Gay marriage, animal insults and a pair of Conservatives

Conservative Councillor James Malliff  is in trouble with his party after attacking David Cameron’s support for gay marriage, saying that you “may as well legalise marriage with animals”. The Conservative Party says that action is being taken against him for “completely unacceptable” language.

But wait, rummage through your political memories and recall this?

If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.

That would be one Mr B. Johnson, subsequently twice appointed to the Conservative front bench and twice selected to fight the Mayor of London elections. Perhaps Cllr Malliff had viewed animal comments as a route to Conservative party favour and success?

Hat-tip: @neilrfoster

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

4 Comments

  • Johnson’s comments were made a few years ago, and referenced a still earlier point. If we allow ex-terrorists into stormont then we can allow ex-anti-gay-marriage politicians into city hall.

    To me gay marriage is about religious freedom: Churches should be free to decide whether to wed gay couples and not be dictated to by the state — either way.

  • Andrew Suffield 13th Oct '11 - 7:27pm

    Churches should be free to decide whether to wed gay couples and not be dictated to by the state — either way.

    They basically are already. This is about which of those things will be recognised by the government for legal purposes.

  • “They basically are already. ”

    That’s not true. It’s illegal.

  • Surely it’s not illegal, simply not a thing of legal standing? As in you and the vicar could do anything you damn pleased in the church, all stand on your heads and declare each other wifely wife for life, but the law would say it counted for nothing as regards being partnered?

    In the days before civil partnerships I went to a few church services that were weddings in all but law, to bind together same-sex couples in the eyes of their god, family, friends and congregation.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • David Le Grice
    Weird that this appears to be the first LDV article about this, and the first time anyone in the parliamentary party has spoken up about it (as far as I'm aware...
  • Jack
    Delighted to see conference overwhelmingly reject the EHRC guidance (they don't deserve three quarters of that name - I accept they are a commission). People ar...
  • Geoff Reid
    Somebody had to say it eventual!y. Thank you Tom for inviting us to be honest on this matter....
  • Hywel
    Important point there Paul. For all the angst about 'lack of cut through' that has pretty much been the case for most of the time the LIb Dems existed except f...
  • Roland
    @Gwyn, I agree with David Raw about relative urgency. However, even in the list of political reforms, I would put changes to voting way below the changes that n...