They say that politics makes strange bedfellows, but this one seems a bit stranger than most.
David Coburn, the openly gay spokesman of Great Britain’s U.K. Independence Party, claims that Prime Minister David Cameron is “picking a fight” with the religious community over same-sex marriage, insisting that pushing such legislation “shows a lack of toleration towards others who look on marriage as a holy sacrament between man and woman.”
Coburn and UKIP made their opposition to the same-sex marriage legislation known last week, arguing that civil unions are a superior alternative that would not hinder religious freedom.
via the Christian Post.
Allowing everybody the same rights is a lack of tolerance? I suppose it is, in the same way that allowing McDonalds to sell hamburgers shows a lack of tolerance for vegetarianism.
It gets even more bizarre.
According to Coburn, the government’s preference for same-sex marriages over unions implies that “marriage is something else… if so, it is clearly the domain of the church and of other faiths – and it is none of the government’s business to meddle with it.”
This just goes to show how much better the health care system is in Europe. This guy is clearly getting much better drugs than my doctor is giving me.
Let’s try that in a few other venues, shall we? “Saying that the front seats are better than the back of the bus implies that the front seats are something else… if so, they are clearly the domain of white people.” Or how about, “Saying that the more affluent neighborhoods in Poland are better than the ghettos implies that they are something else… if so, they are clearly the domain of Aryan Gentiles.” Or maybe, “Saying that it’s better to have career opportunities than to be stuck at home cooking and cleaning and raising kids implies that these are something else… if so, they are clearly the domain of men, and women have no business meddling with it.”
As Max Headroom used to say, “With friends like these, who needs enemas?”
UKIP would probably agree with your other statements as well. They’re mostly an anti-immigrant/anti-EU party. I guess they went whole hog with regression.
Nobody takes UKIP seriously – bunch of clowns that are guaranteed to take the anti-reality route. See their stance on climate change etc for evidence.
Also, “Lord” Monkton is a member. That’s all you need to know
These are the same kinds of things (on both issues) that U.S. Republicans are saying. But alas, our idiots are being taken very seriously indeed.
Sounds like a man who would fit right in with the “Log Cabin” Republicans. LOL. Are taxes such a big issue that one throws one’s lot in with a bunch of religious zealots who would burn you at the stake? Wow…just wow.
The problem is that no-one takes them seriously because the BNP exists; UKIP simply cannot compete with those levels of shite.
Simple solution: if the Church wants marriage, fine. Let them have it! However, remember everypony, separation of church and state! Once the Church gets marriage, the State can decide whatever the hell it wants with regards to civil unions, and NO ONE can ever again be married in the eyes of the State. Ever. Nor can the Church bullshit about civil unions; they’re a part of the State, not the Church. And any Church sanctioned marriage that does NOT include a State sanctioned civil union will not ever be recognized by the State.
Marriage will quickly become a religions ceremony, performed only by religious people, for nothing more than ritualistic reasons. Secular civil union parties will fill the gap, because in the eyes of civil law, only those civil unions matter, and not a single church wedding will matter.
That’s exactly how it works in Germany. Only civil unions performed by the State matter, legally. Marriage ceremonies in church are sometimes performed, but they carry no legal weight.
Just like it should be!
Same in Hungary.
Both are called marriage: The state-recognised is called civil marriage and is the one required to count as “married” for any purpose other than religion. And IIRC, the church won’t let you enter a church marriage before you’ve obtained the civil marriage first.
As far as I know, the proposed UK legislation is even stranger than that. They want to allow same-sex couples to have civil marriages, along with the civil partnerships they are currently allowed (which heterosexual couples are not allowed, btw). But there is also a ban on same-sex religious marriages, which will not be lifted, so even if a religious institution wants to wed a same-sex couple they won’t be allowed to.
I really didn’t think the UK was this insane 🙁