British Politics Thread

In a not at all related point, does anyone know anything about this supposed meteor that apparently was seen across Scotland and the north of England tonight? I've heard people talking about this but I didn't see anything.

Too far south.

But anyway, if we're not happy with state-funded services, we have the power of the vote. If there's a private monopoly/oligopoly, then we can't vote with our feet.

Yeah, definatley some kind of meteorite across Scotland tonight.

I'm calling it now - it's the TARDIS!

Well, it's only the closer that you get, it becomes the Tardis.

@ Silasw:

Well, in the case of buses, the local Council / PTE can always step in a issue a contract for a replacement service, if one is deemed to be required. But obviously, that depends of the level of funding available to the Council / PTE.

And even before, even if they were State-owned, about the only person you could complain to was the operator itself — all descisions of that sort were left to them, not (after 1985) directly the local council.

edited 4th Mar '12 12:58:15 AM by Greenmantle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099

Catholics Do Not Like Gay Marriage. Whole Country Not At All Shocked.

One day I'm gonna learn how to use these tags, goddamnit.

edited 4th Mar '12 1:30:43 AM by Minister

Being a Catholic myself, I do have to question the 'deliberately deprive a child of a mother or father' logic. The child will still have two parents, and hopefully, two loving ones that will watch over it. Hell, it might encourage adoptions, in the case of those parents who don't want to take donated genetic material in order to grow a child. Giving kids a whole new family, if they've previously lost one, doesn't sound that bad either way.

Then again, given they could do that already under Civil Partnerships (last I checked), there is a certain air of redundancy about it. Really, Civil Marriage (different from religious marriages, which each respective church has a degree of control over) and Civil Partnerships are largely the same thing, with the only main differences I can think of being: A) The involved genders (legally speaking) B) The usage of religious symbols in ceremonies celebrating the union - namely that Civil Partnerships can't C) The freaking name

If same-sex marriage were to be approved, then Civil Partnerships become utterly redundant as a concept in this country. Of course, if I'm also utterly wrong, someone feel free to point it out.

Edit: Is using redundancy and redundant at two different points itself redundant? XD

edited 4th Mar '12 2:37:31 AM by Mechanut

Scottish independence: May start for 'yes' campaign: Well, that's the "Official" start — of course, the Campaign has already started...

Charities 'could face cuts of up to £5.5bn'

Personally speaking I want the right to marriage because I want my relationship to be seen as equal which civil partnerships aren't on the basis that it is a separate institution for same-sex couples and especially classified as 'not marriage' and therefore not seen as equal to 'proper' marriage. Furthermore, civil partnerships also discriminate against straight couples as there are those who would prefer to have a civil partnership rather than a marriage and the law as it currently is prevents them. Though C Ps do seem to have a status about them that some straight couples seem to find appealing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

edited 4th Mar '12 3:32:49 AM by PiccoloNo92

Okay, the reasoning behind your desire to marry, I can get, even though I personally find that it simply being separate is not the same as it being unequal. Two people are united as one family, and granted the rights, benefits, and responsibilities involved. But if the view remains in other people, then merging the two concepts into one general thing is probably one of the easier ways to remove it.

Though reading that article, much of what I find to be the argument Tom and Katherine put forward is based more around the image surrounding marriage, than what it actually brings. Though also equally, images can be powerful and influential in how things are treated, so if there's basis, I can see why they might want to avoid that image.

Scotland's leading lawyer, Paul McBride QC, has been found dead in Pakistan

Wow. Well, rest in peace, mate.

Home Sec. to visit Jordan over Qatada

Man, we just love breaking our civil rights legislation, don't we?

Sorry, but "seperate but equal" as a concept is simply designed as an attempt to justify segregation. As such, I deem it utterly unacceptable in any capacity.

The Supreme Court of the USA decided that 'separate but equal' was impossible to enforce in the Brown judgment, over fifty years ago. You'd think that by now we'd have stopped using it as a justification for inequality.

I think what people are missing is that gay marriage is probably the strongest symbol of equality there is, and that's why people want it: by allowin gay marriage the UK is declaring unequivocally that homosexuality is accepted here and that we will treat gay and straight people equally. Civil partnerships have the legal value of marriage, but not the symbolic value.

edited 4th Mar '12 2:14:37 PM by cityofmist

Either we allow gay marriage, or allow straight civil unions. Both would make both orientations equal both legally and symbolically. We've got the legality out of the way. We should at least have the courage to go the whole way and make homosexuals equal in the eyes of people. It's not redefining marriage for straight people. It's simply redefining the term to include all types of couples.

Should've known that would be brought up. I didn't mean it in the sense as it was used in the US, to justify lower standards of treatment and services. Meant more in the sense that there are cases we make distinctions, but from a legal perspective, should still be approached and treated equally - sorry if I offended anyone.

But yeah, I'm getting the symbolic importance of it now. Whilst the view is maintained they're treated differently, some people are going to use that justify arguments where same-sex couples are of lesser importance than opposite-sex couples. Removing it, removes their excuse.

That's it. If the term used is different in legal documents, it makes it easier to implement legal technicalities thats subtly introduce discrimination - a law specifically referring to marriage could well mean that civil partnerships aren't counted.

For what it's worth, there are straight couples who want civil partnerships as well, and the law changes would allow for both. Cameron has noted the discrimination against heterosexual couples who want the legal lasting union without the symbolic associations of marriage, and yet they can't actually have that.

The fact that the catholic church in Scotland are currently insisting that legalising gay marriage is violating the human right to equality (presumably, they mean the right of heterosexuals to be legally recognised as superior to homosexuals) makes my blood boil.

Possibly this is the tiredness setting in, but... isn't... legalising gay marriage promoting equality?

Honestly, the arguments against this are flawed. Unless the argument is "heterosexuals should have civil unions", in which case, that's a credible, but different point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

Piccolo linked this earlier, referring to the whole matter of heterosexual couples wanting civl partnerships. But yeah, I'm starting to see why this might be more of an issue now... there's cracks in the system that could be widened, if anyone really wanting to be against same-sex couples decided to abuse them.

Literally everything Cardinal O'Brien has to say is abhorrant, intellectually dishonest, offensive and quite clearly hate filled. Not only should these people not be allowed to dictate any kind of social policy, they shouldn't even be asked.

Word. I wish the Church of England and the Catholic Church would just shut the fuck up about this already. Cameron's made it clear that he's going to try his hardest to get this through, with evidence of widespread public support, so they haven't a leg to stand on.

The funniest thing is that hes from the Catholic Church which doesn't have a great rep for protecting children

I mean really now. What is this? I don't even. Did he just? What?

Is he high? Who put this to print?

edited 5th Mar '12 12:19:44 AM by TheBatPencil

Maybe someone should write him a memo that divorce is legal in this country

I can't even work out what he means by that. I think that he's confusing married gays with some kind of alien abductors.

Different kind of anal probe, Your Eminence.