Politics Home reports that MPs are set to vote in favour of legalising gay marriage by a large majority, according to a survey conducted by the Coalition for Equal Marriage. According to the poll, 4-1 are in favour of the Government’s proposal to bring in same-sex civil marriage. Amongst Conservatives, it found the number of MPs who have declared support for the plan (63) outnumber those against it (44). There are further articles to read on this subject from the Mail, Independent and Times (£). A YouGov poll for Stonewall shows 3 in 5 people of faith in Britain support same-sex marriage.
Personally I have no views which could be based on theological grounds as I am not a church-goer, nor particularly religious; nor do I even begin to understand the discussion about the State-Church relationship. That is not to say that I would not cast a vote were the opportunity so to do available, in which case what relevance has the poll conducted on behalf of Stonewall, wherein 60% of those ‘of faith’ would be in favour — should those of us who are not ‘of faith’ not be permitted a choice on the matter?
Too often, when politicians present new Bills which then become law it is more than likely they have then entered uncharted waters, invariably because those new laws have not been ‘thought through’. For example, who foresaw the problems with diversity laws which have resulted in ‘convictions’ for some displaying, on their person, a cross in their workplace? Who foresaw the problems with Human Rights laws which have resulted in those who have committed crimes in this country and who we wish to deport, but are unable so to do? Who foresaw the problems that would be created by allowing unlimited immigration, albeit for electoral gain? Regardless of what he may say, one suspects that Cameron’s intention to proceed in legalizing same-sex marriages is also a policy being pursued for electoral gain.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, George Carey states:
“To allow the state to interfere in this way in the institution of the family is to establish a very dangerous precedent.”
To allow the state to interfere, unfettered, in our society, traditions, religion, or in any other aspect of our lives, is to establish a very dangerous precedent. George Carey is incorrect to say that allowing the state to interfere in this way in the institution of the family is to establish a very dangerous precedent as unfortunately interference by the State in the institution of the family – and our lives in general – has been ongoing for yonks.