Monday, 5 March 2007

Cameron's consistency.

I have just read today's paper. (As per usual it's bought in the morning and not read till much later).
I see Cameron has been discussing marriage- as of course has Alan Johnson.
I must confess my views on the subject are much more what Johnson has to say than Cameron. I believe people who bring up children should receive tax breaks, whether they are a married couple or not and I fail to see why a married- but childless- couple should receive a tax break at all.
In fact, I would go a completely different way to the government in their efforts to placate different pressure groups with their civil partnerships and gay marriages.
I would quite simply withdrew the idea of marriage in law. That wouldn't prevent people from having weddings solemnised on church, but it would put the whole of divorce law on far more sensible terms by simply treating a relationship breakdown with the same equity any other division of assets in society would have. Children's rights would be much the same as they are now.
Marriage would be simply a personal celebration between indiviuals, without legal significance.
Might even encourage people to marry.

Yet what has annoyed me most about Cameron recently is the fact that here he is defending marriage, when he wouldn't defend the Catholic Church when it sought an opt out from the new Adoption legislation.
I must admit, I have no problem with gay people adopting.
I do have a problem with the state telling my faith what it should and should not do. Especially when the state attempts to compell the Church to break it's own teaching. What surprised me most was that a Tory leader- yes, a Tory- could not stand and defend Freedom of Religion over what is, even by my standards, an excess of political correctness.

To me his positions here are inconsistent.
So are mine, but my inconsistencies are explainable and I'm not the leader of the Opposition.

This may well be an issue that affects how I vote next time- if I do. I really am getting close to saying 'A plague on ALL your houses'

2 comments:

Onyx Stone said...

Yes, Cameron is unprincipled. This makes him utterly useless as a leader. As a politician it may make him brilliant, but it doesn't inspire me.

As for your proposed experiement to "withdraw the idea of marriage in law"... it all sounds very logical. However, the effect on society may be even more devastating for the family than the acceptance of casual sex has proved.

As marriage loses its place in our society, our society loses its backbone. The continuation of this trend will not lead to a relativistic pragmatic utopia. It is more likely to be overtaken by a self-confident, self assured medieval Islamism.

If the church discards its fashionable campaign of sickly tollerance, and once again stands for something (like your Roman Catholic church almost did with the Adoption legislation), then they might inspire some people to believe in principles that would strengthen their families and following generations.

I believe that marriage is the centre of the family. Many and weak are its substitutes.

Crushed said...

You are possibly right, I don't know. I just feel it should be up to the individual to make their own choices on how they present their sociosexual yearnings to the world, without being forced to follow a systemised framework.
This is logical for me, for if I married, I would be subject to Divorce laws my own faith would not recognise. By abolishing marriage from a legal point of view any marriage I undertook would only be subject to the rules of my own faith.
Personally, I don't go a bomb on the whole monogamy/exclusivity thing, but that's my own preferenceand I can't say for sure I'll always feel that way (I'm not thirty yet), but at the moment there is a lot to strenghten me in my commitmentphobia.