Uncivil partners

"People against marriage equality, now Charles complains about the Succession Bill.

Some people are never satisfied Nick."

In the topsy-turvy world of the Prime Minister, it is because hebelieves in the institution of marriage that he is determined to change the definition to allow same-sex couples to marry even though consummation for the procreation of children, the basis of marriage not only in the biblical sense but in any other, is not possible. At the present time 625,000 signatures have been obtained from people petitioning theirsupport for the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The coalition partnership - it is not a marriage says Dave - is having none of it. No matter that there is no mandate or that many Tory MPs arerebelling against the proposal, the coalition will carry on regardless. Anyconsequences such as dropping 'mother' and 'father' in favour of 'parent' or, most importantly, the effect on children are thought irrelevant to the campaign.

Following the publication of more proposals which have not  been properly thought through, this time Nick's baby, Prince Charles has pointed out that simply introducing a Bill to change the law on the line of succession so that male heirs will no longer take priority takes no account of wider issues. The people most affected, the Royal Family, were not consulted about the proposed changes. As a constitutional monarchy they too are expected to do as they are told. The role of the monarch as 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England' again is regarded as a side issue to be resolved if the need arises, ie, if the Church of England still exists and there is any faith left to defend.

What will these unlikely bedfellows get up to next to divert attention away from the economic mess we are in you may wonder? One radical move is hinted athere.

More here.