That's precisely what I mean. The legitimacy of the legislation in terms of our signing up to the Human Rights covered by that constitutional court. The Church of England and their counterpart in Wales have been promised they can't be made to account for their discrimination by making it illegal for them to conduct gay marriage. Of course, this is no more than a delaying clause as the legislation will be challenged on our commitment to human rights charter obligations. The Monarch being asked to dilute her religious role is just a smokescreen. We are a constitutional monarchy. She signs what she is told to and if she objects, it is signed by the Prime Minister as first Lord of the Treasury. Presumably the constitutional crisis that would entail would mark the end of monarchy. Disestablishing the church would be a far easier option and Liz knows it.

I said that Catholics are already, once the act becomes live, sitting ducks for legal action. Just as they were for refusing to accept gay couples as potential foster parents for an agency they ran in Leeds.

The position for Muslims is easier. If you believe you tend to believe most of it. The term boutique Muslim only applies when sheiks get pissed and order prostitutes to theirroom when on business in London. Boutique Christians tend be those who run round the pick n mix counter. Most of them, if I'm correct.