John Stuart Mill, whose philosophy "On Liberty" which forms the basis of Liberal Democrat philosophy, wrote that a majority that can get itself as "accepted” can force their will and standards onto those that aren't "accepted". This is called the "Tyranny of the Majority." and is to be treated in the same way as tyranny from above.
People are free to act as long as it doesn't affect another person's or group's Liberty and all people are treated equally.
There is due to be another Conservative rebellion over Coalition plans to lift the ban on Civil marriages for Lesbian and Gay Marriages. Opponents fear up to 100 traditionalist Conservative MPs will vote against the ban in a free vote as it will water down the traditional values of marriage.
Backbenchers have protested to the front bench ministers in private 1922 committee meetings that this is an attack on the institution of marriage.
Backbenchers have protested to the front bench ministers in private 1922 committee meetings that this is an attack on the institution of marriage.
Before I continue, I should point out that this doesn't seem to be the same homophobic legislation or beliefs of the Right that is prevalent in Republican parts of America - and although, if linked with the anti-abortion stance of Nadine Dories et-al it could be seen by some commentators that this is the Right mobilizing for the same here. Personally I don't believe that is the case here. The Conservative party has changed a lot over the last few decades and modernized - ok they're not all like us (Lib Dems) and Conservatism is a broad church that covers a large spectra of views BUT they aren't the bible thumping puritans that make up a very vocal part of American politics - or so it seems to the casual observer from across the pond. C
David Burrowes MP, aide to Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin has stated;
Many colleagues are worried that it would fundamentally affect how marriage between a man and a woman has historically been viewed in this country.
There are strong doubts that we need to go down this path. It would open up a can of worms and a legal minefield about freedom, religion and equalities legislation.
In my humble opinion I think that modern Society has ruined the institution of marriage. A few generations ago marriage was for life - I'm not saying that people should stay in a loveless, violent or otherwise detrimental marriage, on the contrary people should be free to escape marriages by divorce but quick marriages and divorces are far to common these days. It seems that marriages aren't to be worked at these days and that if its not working out you can just split. Also the number of marriages - how many celebrities are on their second or third marriages, it cheapens the whole process. Extramarital affairs are also more common and with Mobile phones, social networking sites and email make it so easy to cheat and "Role models" are seen to be having affairs and it can glorify these actions; Ryan Giggs Vernon Kay, Jason Manford etc... I'm not criticizing the freedom of the individual to act; we all have weaknesses and soft spots for people with the potential to stray, just observing the social stances.
After Germany broke the Munich agreement, Hitler said "So I signed a piece of paper, it means nothing." and marriage is the same thing. I married because my wife wanted to marry, it has in honesty made her feel more secure and comfortable but for me nothing has changed between the two of us. The same is true for others I know they're just as happy and committed as they were before. I also know heterosexual couples who have married and split within a year and homosexual couples who have been committed to each other for years in the same way as a married couple.
After Germany broke the Munich agreement, Hitler said "So I signed a piece of paper, it means nothing." and marriage is the same thing. I married because my wife wanted to marry, it has in honesty made her feel more secure and comfortable but for me nothing has changed between the two of us. The same is true for others I know they're just as happy and committed as they were before. I also know heterosexual couples who have married and split within a year and homosexual couples who have been committed to each other for years in the same way as a married couple.
Why can their union not be treated in the same way as marriage? Is it not the marrying together of two people who love each other and want to commit to each other in front of their families and friends to say "I want to be with this person."
Traditionalists say it isn't the same as the marriage between a man and a woman but why? Two women or two men can love each other in the same way; perform as a couple in the same way why can't they marry legally in the same way? Why should their lifestyle be oppressed by what is considered to be "accepted" - after all we're in the 21st Century now and society's norms aren't what they were fifty years ago. I fear that David Cameron agrees with me - well probably vice Versa;
Yes it is about equality, but it is also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.
Lynne Feathersone, Lib Dem equalities minister is carrying out consultation on marriage law throughout March with the aim to legislate.
100 Tory MPs to rebel against PM's plan to legalize Gay marriage, Andrew Grice, I, 17th-1-2012
No comments:
Post a Comment