Anyhoo (yes "anyway" was already taken).

Thursday, March 15, 2012

We are not proposing any changes to marriages conducted on religious premises. This means that in law, marriages conducted by the Church of England, Quakers, Jews and all other religious organisation (who have registered their religious premises to host marriages) would only be legally recognised if they are between a man and a woman.

Why the hell not? Surely that should be left up to the religious institutions? To forbid something that all parties freely agree to purely because it would be analogous to something which already exists seems perverse. But such is the law.

The picture is worth a thousand words.

A slightly different take on it, which I like because it uses the word 'footballists'.

Anyhoo,

# posted by Anyhoo @ 5:34 pm

I like homosexualist. Makes it sound a very precise activity, and ever so slightly distasteful. Well who's to say :( Love, Alec xx

# posted by

Anonymous : March 22, 2012 12:22 am

But then that means there's homosexualism, and as anyone knows, the coining of an ism to describe it is the death of any group or movement.

Or some such contrarian rubbish.

# posted by