February 24, 2010
Mark Simpson argues in today’s London Times that heterosexuals should be allowed to have civil partnerships
British writer and journalist.
Civil unions for hets is what we have here in New Zealand. In the parliamentary debate on civil unions the then Labour deputy leader famously answered to the question what the difference was between civil union and marriage, that in a marriage you didn’t need to be civil.
March 2, 2010 — 5:23 am
Well, Ms. Sullivan gives a new, but not so fresh meaning to the “tart “designation as she unashamedly leads a host of true believers to the alter with her drawers dragging in the mud, bare bottom wagling about, still confident of tendering a flagrantly misleading bill of goods to the not so bright contrite hearts of America.
February 26, 2010 — 12:17 am
No one really wants to be made an honest woman these days. Not even Andrea S.
February 25, 2010 — 8:10 pm
The impression I have is not that this alteration in sensability has a lot to do with gay people as such as much as it is proscribed to take the church out of these agreements. The point of that stickes me personally as having to do , as Mark suggests, with the construction of a safe distance from the sense of duty ancillary to marriage, that there be some sacred necessity for continuance regardless, of unresolved conflict. I have always felt that my parents, and many other people would have been better off themselves and provided a saner climate for children if they felt free to separate. as the situation permited. This has become a necessity with the development of womens ‘rights and individual self determination. I have no interest in the corelative option for gays in joining the religious debauchal; it only lends verity to the colision of church and state.and traps people spiritually in a contract that seems emotionally overly binding.
February 25, 2010 — 5:03 pm
Comments are closed.
© 2019 marksimpson.com. All rights reserved.
Theme by Anders Norén.