Yesterday was a good day for Britain.
Most people now recognise that gay people should enjoy the same right to a happy and loving marital relationship as heterosexual couples. Yesterday, most MPs agreed.
Had Chris Huhne’s parliamentary career lasted slightly longer he would have got to vote on the issue too. But perhaps, in retrospect, he was not the most qualified figure to pass judgement on issues relating to marriage.
The arguments against the gay marriage proposal largely articulatred by the Immoral Minority aka the dimmer half of what used to be known as the Silly Party (the Tories) are easy to dismiss:
- The new law redefines marriage! Why yes, it does. Words and concepts have been redefined and reinterpreted throughout all time, as there meanings have changed. So what?
- It’s a waste of time: This argument is deployed any time anyone opposes anything, usually on the grounds that it “distracts from economic situation.” Trust me, the economy won’t be affected one jot by this. The fox hunting ban hardly wrecked the economy either.
- We already have civil partnerships: A better argument. But this just isn’t the same as marriage is it?
- What about babies? Oddly, some argued that the marriage process is dependent on the possibility that the couple might subsequently reproduce. As this presumably also exempted and many disab;led people from marriage, this bizarre argument was sensibly ignored by most.
- Where will it all end? Another familiar one: will this lead to polygamy, three way marriages, dogs marrying cats? etc. NO.
The only annoying thing is that we owe this historic change to David Cameron, the leader of the traditionally homophobic bunch who tried to ban “gay propaganda” in schools and not to the traditionally more sensible Labour Party.
On the plus side, Cameron is clearly a better man than most of his members: he seems to have hopelessly split his party in the process.
Chris Hallam's World View 