Proposed redefinition of marriage.

The following is a copy of the letter that I have sent to my Constituency MSP, in advance of the final vote on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill which is scheduled to take place on Feb.4th.  A slightly amended version has been sent to each of the 'List' MSPs for my Constituency.

This is not copyright, so anyone who wishes to contact their own representatives should feel free to make use of the information contained therein.  However, please do not simply 'copy and paste'!  Use the info, but write in your own words.  Doing so is much more effective!

******************

Dear Mr Pentland,

Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill

As the final, Stage 3, vote on the above Bill approaches, I am writing, again, to solicit your help as my elected representative in the Scottish Parliament.

It continues to be my sincere desire that this Bill be defeated, and I would respectfully remind you that almost 54,000 people have petitioned that marriage not be redefined, but continue as "The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Marriage.aspx).  Those polls which, it is claimed, have supported the redefinition of marriage have, as far as I can make out, been so worded as to lead responders to believe that they are being asked if couples of the same gender should be treated with equality.  No one denies that right to those couples, and it is already fully available through current Civil Partnership legislation.  However, it is my contention that there is confusion, here, between the concept of equality and that of equivalence.  A particular apple may be equal to a particular orange in terms of its volume, weight, and even nutritional value.  However, it is never going to be the equivalent of that orange - regardless of what any law of the land may say!

I would further submit that, under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, para. 3, which states that "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.", this Bill ought not to be enacted as only in a heterosexual relationship can procreation take place, and that "... natural and fundamental group unit of society ..." be maintained.  Indeed, a new Canadian study - published in the October, 2013 Review of the Economics of the Household - has found that children raised by same-gender couples are greatly disadvantaged.  The economist, Douglas Allen, states that previous studies that have indicated that there is no difference have been biased and unscientific.  He has argued that the subjects are 'self-selected', using samples of high-income, highly educated, same-gender couples, compared to random samples of heterosexual couples.  He has avoided any such charge by using Canadian census data to survey more than 300,000 individuals!

In the event that the Bill does become law, I would submit that it is absolutely essential that certain amendments be accepted.  These include strong safeguards for both individuals and organisations who seek to uphold marriage in its traditional, heterosexual, form.  I have already been a victim of such discrimination when my unequivocal support for traditional marriage, purely on my personal blog (see below) led to my services as a volunteer Chaplain to the former Strathclyde Police Force being dispensed with.  Others in the public service could find that they are without a job!

I would also strongly urge you to support any amendment that would protect those who apply to be foster-parents, or adoptive parents.  It is insufficient that the Scottish government give assurances and/or guidance.  We know that similar assurances provided by the Westminster government with regard to the now enacted Bill in that place, are already being challenged. 

It is also an undeniable fact that such enactments are rarely an end in themselves.  You will, for example, be well aware of the terms of the 1967 Abortion Act.  That Act, that permitted a pregnancy to be "... terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith ..." followed by four specific sets of circumstances (Section 1,1, [a]-[d]), is now used, by the vast majority of women who present themselves for the procedure, as a belated form of 'contraceptive' or, we are discovering, as a means of gender-choice.  This present Bill would, undoubtedly, also lead to increasingly liberal interpretations, and to further demand from the small minority, of a small minority, who are pushing this present agenda.

I am aware that you did not vote against the Bill at Stage 1, but I implore you to do so at Stage 3.

Yours sincerely,

******************

Those who believe in prayer - and who pray, believing! - are urged to keep this matter before the Lord over the next week and a bit.

What's in a name?

"A rose, by any other name, smells just as sweet", the English Bard has his character Juliet argue, in Romeo and Juliet (Act II; Scene I).  The argument is that the names of things don't matter, only what they "are"!

However, although there is an element of truth in the statement - an 'apple' is the same as a 'pomme', or a 'manzana', or a 'μήλο' (melo) - it is not completely true.  Some names have a meaning that makes them of greater importance than others.

One such word, I would still argue, is the word 'marriage'.  Regardless of the language into which it is translated, it is still the union of a man and a woman, for life, and to the exclusion of all others.  That is so, regardless of the voting decisions of any group of politicians!

Wednesday evening's vote in the Scottish Parliament had more to do with the impassioned speeches of some of the members in the Chamber, than it had to do with reason and common-sense!  Of course, as the last Sunday School teacher that I ever had (by 15 I was considered too old, and had to leave!) often said, "The problem with common sense is that it isn't very common"!

I was unable to listen to all of the debate.  However, it struck me that the strongest pleas came from those who, like the Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, are openly homosexual/lesbian/bisexual.  I didn't pick up on anyone confessing to be transsexual.   It also struck me that those speeches which I heard, from the aforementioned groups were very personal - as Ms Davidson stated in her opening remarks, "... this could be the most personal speech that I will ever make in the Chamber."

Therein, I would contend, lies the problem!  All of those speakers whom I heard supporting the Bill appeared to be doing so from the perspective of either personal choice (to do with their own sexuality), or on the basis of 'equality'.

I fail, utterly, to see why the very fabric of our society should be altered merely to suit the personal lifestyles of certain politicians - politicians who are elected (although, in the List system used by the Scottish Parliament, the majority are not even directly elected, but are put in place by their respective Parties!) to represent the public, not to use their positions of temporal power to achieve their personal ends!

The others, it seems to me, have yet to understand the difference between 'equality' and 'equivalence'!  Yet there is, in fact, a world of difference between the two terms.  To put it simply, 'equality' means being treated the same; 'equivalence' means being the same.

The Civil Partnership legislation gave, and gives, same-gender couples all of the legal rights of heterosexual married couples.  That is equality.   Indeed, they have far greater rights, in law than, for example, two elderly same-gender siblings, or a mother and (full-time carer) daughter, sharing the same family home - but not the same bed!  That same Civil Partnership, we were assured at the time (and that was less than ten years ago!), would not lead to any further demands from the homosexual (etc) community.  Of course, it was politicians who gave the assurance and, as the old joke (with too much truth in it to be funny) asks: "How do you know when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving"!

It is more than interesting that these "representatives" totally ignored the expressed view of almost fifty-five thousand petitioners (almost 670,000 for the whole of the UK - but David Cameron ignored them and realised, too late, that he had made a major mistake!) who were, and are, opposed to the proposal.  They realise that neither two men, nor two women, is the 'equivalent' of one man and one woman - any more than two oranges, or two bananas, is the equivalent of an apple and a kiwi fruit!

What is also interesting is that it is not, as the media have persistently portrayed, only 'religious' people who are opposed to this redefinition of marriage.  Prominent homosexuals have voiced their opposition - including Rupert Everett (actor), and David Starkey (academic); or their indifference - Alan Bennett (playwright) has stated that he isn't bothered, and doesn't even know anyone who cared, one way or another!   Indeed, even the (largely tax-funded) homosexual rights organisation, Stonewall, didn't start pushing for the redefinition of marriage until after Civil Partnerships had been introduced!

Paddy Manning, a homosexual commentator, writing in the Irish Daily Mirror, said that with same-gender marriage, the state remakes the institution as “an anything-goes irrelevant partnership agreement between adults”.  He further commented that same-gender  marriage “asks us to ignore reality and children’s rights”, and stated that “I’m a gay man, I’m not a victim and I reject this notion that traditional marriage should be drastically altered for some fantasy.”   He said that Civil Partnerships are sufficient. Of course, he was writing within the context of the Republic of Ireland having announced that, in 2015, it is giving all of its citizens the opportunity to vote in a referendum regarding the redefinition of marriage to include two persons of the same gender.  Jim Eadie (SNP) provided the debate with the views of three (3) of his constituents (none of whom actually elected him!) out of the hundreds that he claimed he had received urging him to support the Bill.  It would be of great interest to know how many requests he received urging him to oppose it!  I wondered, too, if those who support the Bill are so convinced that they have the electorate on their side, why we were constantly refused the very referendum that the Republic of Ireland is being given!

Of course, the Bill has two further stages to go though and so, although the signs don't look good, I am one who will continue to campaign, and pray, that it will be defeated.  What if it passes all stages, and is enacted?  All that I can say to that is that this is not human beings seeking to change that which was introduced by human beings - such as the Butter and Margarine Act, 1907!  This is human beings flying in the face of the Creator, and Sustainer, of all that exists, and Who ordained, from the beginning, that it should be a man and a woman who come together for their mutual comfort (strengthening);  for the procreation of children (a definite 'no-no' for same -gender partners!); and for the good of society.  Those who are supporting this measure, or who have supported it in the Westminster Parliament, will ultimately answer to Him - and "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10:31).

Equality already exists!

Yet another brief video from the Coalition for Marriage.  Dr Sharon James explains that, in the U.K., civil partnerships have all of the legal rights of married couples.  Indeed, we could add that two people in a civil partnership have greater rights than, for example, two elderly siblings who share a home,but not a bed!

This whole issue, as I have noted elsewhere, is far from finalised - in spite of the apparent attempts by some sections of the media to convince us that it is!

As with the earlier videos, this is only about two minutes long.  Do watch and listen - and feel free to share it on your own blog, or social networking site.  You can copy the embed code from YouTube!

Marriage - still under attack!

"His only motivation was money and he treated the marriage ceremony as nothing more than a financial transaction." These are the reported words of a member of the United Kingdom Border Agency's Immigration Crime Team, regarding Mr.Abdallah Magezi, a Ugandan national, who was convicted on Thursday at Basildon Crown Court of conspiring to facilitate a breach of UK immigration law.Magezi was described by the UKBA as the "Mr Fix-it" of an operation to hold bogus nuptials at St John's Church in Dock Road, Tilbury. 

This week, I also received some election material from the Christian Institute regarding a call by the (tax-payer funded!) Equality and Human Rights Commission, that the next Scottish Parliament legalise homosexual/lesbian 'marriage'.  At the Westminster level of UK government, it is claimed by one prominent homosexual news website, that both David Cameron and Nick Clegg (Prime Minister, and Deputy P.M., respectively) would like to "allow homosexual marriage and heterosexual civil partnerships".  The hold-back would appear to be, not moral, but financial, with even the homosexual lobby group, Stonewall, estimating that the cost would be in the region of £5 billion!  The Coalition Government is currently 'consulting' on allowing same-gender couples to register their civil partnerships within church buildings - something that they are not, at present, legally entitled to do.  It is claimed that this would only be 'permissive' legislation - but one wonders how long it would be before it became compulsory for clergy to perform such ceremonies!  Certainly, recent events have shown up something of the deviousness of the homosexual lobby and, if given an inch, they seem, very quickly, to be demanding a mile!    

Added to all of this is the promotion for primary schools, by Stonewall, of books such as King & King, Daddy's Room-mate, and Hello, Sailor - all written to promote a homosexual lifestyle as not only acceptable, but even commendable!

The traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, for life, and to the exclusion of all others, is not something arbitrary that was dreamed up by some Victorian evangelical Christians!  It is a definition that spans every culture, at every time.  True, there have been (and are!) some cultures in which a man is permitted to take to himself more than one wife.  But the general 'male/female within set boundaries' situation still holds.

Jesus made the situation perfectly clear when, having been asked by some Pharisees about the legality of divorce, He replied: "... from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh." (Mark 10:6-8; RSV).  In addition, there is the simple, biological fact that in order for a new life to be produced, a female egg must be impregnated by a male sperm.  There is no other way!

I hope that anyone who is approached by a candidate over the remaining two-and-a-bit weeks before the election, or who has the opportunity to attend a hustings, will ensure that such matters are raised, and the candidates' views sought.  We owe it to our children, and our grandchildren - and to the Lord.
 

Whatever would Valentine think??

Well, here I am, safely returned from a wonderful cruise with my dear wife. Apart from the early start - leaving Glasgow at 0300 hrs, just to drive past Motherwell some 25 mins later (but thanks to younger daughter for ferrying us to the Glasgow 'bus terminus), and an early disembarkation that required us to rise at 0545 yesterday (and thanks to elder daughter for collecting us in Glasgow, after we had passed Motherwell some 25 mins earlier!) - we had a wonderful time.  The ship was amazing; the crew were as friendly and helpful as they could possibly be; the food was superb; we visited some places that I had visited when I was in the Merchant Navy some (!!) years ago, some that we had visited before together, and some that we were both visiting for the first time; we met many lovely people (some of whom have already become friends) both on board and ashore; and I even had the opportunity to do some preaching, and some pastoral work!  My dear wife took part in the ship's equivalent of "The Weakest Link" (and aquitted herself well); and in the final evening Talent Show - as both a tap dancer and a solo singer.  I got involved in two debates: on Creation v. Evolution, and on the Death Penalty. We are both so grateful that we were able to celebrate, however belatedly, the forty years of marriage that the Lord has enabled us to enjoy together.

On our return, I had literally hundreds of e-mails in my Inbox - and this is spite of a very good 'spam' system with my provider.  It included almost 90 (including a few 'late ones') greetings as I celebrated another annual milestone, yesterday.  Each of those has now received a personal 'thank you' and, with only 163 messages still awaiting perusal, I decided that it was time to get blogging again!

One of the news items that was waiting for me was that the current UK government is planning to bring forward legislation that will, if passed by Parliament, change the whole meaning of marriage - certainly in any Christian context.  The current situation is that marriage is accepted as being the union of a man and a woman (it's an idea that's been around for quite a while!).  The 'civil partnership' of two homosexual men, or lesbian women (both states being perverse, unnatural and, most significantly, unproductive!) cannot, under current legislation, contain any religious element.  However, in a political "win" for Nick Clegg and his Lib-Dem party, the Coalition government wants to change the law so that such ceremonies should, for the first time, be allowed to have religious elements, such as hymn-singing and readings from the Bible. They could also, it is understood, be carried out in the future out by priests or other religious figures.

Sadly, there are those who claim to be followers of Jesus who are already welcoming such a change in the law.  As far as I am concerned, this is a clear case of nominality.  Of course, it is only to be expected in a nation in which the majority have so blatantly turned their backs on the God of their fathers, and prefer to follow the 'gods' of secular humanism, materialism, consumerism, and neo-Darwinian evolution.  Jesus' own words come to mind, as recorded in Matthew 7:15-23!

Recent legal action by the homosexual lobby (as referred to in previous posts) indicate that, if clergymen across the land, who are genuinely committed to upholding Biblical principles, refuse to carry out a marriage ceremony between homosexual partners, we would see cases of affronted 'couples' taking the matter to court in order to seek substantial damages.

What, on this his 'feast day', would Valentine think about it all?  I can't really say!  However, I do know that the God of the Bible - the Creator and Sustainer of all that is - condemns perverse sexual activity just as surely as He condemns murder, theft, heterosexual adultery, and everything else that is dishonouring to His Person, and contrary to His Word. 

"Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions." (Matt 7:20; NLT).

Should they just become Muslims?!

According to a report in The Daily Telegraph, this week, two registrars in Lambeth, south London, are being investigated after allegedly refusing to conduct same-gender partnership ceremonies because they went against their religious beliefs. Apparently, the two persons - whose identities have not been revealed - made informal shift-changing arrangements with colleagues in order to avoid having to act against their own consciences.

However, according to the report, one of their colleagues mentioned this at a seminar (it doesn't tell if the mention was a complaint, or just an 'off-hand' comment!) where it was picked up by Brian Palmer, a member of the Labour council’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender forum who was at the seminar and who then complained to the borough’s chief executive, who ordered the investigation.

This investigation follows the case of Lillian Ladele, a registrar at Islington in north London who refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies because they were against her Christian beliefs. The Court of Appeal ruled in December that her refusal breached equality laws, ending a four-year legal battle in which she claimed she had suffered discrimination. Ms Ladele had initially tried to change her rotas but homosexual colleagues complained and she was disciplined by her employers. She later resigned.

Some, of course, will ask, "So what? Is this not a bit of a 'storm in a teacup'?" However, what concerns a growing number of people in the UK is that this is a form of discrimination that is moving towards mild (!) persecution. It would appear that not only are the consciences of a vast number in public life already seared to the point of impotency, but that those same people want to have no-one act in accordance with their conscience! In these cases, I would have thought that the introduction of civil partnerships constituted a change in working practice and conditions that should have, automatically, ensured that no-one was obliged to accept - especially when, as it would seem, others were quite willing to attend to the matters involved.

I always find it interesting that, in today's U.K. it is always the vocal minority who are supposed to be discriminated against, never the (even nominally) Christian majority! It does make me wonder if these registrars should perhaps claim that they are Muslims, to see what the council would then do!!!! In the meantime, let those of us who are disciples of Jesus uphold these two people in prayer (Father God knows their identities!); and remember to pray for those who know persecution at a much deeper level - those who suffer imprisonment, torture, and even death, for the sake of Jesus; those who can say, with Paul, "... I bear on my body the scars that show I belong to Jesus." (Gal 6:17; NLT)