Tuesday, February 05, 2013
What will be will be. But just as with the electoral reform referendum, political entities, with the collusion of much of the press, have their own agenda which has little to do with the interests or will of the electorate.
For myself personally ... I don't believe it is the responsibility of the government to legislate definitions of words, or assume them, unless there is a consensus. If the former consensus as to what marriage actually is no longer exists, then I don't believe it is for the state to decide what the new definition should be, even if an overwhelming majority of the electorate are happy with it (and that case hasn't been made). Language is not the responsibility of the state.
I also don't believe that it is the job of a government to introduce legislation of this sort within a parliament that hasn't been anticipated in a manifesto.
Also, whilst the legislation may allow for freedom of conscience, this was the case for working on Sunday when the legislation for that was introduced. But 20 years down the line, it is pretty much assumed. It's hard to remember today just how big an issue working on Sunday was at the time. Does that matter, or doesn't it? Who can say? But the point is, regardless of the protections that are included, big social changes can follow from such "tidying up" and "making more equal" of the law. The government has said that it intends to change the law regardless of the outcome of consultation, and that's the point at which we stand now. Is that democracy? Is it wise? Does it reflect a reasoned, or reasonable, position?