Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
25 January 2009
09:3113780#1
Well its sunday morning and ones thoughts turn to religion, dont they?
I heard this story on the radio this morning. It seems an MP is trying to get the situation which forbids marriage to a Catholic, the constitutional law, repealed. It seems the 'happy prince' can marry anyone at all as long as its not ...shock horror...a Catholic. He can, wait for it...marry an agnostic, an atheist, a jew, a muslim, a buddhist, a seikh, any nutter religion at all will do, but try marrying a Catholic and all hell breaks lose.
Whats wrong with us Catholics? Do we smell bad, do we look bad, do we have scabied faces, do we have the furrowed brows of cut-throat malcontents. I havent noticed everyone getting off the bus when I get on ( not that Ive been on a bus for years) so I guess I cant be too bad.
But this is blatant descrimination in an age where we are always supposed to pooh pooh such descrimination. I know this constutional situation exists after years and years of unfathomable English history, well its unfathomable to us lowly foreigners anyway...but..
So is it time to get rid of this legislation where the prince cant marry a Catholic, or do people think its still worth while keeping hold of in an era where so many traditional values are eroding.
Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
25 January 2009
09:4813782#2
Surely this has to be discrimination at its worst! I know quite a few couples who are catholic married to c of e partners, including my late sister and her husband. I'd like to know how, in this pc day and age, this would be allowed. As you say Paul, Catholics are no different to anyone else, they just practise a different religion.
So in answer to your question I say yes - it's definitely time to get rid of this legislation. After all - they do say that love conquers all!!
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".
Terry Nunn
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,321
25 January 2009
10:0513786#3
You can blame Henry VIII for that Paul!
Terry (Humanist)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
25 January 2009
10:1013788#4
i am not a catholic but my wife is i sing in a catholic church so if he would like to married one then let him, the church is so outdated the catholic church is just the same they tell us we are not married because my wifes X is still living and we have now been married over 20years anyway we love living in sin and that is what the Catholic church tell us, we are off in one hour to our local Catholic church , and thank you Jacqui for your post on this.
vic matcham
Guest 679- Registered: 7 Sep 2008
- Posts: 162
25 January 2009
12:3813806#5
You have to remember this is an oold country and as discriminatory as it is there are some even wackier old laws that still exist...
The top 10 most stupid laws and with the percentage of their ludicrously in Britain according to the UKTV Gold survey are:
1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27 percent)
2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down (7 percent)
3. In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store (6 percent)
4. Mince pies cannot be eaten on Christmas Day (5 percent)
5. In Scotland, if someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your toilet, you must let them enter (4 percent)
6. A pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman's helmet (4 percent)
7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the king, and the tail of the queen (3.5 percent)
8. It is illegal to avoid telling the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing (3 percent)
9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armor (3 percent)
10. In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow (2 percent)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7081038.stmI know a million ways to always pick the wrong thing to say
25 January 2009
13:4013817#6
Number 6 comes as a relief.........................
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
25 January 2009
14:4213828#7
It really is ridiculous, discriminatory and antiquated, but then so is the whole idea of having a head of state based on birth right. Imagine if you went to you GP and they told you that they where not in their position because of their ability or training, they just had the job because their dad was a doctor.
It really is just amazing how out of date the whole thing is. Now just before any Daily Mail readers start having a go at me: I quite like the Royal Family, they seem like a nice bunch, I just think the notion borders on the absurd!
25 January 2009
14:5713829#8
Well, I don't like the Royal Family and wish they didn't exist, but I can see that there could be an argument for the fact that being in the Royal Family provides training for the job........Nevertheless, out of date, out of touch, out of their minds, they need to go!!!!!!!!
Terry Nunn- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,321
25 January 2009
15:0513830#9
Stone the crows Bern, we are like minded!
Come the revolution and all that!
Terry
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
25 January 2009
15:1413831#10
Stone the Aristos more like it Terry!!! Power to the people!!!!
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
25 January 2009
15:1713832#11
Don't get me wrong, I think we should get rid of them! I'd just like it to be known it's nothing personal! After all it's not their fault.
If their is an argument for 'on the job training' I'm not sure their doing a very good job!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
25 January 2009
20:1413862#12
the monarch is the head of the church of england, hence the requirement that he/she does not marry left handers.
a bit like a west ham supporter marrying a tottenham supporter, but not as serious.
i would imagine that this is an ancient law, so that the other religions would not have got a mention due to lack of any contact with them.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
25 January 2009
20:4813868#13
If you recall hearing of the Spanish Armada or Guy Fawkes, coupled with threats of violent incerssions from Scotland, you will see that when the law was introduced they felt they had a lot of justification for it. Why suggestions to remove it from the statute books now causes so much controvesy is anyone's guess.
As with Jeanettes list you often know why they came about historically without understanding why they have never been repealed. I would however love to know more about these Liverpudlian tropical fish clerks.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
25 January 2009
22:1113870#14
i believe that the death penalty is still on the statute book.
going by memory it is still there for piracy on the high seas and setting light to H.M. dockyards.
26 January 2009
07:4013876#15
But, outrageously, not for allowing your dog to foul the pavement. Must be an oversight.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
26 January 2009
20:2613927#16
don't get me going on that one bern.
i would like public executions for that one.
26 January 2009
21:4013953#17
And polaroids on sale after the event!!!