Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the actual policy the Liberal Democrats are at their least worst when they take these bold, clear, edgy, slightly outside the Overton Window pledges.1p on Income Tax for Education, Passports for Hong Kong residents, saving the Major Government on the Maastricht paving motion, Tuition Fees, Iraq, second Referendum. Going to straight revoke ( if they win a majority ) is just part of that tradition. Paddy Ashdown said " the first thing a Lib Dem leader needs to do in the morning is get noticed " and straight revoke will get noticed. And interms of vote share almost noone currently voting Lib Dem will mind and the policy polls well above current LD VI. So in terms of vote share and the air war I see no down side.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
From his Commons speech earlier, i would not be surprised if Dominic Grieve does not already have copies of some materials.
Deleting them now won't help anyone
Anyone can spoof a screen grab - the messages are encrypted- there is no back up accessible.
That may be true of Telegram and Signal, but your messages are forever backed up by WhatsApp. Deleting a WhatsApp conversation just adds a "deleted" flag to the database entry.
Has Grieve got access to Whatsapp’s Servers ?
Er no..
It's a very short step from using Parliament to ask people to hand over records, to asking WhatsApp to.
So, if you're (say) Dominic Cummings, do you hand over the records now, embarassing as some of the conversations might be? Or do you claim that no such conversations existed, and then get caught out later?
It’s not a short step at all - he would need a warrant.
They would ask WhatsApp to voluntarily hand the information over. This isn't being used in a criminal prosecution, it's a request from the Houses of Parliament. And, of course, they would ask Mr Cummings (or whoever) to help them with their request. If Mr Cummings said no, they score a political victory.
Boris says he will go to Brussels on 17th October and try and get a Deal but be prepared to leave the EU with no Deal regardless on 31st October
So he will finally show the EU something concrete will her?
I would be very interested to see him get something out of it, because it puts a lot of MPs on the spot, though I think things have moved on too much for anything to ever pass - even many people who say they are prepared to leave and actually mean it seem to be in favour of a GE or referendum first, and without no deal the EU has no reason to agree a deal when the government agreeing it cannot even win a vote on anything.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
A Muslim friend of mine was going through an acrimonious divorce at the time of the Gay marriage vote. His comment was:
"Marriage is fucking shit. I don't see why gays should be exempt."
I thought Bercow didn't usually allow the same motion twice in the same parliament. Isn't this vote on an early election the second time in a few days?
I think FTPA motions, like VoNC motions, are a matter of statue not Commons procedure.
I'm not sure the new LD position is a good idea, especially in the south-west.
As 48% voted to remain in 2016 it's a reasonable pool in which to go fishing, wouldn't you say?
Yes, it is. There's fair support in the country for outright revoke without any UK-wide party having been out to bat for it. There's reason to suppose that the support could increase with an open campaign for it. And it throws open the Overton window for a 2nd referendum. They will be attacked in some quarters for it, but the Brexit taliban are already in the habit of attacking the Lib Dems anyway...
I suspect the major attacks will be from Labour. Tory-lites will be the least of it. They will bring Ms. Swinsons membership of the coalition into play. Labour have lost votes to the LDs and the revoke strategy runs the risk for Labour of many more.
From his Commons speech earlier, i would not be surprised if Dominic Grieve does not already have copies of some materials.
Deleting them now won't help anyone
Anyone can spoof a screen grab - the messages are encrypted- there is no back up accessible.
That may be true of Telegram and Signal, but your messages are forever backed up by WhatsApp. Deleting a WhatsApp conversation just adds a "deleted" flag to the database entry.
Has Grieve got access to Whatsapp’s Servers ?
Er no..
It's a very short step from using Parliament to ask people to hand over records, to asking WhatsApp to.
So, if you're (say) Dominic Cummings, do you hand over the records now, embarassing as some of the conversations might be? Or do you claim that no such conversations existed, and then get caught out later?
It’s not a short step at all - he would need a warrant.
They would ask WhatsApp to voluntarily hand the information over. This isn't being used in a criminal prosecution, it's a request from the Houses of Parliament. And, of course, they would ask Mr Cummings (or whoever) to help them with their request. If Mr Cummings said no, they score a political victory.
Whatsapp wouldn’t commit corporate suicide by handing that over.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
From his Commons speech earlier, i would not be surprised if Dominic Grieve does not already have copies of some materials.
Deleting them now won't help anyone
Anyone can spoof a screen grab - the messages are encrypted- there is no back up accessible.
That may be true of Telegram and Signal, but your messages are forever backed up by WhatsApp. Deleting a WhatsApp conversation just adds a "deleted" flag to the database entry.
Has Grieve got access to Whatsapp’s Servers ?
Er no..
It's a very short step from using Parliament to ask people to hand over records, to asking WhatsApp to.
So, if you're (say) Dominic Cummings, do you hand over the records now, embarassing as some of the conversations might be? Or do you claim that no such conversations existed, and then get caught out later?
It’s not a short step at all - he would need a warrant.
They would ask WhatsApp to voluntarily hand the information over. This isn't being used in a criminal prosecution, it's a request from the Houses of Parliament. And, of course, they would ask Mr Cummings (or whoever) to help them with their request. If Mr Cummings said no, they score a political victory.
Whatsapp wouldn’t commit corporate suicide by handing that over.
Facebook (WhatsApp's owner) has handed out lots of information to Congressional committees, and they voluntarily alert the security services in both the UK and the US of users who discuss bombings, Jihad and the like, and yet that doesn't cause them any problems.
Now they'd probably insist on messages being read in private, rather than published, but they have a policy of complying with government requests.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Yes, and religions and their clerics that oppose same-sex marriage are free to decline to conduct such marriages. What you argue for is akin to the law saying divorced people may not re-marry but can only have civil partnerships because some religions oppose divorcees re-marrying.
Or are you confusing civil partnerships with civil marriage?
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
No, you can get married in a registry office (among others).
Straight revoke on the back of winning a parliamentary majority is also a clear statement about the status of advisory referendums. The Liberal Democrats are a party of Philadelphia Lawyers and we all know what they thought of popular so soverienty. Swinson is taking clear aim at the ' will of the people ' stuff by explicitly restating the soveriegnty of Queen-In-Parliament. A Lib Dem majority on say 36% of the vote will overturn the 51.9% Leave vote.
Whether you agree with that or not it has constitutional pedigree going back to 1688 and stands well with most strands of British Liberalism.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
Well thanks for that... I was of the opinion that I have been married for just over 38 years but apparently not, as I was married in a Registry Office.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
Boggle. Have you never heard of a registry office marriage? They’ve been around in the UK for the best part of two centuries.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
Well thanks for that... I was of the opinion that I have been married for just over 38 years but apparently not, as I was married in a Registry Office.
You have never been married. We have always been at war with East Asia. HYUFD has the best facts, great genes, sad.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
So frigging what? All cats are animals. Dogs are animals. Does not mean cats are dogs.
Marriage is civil and has zero to do with religion. Religions were specifically permitted to choose what they wanted to do by their own faith the change was for civil marriage.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
Correct. But you can have a civil marriage ceremony in a register office. By law there must be no religious element to such a ceremony.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).
Corbyn clearly doesn't agree with the election delay decision, he has been overruled.
I'm wondering if Corbyn might resign or be forced out in the near future. Certainly a better reason to avoid an imminent election than the guff being trotted out by Labour..
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
From his Commons speech earlier, i would not be surprised if Dominic Grieve does not already have copies of some materials.
Deleting them now won't help anyone
Anyone can spoof a screen grab - the messages are encrypted- there is no back up accessible.
That may be true of Telegram and Signal, but your messages are forever backed up by WhatsApp. Deleting a WhatsApp conversation just adds a "deleted" flag to the database entry.
Has Grieve got access to Whatsapp’s Servers ?
Er no..
It's a very short step from using Parliament to ask people to hand over records, to asking WhatsApp to.
So, if you're (say) Dominic Cummings, do you hand over the records now, embarassing as some of the conversations might be? Or do you claim that no such conversations existed, and then get caught out later?
It’s not a short step at all - he would need a warrant.
They would ask WhatsApp to voluntarily hand the information over. This isn't being used in a criminal prosecution, it's a request from the Houses of Parliament. And, of course, they would ask Mr Cummings (or whoever) to help them with their request. If Mr Cummings said no, they score a political victory.
Whatsapp wouldn’t commit corporate suicide by handing that over.
Facebook (WhatsApp's owner) has handed out lots of information to Congressional committees, and they voluntarily alert the security services in both the UK and the US of users who discuss bombings, Jihad and the like, and yet that doesn't cause them any problems.
Now they'd probably insist on messages being read in private, rather than published, but they have a policy of complying with government requests.
I thought Whatsapp was locally encrypted so the content is hidden from Facebook itself.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
Correct. But you can have a civil marriage ceremony in a register office. By law there must be no religious element to such a ceremony.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular law
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
I got married in a hotel with not a bible nor a god botherer in the house. Or am I suffering from false consciousness?
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobic
Boris calls Jo Swinson 'the new leader of the Referendum Party, the James Goldsmith of our time' and says 'Corbyn will campaign against his own Deal', says Labour are frightened they might lose an election except for some Labour MPs 'who are frightened they might win'
And what do we say about the mendacious narcissist ?
Bercow?
He’s a slightly more straightforward narcissist, and not entirely without principle.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
They had civil partnerships they could partake in in registry offices before gay marriage
You can't police people's private moral beliefs. If you do you get totalitarianism.
Yeah but you can keep your morals to yourself. The problem is when someone tried to force their morals or their religion onto others.
Religion is like a penis. It's ok to have one, it's ok to be proud of it. But don't force it down the throats of people who don't want it.
I agree, but the question is whether people should be able to express their own moral beliefs in public. That's not the same thing as forcing other people to adopt your moral beliefs, unless you believe in the latest theories on triggering, safe spaces, etc.
The SNP leader calls the government a dictatorship, even though the government is about to vote in favour of an election and his party isn't.
It's like they've not realised we're a week on from the prorogue controversy, that they've been asked twice if they want an election. Like the printer's broke and they're reading the old speech. As soon as they failed to back an election, all talk of coups and dictatorships disappeared down the plughole of credibility.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobic
It is treating people unequally based on their sexual orientation. Pick your word for that.
As someone who has spent more time than is reasonable in a well-ordered life getting hold of and reading electronic messages of all kinds, some free advice:-
- once you have created something electronically never ever think that you can delete it. You can’t. One way or another you will be caught out. - If you use a personal device for work messages (a bloody stupid thing to do if you are in government) you cannot claim that this is private stuff and exempt from disclosure, whether under the GPDR or the ECHR or whatever principle or law you’ve just plucked out of your arse in the hope that you won’t be caught or embarrassed. - Grieve is not persecuting some minor SPADS. He has listed 9 names because they are people involved in the discussions around prorogation and can reasonably be expected to have relevant evidence. - It is unusual for a party to a case not to provide evidence on oath to support what it is saying. If, as appears to be the case, no-one was prepared to sign a witness statement on behalf of the government that suggests that there may be questions as to why and whether that was because the full accurate story was not being told. - That matters because trust in what Ministers say - whether to Parliament or a court - matters. I know this may seem like old-fashioned nonsense these days. But it is still true. And it is absolutely right that this government should be held to account for it.
This will make me even more unpopular this evening but Grieve, as a former A-G, knows what he is talking about it here and is absolutely right to demand full and frank disclosure about what the government was doing, when and what it was saying to Parliament, the court and the public.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobic
Perhaps not automatically, but it’s a pretty strong bloody clue.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
Correct. But you can have a civil marriage ceremony in a register office. By law there must be no religious element to such a ceremony.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular law
Law is not made on the basis of religious beliefs. That's theocracy and it's what crazy people do. It's not up to a religion or its representatives (in the capacity of their role) to decide this. Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.
As someone who has spent more time than is reasonable in a well-ordered life, getting hold of and reading electronic messages of all kinds, some free advice:-
- once you have created something electronically never ever think that you can delete it. You can’t. One way or another you will be caught out. - If you use a personal device for work messages (a bloody stupid thing to do if you are in government) you cannot claim that this is private stuff and exempt from disclosure, whether under the GPDR or the ECHR or whatever principle or law you’ve just plucked out of your arse in the hope that you won’t be caught or embarrassed. - Grieve is not persecuting some minor SPADS. He has listed 9 names because they are people involved in the discussions around prorogation and can reasonably be expected to have relevant evidence. - It is unusual for a party to a case not to provide evidence on oath to support what it is saying. If, as appears to be the case, no-one was prepared to sign a witness statement that suggests that there may be questions as to why and whether that was because the full accurate story was not being told. - That matters because trust in what Ministers say - whether to Parliament or a court - matters. I know this may seem like old-fashioned nonsense these days. But it is still true. And it is absolutely right that this government should be held to account for it.
This will make me even more unpopular this evening but Grieve, as a former A-G, knows what he is talking about it here and is absolutely right to demand full and frank disclosure about what the government was doing, when and what it was saying to Parliament, the court and the public.
Grieve is a myopic partisan fanny.
Should conversations in the pub between colleagues be taped too ?
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
Correct. But you can have a civil marriage ceremony in a register office. By law there must be no religious element to such a ceremony.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular law
Religious people believe many things which are utter nonsense.
As someone who has spent more time than is reasonable in a well-ordered life, getting hold of and reading electronic messages of all kinds, some free advice:-
- once you have created something electronically never ever think that you can delete it. You can’t. One way or another you will be caught out. - If you use a personal device for work messages (a bloody stupid thing to do if you are in government) you cannot claim that this is private stuff and exempt from disclosure, whether under the GPDR or the ECHR or whatever principle or law you’ve just plucked out of your arse in the hope that you won’t be caught or embarrassed. - Grieve is not persecuting some minor SPADS. He has listed 9 names because they are people involved in the discussions around prorogation and can reasonably be expected to have relevant evidence. - It is unusual for a party to a case not to provide evidence on oath to support what it is saying. If, as appears to be the case, no-one was prepared to sign a witness statement on behalf of the government that suggests that there may be questions as to why and whether that was because the full accurate story was not being told. - That matters because trust in what Ministers say - whether to Parliament or a court - matters. I know this may seem like old-fashioned nonsense these days. But it is still true. And it is absolutely right that this government should be held to account for it.
This will make me even more unpopular this evening but Grieve, as a former A-G, knows what he is talking about it here and is absolutely right to demand full and frank disclosure about what the government was doing, when and what it was saying to Parliament, the court and the public.
I was hoping you’d weigh in to confirm my rather vague assertions on this.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobic
Perhaps not automatically, but it’s a pretty strong bloody clue.
"I just disagree with the statement opposing BAME marriage makes you racist"
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
Correct. But you can have a civil marriage ceremony in a register office. By law there must be no religious element to such a ceremony.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular law
Did I say it did? But there is a legal definition of marriage in the UK, and even religious marriages have to meet its minima to be recognized in law.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
They had civil partnerships they could partake in in registry offices before gay marriage
Yes but not marriages. These were restricted to heterosexual couples - that is inherently homophobic.
You can't police people's private moral beliefs. If you do you get totalitarianism.
Yeah but you can keep your morals to yourself. The problem is when someone tried to force their morals or their religion onto others.
Religion is like a penis. It's ok to have one, it's ok to be proud of it. But don't force it down the throats of people who don't want it.
I agree, but the question is whether people should be able to express their own moral beliefs in public. That's not the same thing as forcing other people to adopt your moral beliefs, unless you believe in the latest theories on triggering, safe spaces, etc.
Voting against gay marriage is attempting to force other people to adopt the practical consequence of your particular religious belief.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
Correct. But youg used).
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular law
Law is not made on the basis of religious beliefs. That's theocracy and it's what crazy people do. It's not up to a religion or its representatives (in the capacity of their role) to decide this. Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.
Nothing to stop you having a partnership with a same sex lover with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, the issue was over adding the word religious word marriage to it
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobic
Perhaps not automatically, but it’s a pretty strong bloody clue.
"I just disagree with the statement opposing BAME marriage makes you racist"
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobic
I'm afraid it is though. How can you possibly define homophobia in a way that allows one to advocate for the allocation or denial of rights on the basis of sexuality? Let's draw a parallel. Schools segregated on skin colour. One could say that it doesn't matter, black children get a school and white children get a school, therefore it's not a racist policy, but it /is/ a racist policy. The /form/ of that argument is the same as those who advocate for different forms of union for same- and different-sex couples. I acknowledge again that this is NOT your view, but it is the view you're seeking to cleanse of the charge of homophobic.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
Correct. But youg used).
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular law
Law is not made on the basis of religious beliefs. That's theocracy and it's what crazy people do. It's not up to a religion or its representatives (in the capacity of their role) to decide this. Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.
Nothing to stop you having a partnership with a same sex lover with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, the issue was over adding the word religious word marriage to it
Marriage has been a non religious institution for a very long time indeed. That there are religious versions of it is neither here nor there.
After what happened in 2017 he backs himself to turn over Boris's lead in the polls - and why shouldn't he? He's s campaigner more than a politician, is Jezza. He's been waiting two years to have another go and now a massive opportunity is staring him in the face his hands are tied behind his back. It's almost enough for me to feel sorry for him.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobic
I'm afraid it is though. How can you possibly define homophobia in a way that allows one to advocate for the allocation or denial of rights on the basis of sexuality? Let's draw a parallel. Schools segregated on skin colour. One could say that it doesn't matter, black children get a school and white children get a school, therefore it's not a racist policy, but it /is/ a racist policy. The /form/ of that argument is the same as those who advocate for different forms of union for same- and different-sex couples. I acknowledge again that this is NOT your view, but it is the view you're seeking to cleanse of the charge of homophobic.
It is not a denial of rights which were already granted on the same basis as heterosexual couples through civil partnerships. Still now there are single sex schools for example
As someone who has spent more time than is reasonable in a well-ordered life, getting hold of and reading electronic messages of all kinds, some free advice:-
- once you have created something electronically never ever think that you can delete it. You can’t. One way or another you will be caught out. - If you use a personal device for work messages (a bloody stupid thing to do if you are in government) you cannot claim that this is private stuff and exempt from disclosure, whether under the GPDR or the ECHR or whatever principle or law you’ve just plucked out of your arse in the hope that you won’t be caught or embarrassed. - Grieve is not persecuting some minor SPADS. He has listed 9 names because they are people involved in the discussions around prorogation and can reasonably be expected to have relevant evidence. - It is unusual for a party to a case not to provide evidence on oath to support what it is saying. If, as appears to be the case, no-one was prepared to sign a witness statement that suggests that there may be questions as to why and whether that was because the full accurate story was not being told. - That matters because trust in what Ministers say - whether to Parliament or a court - matters. I know this may seem like old-fashioned nonsense these days. But it is still true. And it is absolutely right that this government should be held to account for it.
This will make me even more unpopular this evening but Grieve, as a former A-G, knows what he is talking about it here and is absolutely right to demand full and frank disclosure about what the government was doing, when and what it was saying to Parliament, the court and the public.
Grieve is a myopic partisan fanny.
Should conversations in the pub between colleagues be taped too ?
While Boris should reinstate the whip for the likes of Rory Stewart and others who backed the WA arch reverser and schemer Grieve should receive no such reprieve.
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
Correct. But youg used).
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular law
Law is not made on the basis of religious beliefs. That's theocracy and it's what crazy people do. It's not up to a religion or its representatives (in the capacity of their role) to decide this. Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.
Nothing to stop you having a partnership with a same sex lover with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, the issue was over adding the word religious word marriage to it
Marriage is a LEGAL status, not a religious one! That is why you can get married without a priest present in this country!
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriage
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married. If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples too
You can get married in a civil ceremony.
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worship
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriage
Correct. But youg used).
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular law
Law is not made on the basis of religious beliefs. That's theocracy and it's what crazy people do. It's not up to a religion or its representatives (in the capacity of their role) to decide this. Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.
Nothing to stop you having a partnership with a same sex lover with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, the issue was over adding the word religious word marriage to it
Heterosexual couples have had atheist marriage available to them since the 1830s.
George Howarth thought that Mrs Thatcher "acted in good faith and in the national interest"? I bet he didn't say that in 1987 as MP for Knowsley North.
Fairly devastating intervention from Sir Alan Duncan. Jo Swinson is doing very well for so early in her leadership. She almost commanded the House which given everyone hates the Lib Dems is hard to do.
Comments
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
I would be very interested to see him get something out of it, because it puts a lot of MPs on the spot, though I think things have moved on too much for anything to ever pass - even many people who say they are prepared to leave and actually mean it seem to be in favour of a GE or referendum first, and without no deal the EU has no reason to agree a deal when the government agreeing it cannot even win a vote on anything.
Good luck to him though.
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/anchorage/2019/09/09/todd-palin-files-for-divorce-from-former-alaska-governor-sarah-palin/
"Marriage is fucking shit. I don't see why gays should be exempt."
No deal will not happen. That is absolutely cast-iron nailed-on now.
Now they'd probably insist on messages being read in private, rather than published, but they have a policy of complying with government requests.
Or are you confusing civil partnerships with civil marriage?
Whether you agree with that or not it has constitutional pedigree going back to 1688 and stands well with most strands of British Liberalism.
Shock horror, politicians do what's in their self-interest (bears, woods, etc.)
Just not cut out for it. That said, he's clearly advocating a move he doesn't believe in. Again.
We have always been at war with East Asia.
HYUFD has the best facts, great genes, sad.
Marriage is civil and has zero to do with religion. Religions were specifically permitted to choose what they wanted to do by their own faith the change was for civil marriage.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).
Glad I'm not the only one.
Edit - no. They don’t.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
Who suggested you should?
Religion is like a penis. It's ok to have one, it's ok to be proud of it. But don't force it down the throats of people who don't want it.
- once you have created something electronically never ever think that you can delete it. You can’t. One way or another you will be caught out.
- If you use a personal device for work messages (a bloody stupid thing to do if you are in government) you cannot claim that this is private stuff and exempt from disclosure, whether under the GPDR or the ECHR or whatever principle or law you’ve just plucked out of your arse in the hope that you won’t be caught or embarrassed.
- Grieve is not persecuting some minor SPADS. He has listed 9 names because they are people involved in the discussions around prorogation and can reasonably be expected to have relevant evidence.
- It is unusual for a party to a case not to provide evidence on oath to support what it is saying. If, as appears to be the case, no-one was prepared to sign a witness statement on behalf of the government that suggests that there may be questions as to why and whether that was because the full accurate story was not being told.
- That matters because trust in what Ministers say - whether to Parliament or a court - matters. I know this may seem like old-fashioned nonsense these days. But it is still true. And it is absolutely right that this government should be held to account for it.
This will make me even more unpopular this evening but Grieve, as a former A-G, knows what he is talking about it here and is absolutely right to demand full and frank disclosure about what the government was doing, when and what it was saying to Parliament, the court and the public.
Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.
Should conversations in the pub between colleagues be taped too ?
Yes but not marriages. These were restricted to heterosexual couples - that is inherently homophobic.
Let's draw a parallel. Schools segregated on skin colour. One could say that it doesn't matter, black children get a school and white children get a school, therefore it's not a racist policy, but it /is/ a racist policy. The /form/ of that argument is the same as those who advocate for different forms of union for same- and different-sex couples.
I acknowledge again that this is NOT your view, but it is the view you're seeking to cleanse of the charge of homophobic.
Yes, Muslims are at liberty to ban booze In mosques. They are quite rightly not at liberty to prevent pubs selling beer.
That there are religious versions of it is neither here nor there.
I don't.
"St Paul's stop preacher from read The Bible outside Cathedral"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/22/st-pauls-stop-preacher-read-bible-outside-cathedral/
Bigots express their moral beliefs in public all the time. That is not a reason to prevent gay people marrying in atheist ceremonies.
Makes Jezza look like a broken, clapped out shell of a man.
Could LIb-Dems replace Labour as the main Opposition if there is an election at some point?