Talk Elections

Makes you wonder if there will be a similar generational revolution within the Republican Party as younger conservatives gain more influence within the ranks and the leadership of the party in the coming years...  

British Conservatives lead charge for gay marriage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/british-conservatives-lead-charge-for-gay-marriage/2012/03/29/gIQAzatzjS_story.html?hpid=z1)

By Anthony Faiola, Thursday, March 29, 9:03 PM

LONDON — Americans watching the latest push for social change in Britain might feel as if they had stepped into an alternative political universe: Here, the Conservatives are leading the charge for same-sex marriage.

Gay couples in Britain won the right to civil partnerships in 2004, which granted them nearly the same legal status as married heterosexual couples while avoiding the controversial use of the word “marriage.” But Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative-led coalition have launched a historic drive to grant gay men and lesbians the option of also entering into civil marriages, touching off a surprisingly fierce uproar in largely progressive Britain and fueling a rebellion on the right as the party comes under heavy fire from traditional allies in the British clergy.

Yet challenging tradition appears to be exactly Cameron’s point. The proposal, put forward this month despite the lack of a strong clamor for marriage within Britain’s gay community, is nevertheless emerging as the cornerstone of a bid by the 45-year-old prime minister and other young leaders on the right here to redefine what it means to be a modern Conservative.

“I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative,” Cameron said in a recent landmark speech on the issue. “I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

Major props to Cameron for making this an issue, of course, but isn't the "I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative" line from like a year ago?

The guy who voted for Section 28 to be maintained just 10 or so years ago. I can't say I see this move as heartfelt as much as it is opportunistic.

Yeah, he only became a 'social liberal' after he won the leadership.

Funny thing'll be that his bankbenchers will revolt on this, big time. It'll be Labour, the LibDems and the Tory frontbench that get this through.

Cameron's Tories aren't the party that the international media says they are.

They're a bunch of backwards old toffs posing as "progressives". It really is quite sad how easily those outside the UK seem to have been fooled by it.

I'm expecting a Tory rebellion to match that over Europe.

To be fair, he did apologise for Section 28 after he became leader... I don't think it's that far-fetched that people can have a change of heart, especially on an issue that people's opinions are evolving on as rapidly as gay rights.

They probably wouldn't even be proposing this if the Scots weren't about to change theirs. Still, it's a welcome change in which there was no certainty of a proposal in the future.

It was in our full manifesto. It wasn't in yours ;)

Ours/yours = Scottish Tories/UK Tories?

The Scottish Tory Party could pretty much promise anything they want at this point, they'll never be in power again.

BUMP (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/06/david-cameron-backs-down-gay-marriage-appease-backbenchers_n_1488218.html?ref=uk)

I'm so shocked.

He's such a courageous leader.

Yeah, I agree, it was to be expected, but still sad.

So spineless... is he a Liberal Democrat in disguise or something?

The fact that he's our least experienced PM in a long time really shows.

He could have pushed it through with Lib Dem + Lab votes, he's just pandering to a few reactionary Tory nutters who refuse to live in the modern world.

Could labour introduce a gay marriage bill themselves? Because if they could its a win win situation for them, if Cameron backs it he angers his backbenchers and if Cameron doesn't he seems like a homophobe.

A bit Christie-esque, no?

Where is afleitch to defend his beloved modern Tories now?

Why don't they just have an un-whipped conscience vote on gay marriage the way they had on capital punishment in Britain?  The Tories not paranoid about gays can support their unions, and those who are paranoid can vote no.  Everybody is happy. For once we have a "simple" solution to something. Isn't that grand? :)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/06/exclusive-david-cameron-not-backing-down-on-equal-marriage/

But he has done. He's delaying it for no reason other than to please Tory backbenchers.

Exactly.

"Backing down" doesn't mean the same as "abandoning".

For example, Blair Labour didn't abandon electoral reform, they backed down on it.

Blair/Brown Labour also had 13 years with large majorities and no angry backbenchers to (fully) legalize gay marriage, y'know...

They legalized civil unions, and would probably have legalized gay marriage if they'd won in 2010.

Therefore making them... the same as Cameron!  (Complete with the "probably" - certainly a low level of probability given the previous 13 years...).  Also still makes them more socially-conservative than John Lynch (y'know, that NH governor who's vetoing the medical marijuana bill; he signed gay marriage back in '09).

Not exactly the same as Cameron. Cameron's support of same-sex marriage stinks of oppurtunism when you see that he voted for the down-right homophobic section 28.

And voted against gay adoption.

Twice.

I'm sort of baffled why it's so difficult to bring up for exactly this reason. There's really no reason at all to keep kicking the can on this issue unless it's blatant opportunism that there's no heart behind, which I suppose is a distinct possibility. Cameron (supposedly) has grand visions of turning the Conservative party into a more moderate and socially conscious party, but on most issues that doesn't seem to be shaping up in reality. There's a real gap between rhetoric and what the Conservatives have been doing, or able to do.

So does Britain's LGBT community really want this or not?  My understanding was that civil unions were acceptable enough, given the lack of ingrained religious culture in modern Britain (especially among the LGBT).

All of those were 3-line whips, which mean potential expulsion from the party if disobeyed (party discipline is/can be much more strictly enforced in the UK).

Thanks. I didn't know that. ::)

It's a good thing we have Wormyguy here to explain the intricacies of party discipline in a Westminster system of government to our UK members.

I have studied British politics for a few years now wormy... :P

Defying a three-line whip tends not to result in expulsion, fwiw...

It can even be endearing if you're playing to the backbenches.

IIRC it tends to get you a bollocking from the party whips, but unless you're a repeat offender expulsion isn't the case.

Especially on an issue like this.

Sorry, thought you were 20RP12 (he had a C-UK avatar IIRC).