British Conservatives Lead Charge to Legalize Gay Marriage
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:08:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  British Conservatives Lead Charge to Legalize Gay Marriage
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: British Conservatives Lead Charge to Legalize Gay Marriage  (Read 6156 times)
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2012, 04:11:23 PM »

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
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2012, 04:20:11 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2012, 04:24:57 PM »

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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2012, 05:02:15 PM »

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 Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2012, 05:21:52 PM »

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
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2012, 08:32:45 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2012, 09:26:27 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 08, 2012, 11:46:29 AM »

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 Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 08, 2012, 12:24:38 PM »

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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2012, 12:41:04 PM »

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
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 08, 2012, 12:52:55 PM »

Defying a three-line whip tends not to result in expulsion, fwiw...
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« 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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 08, 2012, 02:31:03 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.

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 08, 2012, 03:16:12 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.

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
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2012, 09:37:23 PM »

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]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.