Apologies to Benedict Brogan, deputy editor of The Daily Telegraph, whose excellent morning briefing describes the fuss over gay marriage as “avoidable”. Avoidable how?
Then we had Tim Montgomerie and Mary Ann Sieghart on the Today programme saying that David Cameron should have come out fighting for gay marriage. “That’s what Tony Blair would have done,” [...]
In Hexham, Northumberland, a senior Tory councillor named Matty Donnely has told The Journal that he is resigning from the party in disgust over the vote in favour of gay marriage, after a tense meeting with the local MP, Guy Opperman, who supported the measure.
Everyone, except Atul Hatwal, David Cameron and me, seems to think that the Prime Minister “got the politics of the Same Sex Marriage Bill wrong” in failing to come to the Commons yesterday to lead the fight for it in person.
What matters? It’s not a simple question. Subjective perhaps, philosophical definitely; the type of thought that the human mind will tussle with for eternity. Unless you’re a Conservative MP, that is. Then you’ve got it sorted. Just ask Liam Fox, the latest in the growing line to get on the record with the answer.
Clara Cullen argues that giving government the constitutional power to define what, or more importantly what does not constitute a marriage infringes upon traditional small government values at the heart of US Republican ideology. If they continue to insist on staunchly adhering to socially conservative values, she argues, they will become increasingly out of touch electorally.
The declaration of support for gay marriage, recently articulated by President Obama, gratified some, astonished others, and drew both great praise and great condemnation. Was this a President demonstrating the moral courage to do what he believed right, or was it a political ploy driven by electoral expediency?
You have to hand it to the Catholic Church. It takes a certain level of chutzpah to come through arguably the most widespread global paedophile scandal in human history and its subsequent alleged cover-up, and still be dishing out moral guidance on ‘disordered sexual practices.’
Cardinal Keith O’ Brien made an interesting comparison the other day. Writing for the Sunday Telegraph, he asked his readers to “imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave””. What he seemed to be doing was equating gay marriage with slavery. I would like to make another comparison, which I believe is more accurate and hopefully more helpful: which is that discovering God can be a little like online dating.
There has been a lot of comment on gay marriage. But Sam Leith in the Evening Standard has the best line:
When Roman Catholic Cardinal Keith O’Brien claims that Coalition proposals for same-sex marriage are trying to “redefine reality”, it makes one think …
The doctrines of O’Brien’s church posit transubstantiation, the resurrection of the dead and [...]
It took about an hour after reading the article, “Tory MPs go to war over gay marriage”, for that feeling to rise within me. That savagely-brimming, almost eye-watering fury. It surges up from the base of the gut, hovers a while in the midsection of the chest, before flowing out through the triceps into the wrists and then into the fingers, which are now angrily chattering against this keyboard. Meanwhile, whatever spare rage remains flies north and resides in the eyes, and the brain simmers.
Latest from Independent journalists on Twitter