Saturday, 16 June 2012

Ann Widdecombe's Wrong. Again.

Ann Widdecombe has held a webchat on gransnet in which we got this gem.

Presumably you are opposed to gay marriage? What would you say to a mother like me, whose son would desperately like to marry his partner and who feels that he should have the same rights as her daughter.  
I can never understand why the very people who support marriage as a source of social stability would wish to deny this to one group. Surely it would be better to include gay men and women (where they want to be included) then to push them out into the cold?  
I would say that your son would not gain anything from civil marriage that he does not already have in a civil partnership. But under the proposals, your daughter would lose the right to describe herself, legally, as a wife.
This is almost certainly based on the reports earlier this year that legislation will need to be amended if equal marriage went through to ensure the laws were actually going to be applicable to all marriages. This might involve instances of "husband" and "wife" being removed. Now firstly this may not have to happen, as amending all legislation would be a near impossible task, so I suspect some sort of typically British fudge will occur.

No one is going to have to stop calling themselves a "wife" or a "husband". I'm pretty sure those terms will still be used in courts of law across the land. If/when I marry my other half he shall be my husband. The idea there's some secret conspiracy by LGBT activists to destroy marriage by the trojan house of "equal marriage" is one best left for the tin-foil hat brigade.

It's not something one expects from a former MP. But then again one of her old colleagues Roger Gale thinks Shakespeare will be rewritten once marriage equality is achieved! It takes allsorts I suppose.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist


Anonymous said...

"But then again one of her old colleagues Roger Gale thinks Shakespeare will be rewritten once marriage equality is achieved!"

Ironically, it's those opposing the changes who maintain that in the English language the word 'marriage' can refer only to a union between a man and a woman.

Evidently in their view Shakespeare got it wrong. Perhaps they think he should have written:
"Let me not to the civil partnership of true minds admit impediments"?

Stephen Glenn said...

Surely the easiest way around this on all forms is

Husband/Wife/Civil Partner [delete as applicable]

and repeat for "partner 2"