George Clooney, fantasy of the peers

[slemslempike]

This is from last week, so apologies if you've already seen it, but this is the Hansard report of the Lords' same-sex marriage debate where several noble friends create RPF about George Clooney:

As the law stands, if I was married to George Clooney and he was to have a sexual affair with, say, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that would be adultery. If I was married to George Clooney and Mr Clooney had sexual relations with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that would not be adultery because he would not be able to do the sexual act which is very specifically defined in law. Should I wish to divorce Mr Clooney on those grounds, I would do so on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. In future, if the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was to marry Mr Clooney, and Mr Clooney was to have an affair with me—and who would blame him in those circumstances?—that would be adultery and the noble Lord, Lord Alli, should he choose to, would be able to divorce Mr Clooney on those grounds. If the noble Lord, Lord Alli, were married to Mr Clooney and Mr Clooney had an affair with, say, my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood—

Lord Black of Brentwood: Hear, hear!

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: That would not be adultery, but the noble Lord, Lord Alli, would be able to divorce Mr Clooney, should he choose to, on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.

I am particularly fond of "should he choose to", indicating that it would take an awful lot of straws before you got to the final one that would rend such a partnership asunder.

Comments

[morganmuffle]

Wow, that really is a thing of beauty!

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I wonder what Lord Black's civil partner has to say about his "hear hear" intervention! Presumeably "hear hear" again, it's the only rational response.