Saturday 5 January 2013

Prime Minister, why is gay marriage taking precedence over Europe, immigration, energy policy and the boundary review?

Norman Tebbit

Lord Tebbit of Chingford is one of Britain's most outspoken conservative commentators and politicians. He was a senior cabinet minister in Margaret Thatcher's government and is a former Chairman of the Conservative Party.

Prime Minister, why is gay marriage taking precedence over Europe, immigration, energy policy and the boundary review?






The vital question of where when and how should capacity be provided to maintain the position of London as a hub for airline operations has been shunted away into the future. The curse of unlimited, uncounted immigation has still not been lifted. London is no longer a predominately white British city. Two in every ten people in our country were not born here. Mr Cameron's great speech defining his policy on our relationship with the EU is stil not made. The boundary review to equalise the number of electors in each constituency has drifted away on the river of time. Energy policy seems to be decided in a series of political fights amongst Ministers.
It is hard to say if that is because they are difficult matters in themselves or because of bickering and posturing by the Coalition junior partners.
Elsewhere there is a bustle of activity as policies are formed and legislation prepared – not just on the ill-fated attempt to abolish the House of Lords whilst retaining its name and creating an entirely different Chamber. We are even seeing the preparation of legislation to change the law of sucession, although it is unlikely that the change would have any effect for a half-century at least.
All that, however, seems to be small beer beside Mr Cameron's determination and haste to legislate for the end of marriage as we have known it for the last five or ten thousand years. No longer would it be a union of one man and one woman. Initially Mr Cameron would make it into a union of any two persons (with the exception of those barred by consanguinity I assume). I doubt if it would remain there. Why should not brothers, or sisters be prevented from "marrying"? Or a mother and daughter or father and son? Already in "liberal" circles in America the zoophilliacs are pressing their case for the legalisation of human sex with animals.
Just what is it that is so pressing about homosexual "marriage" that it takes precedence in the mind of Mr Cameron over Europe, immigration, airports or energy. We know that neither the Cabinet, the Conservative Party, nor the people are desperately anxious to for it. For my part I doubt if it wll be an election-winner.
 

No comments:

Post a Comment