Friday, December 07, 2012

So marriage is to end in England ... for the state

David Cameron has apparently commented again about his intention to end marriage and use the word for a new type of relationship backed by the full and terrifying force of the state.

No mention of the consultation ( the results are rumoured to be a bit embarrising for the redefintion brigade ).

No mandate - no vote or party manfeasto applies.

What is odd here is that if you're willing to do a U turn on privatising the Forrests - which farnkly would have blown over ( no pun intended ) - then why light the blue touch paper on a culture war that will run for decades and be most damaging for your own party ?

Is it a promise he made to Sam Cameron ? Is it the only way he could get a Lib Dem policy past the Conservative party ? Why are so many countries making these changes in the abcense of a mass demand for it ?

It certainly wasn't high on the list of demands from the gay campign lobby, that is still coming to terms with civil-partnerships.

If there is a vote in parliament it will go through - despite a sizeable rebellion, though perhaps still the House of Lords might hold this issue up. ( Its hard to think of a more valid role for the hosue of Lords thatn to stop a selfish political class effectively destroyiung the basis of our society without even asking permission. )

But what ever happens please don't fall for the false hoods Cameron is spouting about extending marriage. Marriage, for many reasons that will become very painfully obvious over the next 10-20 years, means between a man and a woman - for life and the bringing up of chidlren. The states desire to see it exterminated and replaced with the new fiat-marriage will cause much pain. ( Perhaps people might ask how the culture of the day contrionuted to the Jimmy Saville disaster - and how no one anyone wanted to listen to spoke against it ? The same is happening now - and its yong unfortuate victims haven't yet learn't to walk and talk, let alone vote - yet. )

David Cameron would have done well to reflect that one day he will stand judgement and asked to account for the deep harm he is about to influict on families and especially chidlren. His arrogance won't serve him well on that day.


Woman on a Raft said...

then why light the blue touch paper on a culture war that will run for decades and be most damaging for your own party ?

Yes, this baffles me, too. Even campaigning groups knew in 2005 that the civil partnerships represented a working legal compromise. It gave such legal status as was useful to same-sex permanent partners and avoided the unwinnable argument about the m-word.

There is nothing to gain, everything to lose, from having this argument.

James Higham said...

Think I've written enough on this for now.