Nick Griffin's *supposed* Twitter account suspended.

[David]

[MKR&*42]

Ah that's a different way to look at it. It is always promoted as something all or most gay couples want when, as you said, there isn't a strong demand for it. I think American states legalised it for a bit, but there wasn't a strong demand in the end so they revoked the laws keeping to more civil based laws on rights between couple (recognised and unrecognised).

It's interesting, but equality shouldn't swing in favour of one particular thought. In this case I just see it as the B&B owners declining a service which is their loss, they're not gaining anything from saying no. If anything the only fault they have is not saying it sooner, like on their website which is where I believe the gay couple found the B&B. Not that it matters, as I find these cases lose their appeal when obviously private cases like this become public.

Found it.

Polling shows that only a minority of
gay people (39 per cent) believe gay
marriage is a priority. And according to
the Government only 3 per cent of gay
people would enter a same-sex marriage.

Wouldn't call 39% a minority, think that's pushing the boundaries really. But 3% is really un-necessary, as you said, it shouldn't be changed because of one thought. Legalising gay marriage and then having 3% of same sex couples using it is a tad silly.

I'm sure couples in a civil partnership have identical rights to those married currently? (Excluding very few differences regarding the actual 'wedding'.) By that logic, there really isn't any need to change it to marriage if the wedding is the only partial difference. But then, someone could quite easily argue "Why can't they be called the same then if they're almost identical" which is why I usually never say that

It seems highly un-needed to practically force churches into same sex marriage. I think they should be allowed to decide individually; I'd approve that approach more than taking action against people (like the B&B owners) for very minor issues.

Can't wait 'till someone who supports it starts debating with me :/.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I signed the Coalition for Marriage petition based on the fact I reject the proposals as they stand for legalising gay marriage. Ideally, i'd like the state removed from marriage so that although gay 'marriage' would be de facto legalised... it'd break the monopoly of the state and the state defining it. Also, with equality laws - I see numerous situations where equality laws will be used against Christians and those who speak unpolitically correct views.

My personal view is that I don't view it as genuine marriage at all, Ann Widdecombe did an amazing speech on this topic that i'd urge anybody to watch especially as social conservatives are never given any airtime or coverage - passionate in defence of marriage.

[MKR&*42]

I signed the Coalition for Marriage petition based on the fact I reject the proposals as they stand for legalising gay marriage. Ideally, i'd like the state removed from marriage so that although gay 'marriage' would be de facto legalised... it'd break the monopoly of the state and the state defining it. Also, with equality laws - I see numerous situations where equality laws will be used against Christians and those who speak unpolitically correct views.

My personal view is that I don't view it as genuine marriage at all, Ann Widdecombe did an amazing speech on this topic that i'd urge anybody to watch especially as social conservatives are never given any airtime or coverage - passionate in defence of marriage.

I believe I got an email from C4M containing that video, been meaning to watch it. Brilliant speech from the woman. I knew there were quite a few pieces of legislation containing reference to marriage/husband/wife etc. but was unaware that it was as high as 3,000 - which, as she said, "... likely to take up a rather a lot of time - and many of us would say we've got plenty to do without that".

"Party to a marriage" goodness.