Posted on 03/09/2016 1:19:10 PM PST by NRx
May well be true; tourists attractions?
I am a conservative, I support civil partnerships but not gay marriage. I also support the right to choose and would legalise prostitution.
I’d rather have a world with no abortion or selling sex, but you have to be pragmatic and common sense. I have no problem with civil partnerships, gay and lesbian couples who commit to each other should have some status, if not marriage, and have legal protection over issues like money, property and wills.
I see CP’s as a good thing, as they make gays and lesbians commit to each other in monogamous relationships. And surely that’s a good thing, rather than a society with everyone, gay, bi or straight, screwing each other with no commitment to another. No love, just lust.
Last of the greats.
You tried pulling this line on me in the past.
Pragmatism is the tactic of leftists. Keep feeding the crocodile and it still gets to the point of either you or the croc.
Not sure how failing to veto when she could on a conscience issue, is dictatorial, though again if I were the king of the world I wouldn’t have someone like this being a monarch of supposedly independent countries. Canada? Australia?
Ach, away wie ye.
Pragmatism is a long part of human history: the Greek philosophers were so, as were men like David Hume. Nonsense to say its a leftist idea.
I am a pragmatist on some issues, and have never been nor will ever be of the left. At ‘worst’, I may lean towards a centrist or libertarian bent on a few issues. But I remain conservative on most. Centre right or right.
If it’s a genuine conscience issue (which this would be; it’s a case of wordicide, it would be like a law calling blue yellow) then fooey. Nonsense has no valid place in law unless we want to start to punish people for insisting on making sense.
Pragmatism is the all excuser. Go along to get along, no bigger reason.
Pragmatism, if “realpolitik” and its forebears is meant, led to every war ever fought. The ideologue will always beat down the pragmatist, whether the ideology is good or ill.
Thanks for info.
As I said before — the constitutions (and, by extension, constitutional law) in the Commonwealth Realm countries are quite different from that of the U.S.A.
Your premise (that she could “veto”) is incorrect. You could visit a law library in Canada for the reasons why — it takes a lot of explaining. The customs and practices (and precedents) of every nation in the Realm, going back hundreds of years, have to be taken into account. Bottom line — if the Queen had withheld assent from this bill; it would likely be the last official act of any British Monarch.
And yes, “By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith” Queen Elizabeth is Canada’s Queen and Head of State.
Well I wouldn’t want the office around rather than having one giving ceremonial nods to something that’s about as just plain wrong as anything can be... ignore the sodomy issues for now, this legislates a nonsense definition of something that dates from time immemorial. When a society DID support homo pairings, it never stole the “marriage” terminology, till the modern craze.
But of course I can only opine, just as you can opine about what we brash Americans say.
Please don’t mistake my support for the Monarchy, and our current Queen for substantive approval of same-sex marriage. We’re actually in almost complete agreement on the substantive issues. (BTW, FWIW, I’m a fan of the brashest of all Americans currently standing for President. Give me brash over mealy-mouthed any day.)
So you make it clear that you personally believe it is okay to kill babies because they are inconvenient. What other citizens do you also think it is okay to kill because they are inconvenient?
Oh no! Parliament will cut off funding of the monarchy for sure. And puddlethumper Cameron will lead the way.
God save the Queen!
She just laid down a red line of morality for all of her people. That’s courageous leadership defined!
I don’t really wish to get into that long argument. I don’t support abortion, I wish for a world without it. What I support is the right of a woman to choose.
To choose what?
To carry to term or not without it being forced upon her by law or others.
So maybe the gov’t shouldn’t enforce laws of any sort including those against murder. A woman may want to kill her colicky newborn because she can’t cope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.