Archive | Europe RSS feed for this section

End of Adultery and more now?

2 Feb

A section of a blog from the Telegraph website  which I think is very pertinent to this issue, and adds to what I have earlier blogged:

The drafters have belatedly realised that, since there is no procreative act which defines homosexual behaviour, there can be no consummation, or non-consummation, and no adultery. These will not, therefore, be grounds for gay divorce. If your gay husband offers you no nookie, or if he avails himself of large amounts of nookie elsewhere (or both), he gives you no legal cause to divorce him.

So what they have ended up offering, strangely enough, is a law of marriage with no sexual element whatever. This has never happened before (although there have been plenty of sexless marriages). There is nothing in Mr Cameron’s new law to say that same-sex marriages must be between homosexuals. If I were a bachelor, I could marry a straight male friend just to get whatever tax advantages, travel deals and insurance discounts might be going. Incestuous marriage remains forbidden, but I don’t see why, in Mr Cameron’s vision of same-sex marriage, a mother could not marry her daughter or a sister her sister or a father his son. No sexual act is expected of them and even if – distressing thought – it did take place, it could have no genetic consequences. Why should such pairs not just agree that they fancy the married couple’s exemption from inheritance tax, and hurry down the aisle? How long before a same-sex, keep-it-in-the-family couple tries to make a fight of it, and wins a case against the British Government at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)?

Politics, Life and Theology

The current legislation around making gay marriage has popped out  a surprise – gay couples who are married under the new law will not be able to divorce on grounds of adultery, likewise having a gay  marriage annulled on grounds of non-consummation. Partners in same sex unions will instead have to divorce unfaithful partners on the grounds of “unreasonable behaviour”, as is currently the case with civil partnerships.

This developments seems to down to Government legal experts who failed to agree what constitutes “sex” between people of the same gender. Therefore the distinction created inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples in the divorce courts.

Jonathan West, the head of family and marriage law at Prolegal, said: “In my view it is discriminatory. The test for discrimination is whether one section of society is treated differently from another. They are being treated differently.

It means that people in a same-sex marriages who discover that their spouse is unfaithful…

View original post 136 more words


Why Cameron cannot have a Referendum in this Parliament

23 Jan
Twickenham United Kingdom

Twickenham United Kingdom (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you can not of missed it. Today David Cameron promised an In or Out referendum on our membership of the EU. This is promised by the end of 2017 at the latest, 5 years, but there is one condition. The Conservatives must win the next general election. I assume this is a clear majority, not a coalition as we have now. For the situation now is why we have to wait so long for this promised referendum.

2017 does sound a way off but lets quick look at the context. The current parliament was elected in 2010, and with the introduction of the  Fixed-term Parliament Act 2011 mandate that the election will be held on 7 May 2015 (except in the event of a collapse of the coalition or a two-thirds majority of MPs voting for an early election). So now the end of 2017 from the next general election is only 2 and half years (longest wait situation).  If we look at last referendum in the UK, the Alternative Vote in 2011, the journey from presentation before the House of Commons and people voting roughly one year, with the legislative process taking 7 months. If we use this time frame as a guide, that gives Cameron upto one and half years space to work. One and half years to write, plan and consult.

Returning to the topic at hand, this can not happen in this parliament. The Conservative Party is generally eurosceptic, whilst the Liberal Democrats are europhile. In addition, Labour and the Liberal Democrats do not support or see the need to hold a referendum on the EU, as they believe it is a good thing. With both parties together holding a majority, the required legislation to carry out the referendum would never pass in the house. You need to pass a bill to hold a referendum and Nick Clegg would order his troops to vote against it, in spite of the manifesto promises made at the last election by the Liberal Democrats.

So unless there is a position reversal by Labour (unlikely) or the Liberal Democrats (and pigs may fly…), it would fail before it even started. Therefore we can not have a referendum vote on our EU membership in this parliament.