Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2014, 12:25:04 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  International General Discussion (Moderators: Peter, afleitch)
| | |-+  British Conservatives Lead Charge to Legalize Gay Marriage
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: British Conservatives Lead Charge to Legalize Gay Marriage  (Read 1994 times)
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11983
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2012, 04:11:23 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2012, 04:20:11 pm »
Ignore

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).
Logged

You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8444
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2012, 04:24:57 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11983
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2012, 05:02:15 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16632
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2012, 05:21:52 pm »
Ignore

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? Smiley

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.
Logged

Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29568
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2012, 08:32:45 pm »
Ignore

Quote from: OP article
The proposal, put forward this month despite the lack of a strong clamor for marriage within Britainís gay community,

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).
Logged
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2012, 09:26:27 pm »
Ignore

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.

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).
Logged

You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8444
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: May 08, 2012, 11:46:29 am »
Ignore

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.

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. Roll Eyes
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16632
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 08, 2012, 12:24:38 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11983
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2012, 12:41:04 pm »
Ignore

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.

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).

I have studied British politics for a few years now wormy... Tongue
Logged

Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55449
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 08, 2012, 12:52:55 pm »
Ignore

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



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
afleitch
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21384


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 08, 2012, 02:24:06 pm »

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

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

k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11983
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 08, 2012, 02:31:03 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8444
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 08, 2012, 03:16:12 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2012, 09:37:23 pm »
Ignore

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.

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).

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

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

Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines