Posted: Apr 09, 2012 5:15 pm
Investigation suggests serious flaws in the Coalition For Marriage petition
"PinkNews.co.uk’s Edmund Broch explores how accurate and reliable the system is that appears to suggest that the Coalition for Marriage has amassed 400,000 signatures in opposition to the Government’s plans to allow gay couples to marry and asks ‘do their numbers add up?’
"There is something fishy about Coalition for Marriage (C4M). Even insofar as the main aim of the campaign is to keep restricted the definition of marriage to heterosexuals, the origins and intentions of the group, especially its fundamentalist alliances, remain clandestine and worrisome."
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/08/an ... ntruthful/
"PinkNews.co.uk’s Edmund Broch explores how accurate and reliable the system is that appears to suggest that the Coalition for Marriage has amassed 400,000 signatures in opposition to the Government’s plans to allow gay couples to marry and asks ‘do their numbers add up?’
"There is something fishy about Coalition for Marriage (C4M). Even insofar as the main aim of the campaign is to keep restricted the definition of marriage to heterosexuals, the origins and intentions of the group, especially its fundamentalist alliances, remain clandestine and worrisome."
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/08/an ... ntruthful/