From the point of view of many Tories, the answer to this question is surely "Yes". Any thinking politician tries to look ahead and envisage the effect of his ideas before speaking out. Cameron seems to come up with what sems to be a god idea and speaks out without giving it any real thought.
Take for example gay "marriage". Whilst there are arguments as to the number of gays in the UK population, the The Office for National Statistics (ONS) says 480,000 (1%) consider themselves gay or lesbian, and 245,000 (0.5%) bisexual. (BBC News, Sept 2010). Presumably the proposals only apply to the first group unless the latter will be allowed two partners, one of each sex! Of this 1% of the population, how many would be interested in gay "marriage"? Personally, I suspect, just a few activists and publicity seekers who feel that they need to prove something. Personally, I am acquainted with two gay couples, neither couple have even entered into a civil partnership, so "marriage" would seem to be of little interest to them.
But, back to Cameron's stupidity. How many votes does he expect to gain from this? He of course would say he is not doing it for votes, but because it is "the right thing to do" but if you believe that, you'll believe anything. Meanwhile, I am aware of a number of local churchgoers who have made it clear. in public, that if the Tories introduce this measure, they will never vote Tory again.
Perhaps Cameron believes the activists' claim that gays are 10% or maybe 15% (pick your own figure) of the population, and that he will "pick up" their votes, but with the ONS suggesting
that it is 1%, of which a proportion would vote Tory anyway, it seems to me that statistically he is onto a looser however you look at the maths. But it isn't just the maths here that matters, it seems that Cameron doesn't even care about the split that it will cause in his party.
Where do I stand on this issue? I take the view that gay "marriage" is impossible if the word "marriage" is to retain the meaning it has had for thousands of years in most languages. There appears to be no language where, until recent years, the word "marriage" has meant other than the joining of two people, one male and one female in what is intended to be a permanent partnership with the intention of having a family. I reluctantly accepted the concept of civil partnerships, as there are valid arguments in favour to ensure equality in areas such as pensions and the like, but "Gay marriage" adds nothing to homosexuals' rights except a word.
Afterthought. With all the unmarried couples bringing up children these days, and the even larger number of couples just living together, I find we are in the strange position where those who can get married don't want to do so, whilst those who can't, do !
Former Aussie PM Kevin Rudd for UN Secretary General
20 minutes ago