Thar's a referendum a-comin'!

Apologies for the headline!  Oh, and I know that, before the Referendum on Scottish Independence (or, better, Separation) there are elections to the somewhat impotent European Parliament.  However, it was the Referendum on which the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and N.Ireland was pontificating today.

I watched the report of his speech on the early-evening television news bulletin.  If Scotland's residents vote 'No', we were informed, the LibDems would guarantee greater devolution.  I was glad that it wasn't breakfast-time - I would have been in danger of choking on my porridge!

The current likelihood of the LibDums (no, that wasn't a typo!) having any say about anything after next year's General Election are slightly less than the likelihood of me succeeding Barack Obama (yes, I know that I might do a better job - but I wasn't born in the USoA, and that is a major requirement for candidates!).  However, even if they were leading in all of the polls, for Mr Clegg to make such a promise is about as helpful, and meaningful, as him guaranteeing that there will be two blue moons in the sky on every Wednesday night between now and the end of the century.  In other words, his guarantees aren't worth the paper on which his speech-writer had written the words.

However, if Mr Clegg's words were pointless, those of the Deputy First Minister were no better.  She, if I recall accurately, accused Mr Clegg of making promises he can't fulfil!  Sorry, Nicola, but what is the 'Yes' campaign doing?  "We will have the pound sterling, because Alex Salmond says it will be better for everyone if we do."  He may even be correct in that assessment.  The problem is that it's a UK ball, and the rest of the UK don't want us to share it!  "We will have an automatic entry to the EU."  Not according to most of the EU pundits, who insist that a separated Scotland will have to make a formal application - and, if successful, would be anything but independent! 

The only concrete thing that came out of the report was further confirmation, if any is needed, that one can tell that a politician is lying simply by noting that the lips are moving.

Of course, it is pre-election time!

Running scared?

To the best of my knowledge - and I am certainly open to correction - the only UK political parties opposed to the intention, in both Westminster and Holyrood, to redefine marriage are the Christian Party, the Christian People's Alliance, and the United Kingdom Independence Party (Ukip).  Of these three, current polls would suggest that it is the latter that might have some influence on the other major parties.

Certainly, this seems to be the case with regard to the immigration problem.  Messrs Cameron, Clegg, and Milliband all seem to be going out of their way to show how tough they are becoming (or have become, if one is totally gullible!) on the subject.  Could it be that they are "running scared"?!

Today, we have been informed, the Prime Minister is about to make a speech in which he will state that immigrants are no longer to be permitted to 'jump the queue' for social housing.  In doing so, he will have taken a bigger step than either of the other two Lib/Lab/Con leaders.  However, he has not, yet, clarified the situation when immigrants who are denied access to council housing (as we used to call it!) move into private rental properties.  Will full housing benefit be immediately made available?  Will this actually cost the increasingly beleaguered tax-payer even more?

It will be of more than passing interest to discover the PM's perspective on this aspect of his pre-released speech!

However, what is also of more than passing interest is the realisation that much of this new-found back-bone with regard to one thorny political problem, has come to the fore "post-Eastleigh"!  In other words, it would appear that the results of that recent by-election, in which the most outstanding feature was the surge of support for Ukip - pushing the Conservatives into third place, and decimating the Liberal Democrat majority - have forced the other three into trying to sound as if they are on the side of the average British voter (which I do not, for one moment, believe they are!).

Now, if support for Ukip can galvanise these gentlemen into action on immigration, perhaps further success for Nigel Farage's party will make them realise that the pushing of same-gender 'marriage' is a net vote loser!  I fully support the two Christian parties - but, sometimes, one must be pragmatic!  As I understand the situation, the Scottish Government, even if it 'wins' the debate at Holyrood, will have its hands tied until Westminster passes/amends other legislation. 

I wish Ukip well in their forthcoming endeavours.

Marriage Mistakes #3

The final point from Phil Moore.  I trust that others found his article as helpful as I did.
                                                                                                                                                     "Mistake #3: Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage is a Religious Issue.
In the U.K., David Cameron and Nick Clegg have tried to frame the issue of same-sex marriage as a battle between free-thinking reformers and religious reactionaries.

They have shouted down opposition to their bill by promising that churches and mosques will be protected from being forced to conduct same-sex marriages on their premises, and the Church of England has been flattered into playing along in exchange for a seat at the discussion table. Even if we believe Cameron and Clegg (and let’s face it, it’s hard to do so when Cameron has just warned the church on another issue to “get with the programme” or face the consequences), it is missing the point entirely.   It isn’t just Christians, Jews and Muslims who want to have a say in this issue. Marriages make families and families make society. How we define marriage affects all of us. To deny this is ridiculous.
 
I received a letter from David Cameron a few weeks ago when I corresponded with him about same-sex marriage. He told me that he thinks marriage is so important that he wants to open it up to same-sex couples as well, which is about as logical as me saying that I like Italian food so much that I want to declare that every cuisine in the world be Italian. It isn’t just an issue for religious people when our governments start redefining marriage with political double-speak which wouldn’t be out of place in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

Even in decadent Rome, when Emperor Nero briefly legalized same-sex marriage, his pagan Roman subjects opposed his law. The historian, Tacitus, complained that Nero “went through a formal wedding ceremony with one of the perverts named Pythagorus,” and implies that this added to the general public disgust with Nero which eventually led to his forced suicide (Annals 15.37). If the most anti-Christian city in the world opposed gay marriage (remember, these were the people who threw Christians to the lions), then let’s not pretend that opposition to same-sex marriage is a religious issue.

Besides, when Barack Obama refers six times in his inauguration speech to God and four times to the Creator or to Creation, it reminds us that religious people have always had an important role in shaping public policy for good. Not least among them were Abraham Lincoln (a devout Christian) and Martin Luther King Jr. (a Christian pastor). Politicians can’t have it both ways: either they want to associate themselves with God and with the great religious thinkers of the past, or they should come clean and say that they don’t want to.
 
The reason Barack Obama referred so much to God and to the great religious thinkers of the past is that every U.S. President knows he needs to stand on the shoulders of the founding fathers — who were religious thinkers — thus, to dismiss religious thinkers as nothing more than a group of political lobbyists is an act of insanity. They are those who have routinely submitted their own generation’s thinking to the scrutiny of the wise men and women of old, and who have learned to speak up for what they have learned.
 
The true political lobbyists are the pro-gay activists who have filled the staff roles in 10 Downing Street and in the West Wing. It is this small, but powerful, clique that has so influenced the politicians that they can’t see the three big mistakes which they are making. Same-sex marriage isn’t a religious issue any more than it is a civil rights issue. It is the coveted ambition of a group of powerful lobbyists who want to stifle debate by claiming the debate is already over.

We mustn’t let them succeed in rushing through this piece of hasty legislation."

What happened to democracy?

It was in the Andrew Marr Show, on BBC television, that Mr Nick Clegg made the statement that Liberal Democrat MPs will be forced to vote in favour of allowing homosexual/lesbian marriage when (sic!) the legislation is considered by Parliament.  From the leader of a political Party that has the word "Democrat" in its name, that is hardly a democratic approach!  Indeed, it smacks of the sort of dictatorial attitude found in "single-party" nations, such as North Korea!

I have written to Mr Clegg - and sent similar correspondence to a number of his senior Party members - as follows:

Dear Mr Clegg,

Having heard your statement, made on the Andrew Marr Show, that Liberal Democrat MPs will be forced to vote in favour of allowing homosexual/lesbian marriage when the legislation is considered by the U.K. Parliament, I write to ask you to reconsider this position.

It is surely the case that, on an issue as emotive as this, and where there is indeed a matter of conscience, there will be some LibDem members who are not in favour of this attempt to redefine the universally-accepted concept of marriage as being the voluntary union of a man and a woman (or, in some cultures, more than one woman – but always male and female), for life, and to the exclusion of all others.  Your public statement would suggest that  there is in fact, no place for the supporters of traditional marriage within the Liberal Democrat Party.  This, one must assume, extends beyond the walls of the Palace of Westminster to the "ordinary" supporter around the country.

Even from a purely pragmatic perspective, I would respectfully suggest that this is a mistake.  The recent local council elections indicated that your Party has already lost a great deal of its support throughout the country.  I would suggest that taking such a hard stand on an issue as emotive as that of the "redefinition" of marriage would decimate even the rump that remains!   I certainly know LibDem supporters who are staunchly in favour of the retention of marriage as it has been for millennia!  I am not a Party member ( I am not a member of any political Party), but I have supported LibDem candidates in the past, especially at local level.  This is something that I would never be able to do again!

You also stated that this issue is not one of conscience because the Government would not be forcing clergy to marry homosexual/lesbian pairs.  You seem to have forgotten that such assurances are not worth the breath used to utter them!  Apart from the fact that every Government has gone back on pre-election, and Manifesto, promises, you have absolutely no control over the decisions of some future Government!  When "civil partnerships" were, so recently, introduced it was made clear that there would be no attempt to introduce homosexual/lesbian "marriage".  We already see how firm a comittment that has turned out to be!

In the light of the points that I have (I trust respectfully) made, I would urge you to reconsider both your, and the Party's, position.

Anyone resident in the UK, who wishes to follow my example, may feel free to use any of the points that I have made - although, preferably, in their own words!