoulder with groups who think gays should be killed.

        • dalai guevara

          I am glad you realise that none of what you state is what I am advocating.

          The real question we ought to ask is this: whilst the future CoE boss is not holding back with comments on banking, is DC’s attempt to ‘interfere’ his response to felt pressures?

          The Muslims don’t even come into this one.

          • Davey12

            I do not care why Dave is doing it, Neither do I care what a vicar has to say on anything. Do not believe in sky fairies.

            As for saying Muslims do not come into this, they do. The left scream about gay rights yet hang with people who think gays should be hanged. These guys really do mean hanging gays. Makes me feel that the left do not really care about gay rights. It’s just a stick to beat us with.

            How much money will you bet that Labour MPs in certain parts will use this. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, lots of boarding school jokes. How many MPs in certain parts will abstain.

            I oppose Gay marriage as I believe marriage is between a man and a women. I believe it is a positive institution. I believe that the destruction of the family has damaged millions of people and is causing untold damage to this country.

            Unlike some the left hang with I do not think it is a capital offence, even criminal offence.

            • dalai guevara

              Who are these ominous lefties you refer to? As with any form of extremism, they would be in a minority, surely.

              DC is not addressing Muslims in any way here, at least I cannot see it. He is serving an entirely different clientele, with entirely different purpose.

        • 2trueblue

          You are right, Blairs lot spent their time diminishing the values that are core to a well functioning society. No one was entitled to say what was normal, or express their opinions because it was not PC. Blair and Liebore started all this pandering to anything that was not English.

    • Malfleur

      “Have not got a clue what this guy is doing..”

      The idea is to target and discredit any residual centres which are attempting to make fine distinctions of language and ethics.

    • JosephJohnODonnell

      But perhaps there are many people who this actually affects who do care about it?

  • call me dave

    There’s nothing conservative about The Conservatives!

    They’ll soon be gone. Good riddance.

    • 2trueblue

      I hope not. Look at the Liebores record over 13yrs.

  • barbie

    This is another blunder by Cameron and another nail in his election in 2013. I do not agree that churches should provide a church for this kind of thing. Civil partnerships were enough. Why he does these things I’ll never know, he’s enough on his plate to win the next election without this. No one objects to people having an agreement or civil arangement, but to class it the same as marrige is not right. The new Archbishop as made his case clear, and hopefully he will assert is right to object and refuse it out right. We have had a weak leader in the C of E, now this new one might just perform for what it should do, protect the national church. Cameron will lose votes on this one, and if Miliband has any sense he will go for NO.

    • MirthaTidville

      Yes but Milliband hasn`t any sense…therein lies the problem

  • Colonel Mustard

    It won’t matter what the legislation intends. The discrimination and equality laws will come into play and the ECHR. It is naive to think that the militant pro-gay lobby won’t deliberately create confrontational situations to advance their rights above and beyond those of conscience.

    • The Laughing Cavalier

      As far as the discrimination laws and the ECHR are concerned the Colonel is absolutely right. Why Cameron should be hell bent on squandering his limited capital of good will on this unnecessary legislation is beyond me. Surely, even he realises that he won’t get Guardian readers to vote for him whatever he does

      • telemachus

        You have a jaundiced view of Guardian readers
        The three left are One Nation Tories

      • TomTom

        He doesn’t care about Guardian readers. He simply wants to fuse with the LibDems and lose Conservative Voters so he can form a National Coalition with Labour and a One Party State Dedicated to Bankers

    • EJ

      This is the final nail in the coffin. What is this IDIOT playing at? David Cameron stands up and says something meaningful on the EU, on immigration, on Islamisation, on cultural displacement, on crime and punishment? No.

      David Cameron stands up and says something that will alienate and infuriate what’s left of the grassroots still clinging to the Tory Party in the vain hope that it still stands for right thinking people.

      Goodbye Cameron. Goodbye Tories.

      • telemachus

        The grassroots do not matter.When push comes to shove they will be loyal.
        This is a bid for the liberal middle
        Astonishing how this simple matter with no adverse implications to wider society flushes out vitriolic homophobia from the usual suspects

        • EJ

          Wrong. The grassroots couldn’t matter more – when push comes to shove they will vote UKIP. The lurch to the trendy left has killed off all loyalty.

          Where in my posting is there vitriolic homophobia? Leftists like you must not be allowed to get away with this constant smearing. It is MY opinions that chime with the majority – not yours.

          • telemachus

            The majority could not give a damn about niceties of the difference between civil partnerships and gay marraige.
            They do however look askance at the views of the Tory right that links this issue with the tory chestnuts of immigration and law and order
            It is this reaction that turns voters off

            • telemachus

              To compound this by stoking islamophobia is a statement in itself on the Tory Right

            • Fair Minded

              You, sir, are so entrenched with the socialist camp you can’t think straight. Can you never give a balanced view of a subject? The ‘looney Left’ is aptly named.

            • TomTom

              You really should get out more – your opinion is 180 degrees out of line with majority viewpoint….you are really an irrelevance

        • David Lindsay

          The Tory grassroots are the least of this policy’s proponents’ worries.

          As surely as Malcolm X pointed out on the map the huge concentration of Democratic Senators and Congressmen in the South in the 1960s, so you need only look at the concentration of Labour MPs in centres of Muslim population, where they are vulnerable to Respect at least insofar as it could split the vote and let in someone else, or, far more numerously, in centres of Catholic population, where the Constituency Labour Parties tend to be even more Catholic than the electorates, and more than willing to press the deselect button.

          Primrose Hill types who assume that Labour is at least sold on the
          principle of same-sex “marriage” urgently need to get out more. No
          wonder that, in 13 years, it never legislated for any such thing, with
          Jack Straw, the MP for Blackburn, explicitly and eloquently ruling it
          out when he had Ministerial responsibility for these matters.

          As we see, it is actually an easier sell to, and by, the Conservative Party. Scores, possibly hundreds, of Labour MPs are desperate for Tory opponents to succeed in portraying it as “the wrong priority”, so that it never reaches the floor of the House.

          • telemachus

            Pap.
            Labour( and the LibDems ) are liberal and libertarian and much in favour

            • David Lindsay

              You need to get out more.

              Moreover, from this was first suggested, Labour always promised a free vote. Unlike the Conservatives, who had to be forced into conceding one.

              • telemachus

                Still true that real folk are supremely indifferent

                • Baron

                  telemachus, let’s just wait and see how supremely indifferent real folk are, shall we?

                • telemachus

                  Read the Sun Star And Mirror tomorrow to see how much people care
                  United play City Sunday
                  Can you believe that the England Captain was so stupid as not to put his bat down behind the crease

                • Malfleur

                  but telemachus cares…

              • Malfleur

                “You need to get out more.” Yes, start with Tower Hamlets.

                • David Lindsay

                  In that it is less than a mile from their starting point, although it may as well be on the dark side of the moon. But any of the Catholic areas of the North, the Midlands, and the West of Scotland would serve just as well, and there are far more of them than there are Muslim areas of Britain.

                  In Scotland, the single most reliable indicator of being a Labour voter is being a practising – 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 is now somewhere between desperation and despair. Oh, and remember than the SDLP MPs take the Labour Whip.

            • TomTom

              You are an Oddball with no real comprehension of the world outside. What is coming will be quite a shock to your peculiar views

          • TomTom

            I find the term “ministerial responsbility” for such matters to be the fount of the problem

            • TomTom

              I know where the term “Minister” comes from and I resent the expanding scope of politicians. Time to clip their wings

              • telemachus

                Or change the Ministers

                • TomTom

                  You are very very very DIM. Minister comes from The Church; Ministry comes from The Church. You have simply no grasp mof the origins of government in Western Europe have you ?

            • telemachus

              This is Ministerial Irresponsibility

            • telemachus

              Thick I am
              I cannot understand that the niceties of gay marriage are fundamentally important to folks grubbing together a few pennies for lunch or to finally get shoes for their children

              • Fergus Pickering

                Who are these people whose children have no shoes? Where can they be seen?

                • telemachus

                  Take a bus to Tower Hamlets

                • telemachus

                  Mind many have been bussed out to Stockton on Tees

                • Fergus Pickering

                  I wouldn’t dream of taking a bus to an insalubrious place like that even using my bus pass. I might be mugged by the criminal element. Anyway I don’t believe you. Unless they’ve boiled the shoes to eat..

              • Malfleur

                “folks” – ah, the vocabulary of those who care, like Obama!

          • ButcombeMan

            I do not often agree with you, I find much of what you post incomprehensible to my small brain.

            On this and the Muslim vote, you are spot on. There are dangers for Red Ed as well as Cameron.

        • ButcombeMan

          Your reply is typical of a one eyed view of the world. Your suggestion is very deeply offensive.

          This proposal also offends, not just Christians but almost any religion and many of those with no religion at all (me). It is not a left/right issue either.

          It has nothing at all to do with “homophobia” indeed even many homsexuals think this is unnecessary and deeply unwise.

          Civil Ceremonies went through with hardly an objection

          Cameron is a fool,. He is unfit to receive our support. He will not get my support, ever again.

          He has pressed the self destruct button.

          • telemachus

            Do not get me wrong I am delighted to hear that such as you are so deeply offended that you will not vote for Cameron ever again
            So we can put you down as Ed’s man then
            Real folk still could not give a tinkers about this media issue

            • ButcombeMan

              Very amusing.

              There is a whole swathe of rural, non metropolitan voters who think this proposal plain silly. The people who think this are cross party. it is not about left/right politics , it is about the commonsense of human relationships.

              Your “real folk”, inside the M25 ,are irrelevant. Red Ed stands to lose as well, unless he steps carefully.

              Clegg is of course politically irrelevant and has made himself so.

              • telemachus

                Where I live, a long way from the M25 folks would laugh if you were empty enough to vote Tory
                Marriage as an institution is becoming a little irrelevant for heterosexuals too
                And what about the discrimination of not letting heterosexuals have civil partnerships and demanding consumation

                • TomTom

                  What is “consumation” ? Funny you think “marriage” is irrelevant for heterosexuals……it is a non-sequitur. Marriage is ONLY possible between heterosexuals and is hardly “irrelevant” or you would not bang on about it. What is irrelevant is Civil Partnerships with only 53,000 taking place in 6 years and 26% of those in London. In contrast 231,490 couples MARRIED in 2009 alone.

                • Malfleur

                  “demanding consumate” in this half-literate’s vocabulary may have something to do with clear soup. With telemachus, who knows what he means?

                • telemachus

                  I have been looking for a suitable opportunity to talk to you about international law and settlements
                  Perhaps a fresher thread

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Your mindset is not only deeply unattractive but (probably unwittingly) reveals everything there is to fear about another national socialist government.

                  The compassion you boast of is entirely false. Reserved for soundbites and slogans rather than real, living, breathing people. Your little world (and God how little it is) is divided into those you think agree with you and those others, the untermenschen, who don’t. That is about the sum total of your polarised bigotry and it is played out here, day after day, slogan after slogan. Tedious doesn’t even begin to describe it. You are your own parody of the modern British socialist.

                  You are also perverse. As your cold-blooded nostrils sniff the way the wind is blowing you can be guaranteed to take the opposite tack. Whether it is defending Julia Middleton or Jeremy Heywood – but always weaving in your hagiographic references to Gordon Brown and Ed Balls. Provocative – but not in the sense of provoking circumspection, alternative viewpoints and counter arguments – only irritating in the extreme. That is your single purpose here. Trolling. From day one when you turned up with your “charter” and your demand for “reasonableness”. A troll.

                • telemachus

                  I have not quite figured out who you are
                  You are not quite as articulate as Nico but….
                  If you figure and scroll you will see Telemachus was an invention of those who now write virtually exclusively for the vicar.
                  As for provocation I truly believe Ed Balls is the future
                  I respect Julia Middleton as a major force for good in public life

                • Malfleur

                  Please add the link: http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/

                • Colonel Mustard

                  The need to figure out who I am is the imperative of a stalker.

                  I am Colonel Mustard, nemesis of the bogus left, insurgent against the orthodoxy of hypocrisy. It is enough to know you have been rumbled and rattled.

                  No invention of the old gang you, telemachus, but a shape-shifting entity all along, as we of old all know. Try your deceits on the unwitting new arrivals but don’t try to pull the wool over our eyes.

                  Lefty, leave my posts alone!

                • ButcombeMan

                  I think hetrosexuals should be allowed the legal status of civil partnerships. BUT I just do not think it is reasonable to overturn thousands of years of history and the meaning of the word “marriage”.

                  “Marriage” as a word and a meaning, is just not susceptible to re-definition in the way that Camerton espouses. It has a biological inheritance to it that no amount of “Newspeak” can do away with.

                  Cameron is an absolute fool. This proposal offends too many, religious or not, it is pointless and even if passed, will be meaningless for many people and disgust others.

                  I just cannot fathom why Cameron is pushing this personally. I really do think he is absolurely barmy.

                  He is the Trojan Horse that is being careless with the Conservative party, over too many issues.

                  The talentless, brainless, two Eds, must be rubbing their hands in glee. However politically incompetent the pair of them are (and they are-especially over the economy, the deficit and the debt), Cameron is worse.

                  Cameron wil break the Conservative party, he will (maybe) break the UK.

                  No Auatralian so called electoral guru, can pull this back. Cameron is finished. Just a question of time.,

                • telemachus

                  A very detailed exposition of stuff and nonsense on which none other than Tatchell and a few Tory Colonels from the Home Counties give a monkeys

                • TomTom

                  So if heterosexuals can have the status of civil partnerships Fathers may form Partnerships with daughters and sons as may mothers and brothers with sisters. There is no need for incest laws or rules on consanguinity any longer.

                • 2trueblue

                  There has been cases where 2 sisters looked after their parents, and continued to live together until the elder sister died. The surviving sister had to sell the house to pay inheritance tax. This in my mind is a situation where the scenario of civil partnerships within families should be allowed. It is not about sex.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Clive-Holland/100002026138268 Clive Holland

                  They could have made a will.

        • TomTom

          Idiots like you thought they could ride roughshod in 1637 when Archbishop Laud laid the groundwork for Civil War

          • telemachus

            The Church was important in 1637

            • TomTom

              Religion is very important today and underestimate it as did Charles I and die

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Vitaly-Klitschko/100003020592266 Vitaly Klitschko

          No Catholic in conscience can now vote Conservative.

      • Fergus Pickering

        If this mild statement alienates the grassroots of the Tory party then to hell with the bigoted bastards. It is to be hoped they die off soon and leave the party to reasonable people like me. And David Cameron. as I said before numerous times, what does it have to do with you?

        • TomTom

          To hell eh Fergus. Where is your FAL or AK-M ? Push people enough and you’ll be wondering why you’re dodging bullets. There is not much holding this country together and Inertia will soon wear off

        • Colonel Mustard

          This is not Fergus but just the shape-shifting Labour-sponsored McBridean troll-cell telemachus trying to deceive that there are others who share his (their) peculiar views. The clue is “reasonable people”. No-one other than a demented loon would wish for other human beings to “die off soon” and then attempt the indifferent arrogance of declaring himself “reasonable”. Besides Fergus is old too.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Nope, Colonel, this is old Fergus hoping to outlive the antediluvian old conservatives. Why on earth they should worry that two gay people, whom they will never meet, might get married in a church which they will never visit, beats me. It’s not as if the gays will blow them up with bombs as is the case with other sections of the population, or mug them for their mobile phones, as is the case with yet other sections of the population. There could hardly be a more harmless group of people. Pussycats the lot of them.and overwhelmingly of the respectable middle class who, as everybody knows, are the salt of the earth. I may agree with mad tel in this case, I don’t know, but that makes him unusually right, and not me unusually wrong.

            • Colonel Mustard

              Then stop imitating the ego-loon jargon of the troll you old fool!

              I don’t care either. Apart from this. They will no longer be so harmless when and if the activities of their militants put priests in jail for their religious conscience. Think on.

    • Aeneas9

      Absolutely!!
      Doesn’t half introduce an elephant in the room in the event of a referendum to pull out of Europe..

Close