Why was need so urgent to redefine marriage?
On February 5 the coalition Government introduced a bill in favour of re-defining marriage, despite no mention of it in either party's manifesto .
Don Foster MP voted in favour.
He defends the non-appearance in any manifesto, arguing that urgent matters often crop up that have to be acted upon between elections and therefore cannot always be anticipated eg sending troops to Iraq or Mali were examples he gave.
What, I ask myself, was so urgent about re-defining marriage that it could not be included in a future manifesto?
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, May 26 2013
Perhaps the likelihood of widespread discord within the party and among voters at election time was a risk Cameron and Clegg were not prepared to take.
Ironically and no doubt as a result of the hundreds of letters he's received, Don Foster has belatedly decided to hold a public debate at 7pm on March 19 at Percy Community Centre, although this seems a little late now that he has cast his vote.
I'm never quite sure whether MPs are meant to be representing the views of their constituents when they vote or simply pursuing their own agenda. Perhaps he could enlighten us on the 19th?
To recap – same-sex civil partners already have all the legal rights of married couples, so why the need to rush through the re-definition without getting a better feel for public opinion and assessing the potential 'knock on' problems that might result.
Looking purely at the equality conundrum now facing legislators – unless the Government's legal advisers can be persuaded that there is such a thing as same sex consummation, the illusion of equality will continue to be disputed, similarly in terms of civil partnerships – permitting same-sex couples a choice that is not available to heterosexual couples creates yet another inequality.
Although I am being extreme to make the point, if love becomes the sole criterion for legalised marriage, then how long before the boundaries get broadened even further eg brother and sister, father and daughter/son or mother and son/daughter especially if adoption means there is no genetic barrier.
In countries where marriage has been re-defined, pressure is now growing for polyamourous marriages of three or more people.
Stan Frith Prior Park Road Bath
Comments
by rogerh3
Thursday, February 14 2013, 7:57PM
“Marriage has been repeatedly redefined through the centuries. At one time you couldn't divorce without permission from the pope; later it required an Act of Parliament. For hundreds of years only marriage by a priest was recognised while until fairly recently a wife had no legal status separate from her husband.
"...how long before the boundaries get broadened even further"
Silly straw man argument, to which the answer is - as long as it takes to get a majority in Parliament. That's how our democracy works.
.”