Moulding Society

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.


9 Responses

  1. graham wood says:

    David. Here a few reasons for opposing SSM which you may not have seen. There are others, mainly that it is Jesus Christ, (inded the entire Bible)who has clearly defined marriage as heterosexual and one man and one woman for life. I would rather believe him that a set of woolly minded Lib Dims and the intellectually challenged Cameron.

    1. Marriage is a God given institution between one man and one woman for life. It is perfect therefore. It requires no amending, and is not to be defined by passing culture, or governments, but by God’s Word. (Mk.10:9.)

    2. Same sex couples already have civil partnerships and so there is not an equality issue, and no need therefore to redefine the concept of normal marriage.

    3. Redefining marriage without full consultation with the whole electorate is undemocratic. The proposal did not appear as a priority in any election manifesto.

    4. Equality does not mean uniformity. Same sex couples do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for marriage, just as child marriages, or between brothers /sisters etc do not.

    5. Protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society. The family unit of father and mother is therefore ideal, and also a God given provision for stable society.

    6. Marriage is a unique biologically complimentary relationship ordained for the reproduction of children. SSM by definition is incapable of this.

    7. Redefining marriage would be complex and expensive. It would cost £billions (estimated – £5 billion). It would also involve amending hundreds of existing laws. It is a legal can of worms.

    8. Schools will be forced to teach a new definition of marriage. This will cause deep confusion for children, especially younger children for whom the concepts of ‘mum and dad’ are normal. Such ‘education’ then becomes propaganda for a false ideology.

    9. Redefining marriage will not stop with same sex marriage. It would open the floodgates of evil – to possibly include polygamy, bisexuals, and Polyamorists (group marriage). It has not been thought through.

    Redefining marriage would lead to faith based discrimination. It would compel faith based groups to act against their own consciences, so fuelling marginalisation, exclusion, litigation, and antagonism

  2. A K Haart says:

    I am not religious and have no strong views on this issue. As far as I can see this law is being passed solely because we have gay pressure groups. Pressure groups always move on to goal B once goal A is achieved, even if goal B doesn’t actually benefit anyone.

  3. Graham Wood, I suspect your final sentence is, if not the entire reason for this change, it is a large part of it. What the pressure groups want is to force the Churches to allow them to “marry in church.” This has already happened in Denmark where it is now law that the State Lutheran Church must conduct such “marriages” and if the local priest refuses on grounds of conscience, the Bishop must make provision for another who is willing to do it.

    I think, perhaps, Mr Camer-Clegg may be unaware tht in English Common Law a marriage is not a marriage until it is consumated. Which, I would assume, can be proved in only one of two ways – the production of a child proved to be the genetic child of both parents, or by having a witness to the act of consumation. I suspect this will cause a few legal problems not foreseen by the promoters of this legislation …

    • david says:

      And since when TGM has the political elite paid any intention to Common Law?

    • graham wood says:

      Gray Monk. Thanks for your comments. There are many aspects of SSM which I strongly suspect Cameron/Clegg/May/Featherstone have completely failed to refer to, let alone understand.
      As Apb “Cranmer” that redoubtable champion of many of our freedoms on his blog questions :Will David Cameron force HMQ to break her Coronation Oath? Here is an extract:
      “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them? ”

      The C of E, as the established church has therefore only one view of the nature of marriage legally under our Constitution – i.e. heterosexual, one man/woman for life. To introduce an SSM law therefore, challenges that concept fundamentally, and would I believe raise further questions about the validity of the Cof E formularies, practice, and understanding of the real nature of marriage.

      Cranmer also points out that in Denmark, that is in the Lutheran Church there, clerics are actually employees of the State =- a truly weird concept! But that is not so with the C of E.
      This all begs the question which you hint at, namely our long tradition of respecting freedom of religion, of conscience, and of assembly. The latter by implication meaning that any religious group has the right NOT to associate with those wiht whom they fundamentally disagree in doctrine & etc (so a “gay” wedding would run entirely counter to that).
      It is these very freedoms which IMO would be in peril if SSM is legalised, for the legals challenges to the C of E would most certainly come.

    • graham wood says:

      Gray Monk. If I may a little bit to my last post on the all important issue of religious freedom, which nearly all British governments AFAIK pay lip service to, it seems to me that if an attempt was made to force any British clergy to hold a religious ceremony for SSM, then the gounds on which an absolute refusal is are still there.
      One of the unrepealed clauses of the great Charter of English Liberties is still part of our Constitutional law and binds governments to this day: The first clause of MC states:

      “In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed, for us and our heirs IN PERPUITY, that the English church shall be free, and shall hold its rights and its liberties uninjured……..”

      The MC predated the existence of Parliament as an institution, and certainly remains an integral part of our Constitution, being as it is a contract between the Sovereign and the people. Parliament has no jurisdiction over that.
      Whatever any “human rights” lawyers of the ECHR may attempt to argue this trumps all other law for British subjects, as Constitutional law is higher than all Statute law.
      I stand to be corrected, but in my view this is part of the inviolable rights of the collective church today.

  4. john in cheshire says:

    WfW, I’m against gay marriage for many reasons. But what I can’t fathom is what mass movement is agitating for this change. I reckon many gay men and women are non-commital about the subject, if not actually against it. But given that the majority of the nation is heterosexual and predominantly Christian, I can’t understand who is driving it to such a prominence such that our PM has to force through legislation to make it a legal right. Who and why?

  5. Ian says:

    Now wait for churches to be threatened by the law for not marrying gays Mosques no doubt will not be threatened. This is all down to the EU equality directive, and the subsequent act of Parliament passed by Labour and accepted by the likes of Theresa May.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012