May 7th - Why I won't be voting Conservative!

When I was in full-time pastoral ministry, and any election came about, I always encouraged my congregation to exercise their votes - but would never even hint at, let alone make, any suggestion as to which Party anyone ought to support.

However, as I am no longer in such a ministry, and as this is my personal blog, I am going to share where my own support is going to be on May 7th - if regular visitors to this blog haven't already worked that out!  Of course, I am doing so as a disciple of Jesus - believing that my chosen Party is the one that is closest to upholding the Judaeo/Christian heritage of this country.

Permit me, first of all, to explain why I am not going to vote for certain other Parties.  Not wanting this post to become as long as the average Party Election Manifesto, I'll deal with each of the traditional Parties over the next few posts.  We begin with the one that I believe will be the largest single Party in the new Parliament – but without the overall majority to form, on its own, a Government.

The Conservative (CONmerchant) Party.  This is the Party that introduced the legislation that led to the redefinition of marriage - in spite of the clear opposition in the country, and the fact that such a policy had not even been mentioned in their last manifesto!  However, the subject is mentioned in the current manifesto: "Our historic introduction of gay marriage has helped drive forward equality and strengthened the institution of marriage. But there is still more to do, and we will continue to champion equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people. We will build on the posthumous pardon of ... Alan Turing ... with a broader measure to lift the blight of outdated convictions of this nature" (p46).  So this is a Party that continues to champion the dismantling of traditional marriage and, at the same time, of the basic unit of society - the family.  

The current leader is also on record as saying, effectively, that there are too many white Christian faces in the UK; that he hopes to see a Muslim in 10 Downing Street; and that the British people should be adopting the Islamic culture and values!

Let us recall just some of Mr. Cameron's past comments - and his actions (or lack thereof!). 

• Shortly after taking office, Mr Cameron declared that the new Government would underline its commitment to the Armed Forces by putting it into law a new covenant - given legal force in a new Armed Services Bill - which would include rights to prioritised NHS treatment, decent housing and education for Service families’ children.

• Reality:  Thousands of ex-servicemen, and women, are living on the streets, unable to find housing.  More money spent on upgrading MoD offices than on assisting military veterans return to civilian life.  Of course, this doesn't deal with the steady cut-back in the UK Armed Services that has gone on under the Coalition Government - led by the Conservatives.

• Before the last General Election, Mr Cameron gave his (in)famous "cast-iron guarantee" to deliver a referendum on the Lisbon treaty during the lifetime of the ensuing Parliament.

•  Reality:   He actually 'whipped' (nothing physical!) his MPs to prevent private members' attempts to legislate for a referendum in that Parliament.

• Mr Cameron assured the electorate that the massive figure of net immigration would be brought down to "tens of thousands" each year.

• Reality:  Latest figures indicate that around 500,000 immigrants entered the UK in 2014 alone.  This included Romanian and Bulgarian Roma criminals - a convicted Latvian murderer as the chief suspect in the murder of a little English girl being amongst the most recent highlights.  This, of course, is because the UK Border Agency is simply "not fit for purpose".   We certainly travel, frequently, to and from France, with sometimes not even being stopped, let alone have our passports and luggage checked!

• The stated aim of the Coalition Government (senior partners, the Conservatives) was to deal with the economic deficit left by the previous Labour administration.  

• Reality:  The national debt has increased from £0.8 trillion to more than £1.4 trillion - almost double what was 'inherited'!   

I could go on - Welfare Reform that isn't; a promise to hold a National Referendum on the UK's continuing membership of the EU - in 2017 (by which time, he knows, we will not be permitted to hold one without the prior agreement of the other countries in that despicable organisation); the power of recall that would allow the electorate in a constituency to, effectively, sack their MP if sufficient of them believed that (s)he was not representing them properly - but that ended up depending on the support of the 'offending' member's parliamentary colleagues! However, that should be sufficient to enable anyone to understand why the Conservative Party is not, in my opinion, worthy of my support.

This is the PM who told us, at the beginning of the last Parliament: "Judge me on my record!"  That, Mr Cameron, is exactly what I intend to do!

Losing a battle does not lose the war!

The Westminster Bill that changes the definition of marriage has, regretfully, been 'ramrodded' through the Parliamentary process by a coalition government that had no mandate to do so, and that deliberately ignored the voice of the vast majority of the electorate.  What those responsible may not have realised is that the God Who instituted marriage as between a man and a woman, will not ignore them!

In what may be the last of the Marriage Minutes video-clips for the time being, Dr Sharon James explains that, in the case of the Coalition for Marriage, the battle may have been lost, but the fight continues.  Of course, the situation in Scotland is different, and Scotland for Marriage will be continuing in its efforts to ensure that the Scottish Bill does not reach the Statute Book.

Redefinition of marriage, and civil liberties.

In this latest Marriage Minutes, Dr Sharon James explains the way in which the UK government appears to be steadfastly, and wilfully, refusing to include protections, at the level of civil law, for those who do not approve of the "marriage" of two persons of the same gender.  As one who has already - before any such legislation has reached the statute books in either Westminster or Holyrood - fallen foul of such an unfair decision, I heartily recommend the less than two minutes required to view the clip.

Unintended consequences

When the ongoing issue of the proposed redefinition of marriage is raised the majority it seems, appear to be hung up on (a) the 'equality' issue and (b) the opting-out of religious celebrants who do not wish involved, on deeply held and conscientious views,  in the 'marriage' of two persons of the same gender. Regularly, I read that these issues are being dealt with by both the U.K. and Scottish governments.

However, the civil partnership provides all of the legal rights that are enjoyed by heterosexual married couples - one of the reasons (if not the main reason!) why the governments in both Holyrood and Westminster are unwilling to grant civil partnerships to heterosexual couples (as Sharon James highlighted in the previous post's video clip). It is also the case that fairly recent cases have shown that so-called legal safeguards are not, when taken to the ECHR, worth the paper on which they are written.

Only occasionally do I read of other potential, and actual, consequences if the Bills currently proceeding through both seats of government eventually reach the statute books. What of chaplains, of whichever religious persuasion, in the public - and even private - sector? What about teachers? What about ordinary couples who offer themselves as foster parents, or as adoptive parents? What about the time it will take - to say nothing of the cost of such an exercise, in a time of austerity - to make the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of changes in the nomenclature used in legal documents that are still in force, but go back for centuries?

This is not a full, or definitive list. We should be very careful before introducing such a change simply to fulfil the desires of a minority within a minority! There is too much, in this issue, of the tail (and a docked tail at that!) wagging the dog!

Marriage - the fight continues!

Another brief video message - letting us know of some of the realities that occur when marriage is redefined!  It's worth taking the less than two minutes to view!

It's not over yet!

So, the House of Commons has voted to legalise same-sex marriage by a margin of 400 votes to 175.  Already the supporters of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill seem to think that the battle has, effectively, been won.  However, there is an old saying that, "It's not over until the fat lady sings" - and that stage has not yet been reached!  

As I understand it, the Bill now has to go through at least one Committee stage, during which amendments may be made.  It then has to go to the House of Lords - and the Upper House has the option of returning it to the House of Commons.  This is where things could get really interesting!  My understanding (again!) is that, because the issue was not in any of the Party manifestos; and because it was not in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the current Parliamentary session; the Parliamentary Act (1949) may not be invoked.  This Act curtailed the power of the House of Lords, and reduced the Lords' delaying power over legislation to one year, ensuring that it cannot, indefinitely, overturn decisions of the House of Commons.  If my understanding is correct, then the House of Lords may, in this specific situation, delay the passage of the Bill right up until the next General Election!  As that is more than two years away, who knows what will have happened in the intervening period?!

Of one thing I remain certain - that God is Sovereign!  He is also the Alpha and the Omega; the Beginning and the End.  He has not been phased by this decision.  From His vantage point of eternity - a dimension far beyond anything that we are capable of even imagining, let alone understanding - He sees all of created time simultaneously.  He already knows the final outcome of this attempt to redefine that which He instituted at the very beginning of time.  And, of course, He is working all things out in accordance with His ultimate will and purpose.

So we do not lose heart.  We work; we pray; we submit to the Father's will.  To Him be all the glory!

Meet my dad and dad!

Elton John, well-known homosexual who, with his 'civil partner' David Furnish decided that they needed a child, and arranged same through a surrogate mother (they couldn't manage it by themselves!), is on record as having said that "It will break my son's heart to realise he hasn't got a mother."

Today's newspapers report that these two persons have welcomed a second child, through the same surrogate mother, into the world.  Despite expressing fears his son Zachery will be "stigmatised" for having two fathers, film-maker Furnish revealed that the pair had been eager to have another child to be a sibling (the gender of the new baby has not yet been reported) to their first born.

To me, this is a clear indication of the blatant selfishness of such people.  It's all about what "I" want; it's all about "me"; it's got nothing to do with the future of the child(ren) that are being brought into this situation. 

Of course, we see the same attitude being displayed in the drive towards the redefining of marriage.  Dr Liam Fox, M.P. (Con), in a letter to his own constituents that is reproduced in today's Telegraph newspaper, states that "The change in the status of marriage in the proposed legislation ... ... proposes to change the definition of marriage for all, for the perceived benefit of a much smaller number."   He is absolutely correct!  It is estimated that the homosexual/lesbian population of the U.K. is approximately 3%.  Allowing that there will be those who, even in these "enlightened" days, prefer to keep their deviant sexual tendency to themselves, we might raise that figure to 5%.  It is quite clear, from public statements made, that only a fraction of that 5% is pushing for marriage to be refined in order to include their own sinful relationships.  So, perhaps as few as 1% of the population want this!  This is as clear an example of "the tail wagging the dog" as one is ever likely to find!

Dr Fox has stated, in his letter, that he will be voting against the introduction of the proposed legislation.  I trust that many of his Parliamentary colleagues, both in Westminster and in Holyrood (where the SNP Government is pressing ahead with similar plans), will follow his example.  The sheer arrogance of both governments in totally disregarding the declared wishes of hundreds of thousands of those who pay their salaries (and, in the case of Westminster, their over-inflated expenses!), means that we need more members like him.

Of course, what we really need, in my opinion, is a direct intervention by Almighty God.  These people are, in a sense, spitting in His face by seeking to change that which, at the beginning of the human race, He ordained.  That is always dangerous ground on which to walk!

Inconsistency - or total hypocrisy?

So 15-year-old Megan Stammers is back on British soil, with her mother and stepfather, and safely away from the fiend of a teacher who abducted her and took her to France!

Wait a minute!  I saw the CCTV images that were shown on the TV News programmes.  She certainly didn't appear to be under any compulsion - walking hand-in-hand with her teacher, who was being portrayed as probably having become somewhat more than a teacher!

Understandably, most thinking adults - certainly those of us who are the parents of daughters - have been up in arms over this affair, and the only complaint of which I am aware is that the British police took as long as they did to organise a European Arrest Warrant for 30-year-old Mr Jeremy Forrest.

But wait another minute!  What if these two people claim that they "love" each other?  This, after all, is the reason that is regularly trotted out in favour of the attempts to redefine marriage.  If two men, or two women, "love" one another, they should be given the right to be married.  And a pupil and teacher?  Why not?!

It's another example of the "can of worms" that would be opened if the legislation to redefine marriage is introduced at either Holyrood or Westminster.  Of course, someone may argue that Megan is under-age.  But if they wait even the three years that would be necessary for a pupil-teacher relationship to be legal, would her family (and his wife!) be happy to give their blessing to the union of the 18-year-old and the 33-year-old?  Possibly - but I suspect not.

So, is the difference in attitude merely inconsistent - or is it totally hypocritical?

The evolution of language

Words change!  It's a simple fact.  Reading the Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible, or the works of Shakespeare, is more than enough to prove that point!

Even within my own lifetime, I have noticed changes.  Up until maybe ten years ago, those who were attending Primary and Secondary school were "pupils".  One only became a "student" when one entered tertiary education - in College or University.  Today, it would appear that anyone who is receiving an education is a "student"!  However, a student is one who studies; a pupil is one who is taught.  There is a difference.  Mind you, some of the reports that I hear concerning those seeking entrance to university degree courses, would suggest that the term "pupil" is the one that should now cover all!!

Staying with education, I am please to have been able to graduate, on more than one occasion.  To do so, I completed courses at universities that involved many hours of private study as well as attendance at lectures and seminars, with all of the necessary note-taking (and, later, deciphering!) that these involved.  Yet, over the past couple of years, I have seen newspaper photographs of children, resplendent in mortar boards and gowns, as they "graduate" from - Nursery School!

I was born on a Sunday.  As I grew up, I learned the little rhyme that ends "But the child who's born on the Sabbath Day is bonny and blithe, and good and gay."   Now, I won't go into the fallacious use of the term "Sabbath" to refer to Sunday (it is, of course, Friday sunset until Saturday sunset!), but I was happy to be described as a "gay" person - and, indeed, in that sense of the word, I believe myself to be so!   However, I don't go around telling folk that "I'm gay" - that has a whole different connotation now!

I could go on, with words such as "conversation", "prevent", "let", "comprehend", and many more - words that have substantially changed their meaning since the days of the A.V. and Shakespeare.  So why is it that, along with so many others, I object to the current attempts by the governments at Holyrood and Westminster to redefine the word "marriage"?  

The first reason is that marriage is not just a word.  It is a relational concept.  It defines a specific relationship that has been accepted by, to the best of my knowledge, every culture in the history of mankind.  True, there have been, and are, cultures in which a man may have more than one wife; and perhaps even some in which a woman may have more than one husband.  But in every culture, in every generation, marriage has been between male and female - only!

The second reason is even more important.  Marriage, as between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, and for life, is ordained by God.  That is how it was from the beginning and, lest any doubt that it was so, Jesus makes direct reference to this when questioned by certain Pharisees with regard to divorce. (see Matt.19:3-12; Mk.10:2-12).

The redefining of some words may cause some confusion in conversation.  The redefining of marriage, if it is proceeded with, will bring confusion to society - as is already being experienced in those countries that have taken such a retrograde step.  Let those of us who support the traditional, God-ordained, concept of marriage remain faithful in prayer, and vocal in our support.

Numbers!

When I attended my Grammar School (a long time ago!) my best subject was mathematics and, while I did not take the subject to University level, I have always had an interest in numbers!  So, when I had been blogging for a few months, I learned how to add a counter to my blog and, the number of 'hits' is now very close to 20,000.  Okay, compared to some, that is not a great number over the time I've had the blog.  However, as my younger daughter points out, I'm not a famous person (although some might suggest that I am 'infamous'!).

Numbers are important in many spheres.  Politicians are always interested in numbers.  One only needs to think of the plethora of polls that are issued in the lead-up to an election, and the way in which politicians who haven't been seen since the previous election are suddenly being as nice as possible to everyone in order to boost the number of people who will vote for them.

It is to be hoped that numbers will play an important part in the deliberations of the governments in both Holyrood and Westminster, when they come to decide what they are going to do about the vexed question of the redefinition of 'marriage' - which is, of course, much more than a word in the dictionary!  The results of the consultations; as well as the numbers who have petitioned the respective parliaments; ought to leave no doubt as to the direction in which the politicians decide.  The reports that have leaked out would suggest that the Scottish consultation was 2:1 in favour of retaining the traditional meaning, and concept, of marriage.  There were some 77,000 responses - totally overshadowing the response to the Scottish government's consultation on an independence referendum!

In Westminster, the petition in support of traditional, Biblical, marriage has reached some 600,000 signatures - and the full million is not out of the question!

Numbers.  Let those of us who are concerned for the status of marriage keep praying that the politicians, even if just out of nothing more than pragmatism, will take note of them - and support the status quo!

Freedom, and democracy.

It is reported that the Scottish Government is likely to make a final decision with regard to the redefinition of marriage on July 10th.  Official figures indicate that some 70,000 responses to the consultation were received (as against 21,000 on the issue of Scottish independence!) with those in favour of retaining marriage in its traditional form outnumbering those who wish to have the relationship (which is much more than a word!) redefined, by approximately 2:1.

We will have to wait to see what the Scottish Government does, but one would hope that they will act in a truly democratic manner and accept the clearly stated will of the people.  This is, after all, part of what freedom is about.

Of course, as The Gaither Vocal Band remind us in this clip, there is an even greater freedom that is available - even to those who may be incarcerated because of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  I think of those in North Korea; in Pakistan; in China; in Eritrea; in Burma; in Iran; and in many other countries around the world.  To them, I would dedicate this song.

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!

God works in a mysterious way!

Not a Councillor - but still very much a "political animal", and keeping an eye on the situation here in the UK.  And there is much to watch!  The Local Council elections gave the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer some serious food for thought (or should that be "some food for serious thought"?!).  I suppose that the Deputy PM has some deep thinking to do as well - but let's not waste time and space on nonentities!

According to today's various news reports, Messrs Cameron and Osborne are taking a great deal of flak from both their back-benchers and their supporters around the country.  The very poor showing of the Conservative Party on Thursday is being blamed on the (Liberal) policies that the Coalition Government is seen as having espoused.  To many, it has been a case of the tail wagging the dog!

The response has been, to say the least, interesting. Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show, on BBC television, Mr Osborne indicated that  the controversial reforms of the House of Lords, and plans for homosexual/lesbian marriage were being kicked into the long grass. Yet, not so long ago, Mr Cameron was passionately supporting the latter - even at a meeting of senior clergy!

Personally, I am totally in favour of reforming the Upper Chamber in Westminster.  I would immediately throw out every single one of the jumped-up Prescotts, Kinnocks, and other so-called "Life Peers", and all of those who, regardless of their background, have been found guilty of fraud or any other crime.  I would then re-instate the hereditary Lords, on the one condition that no-one would be permitted to be connected to any political party.  In that way, I believe, we would achieve an independent Upper House, with all of the life experience that many of these noble Lords and Ladies are able to bring to debate.  I know that there have been many times, in the long and distant past, when I have been so glad to have an unelected Chamber of hereditary Peers who were able to inject what is, in our political circles, that most rare of commodities - common-sense - into debate, and frustrate the stupidity of the elected representatives (usually representing themselves!) in the House of Commoners!

As far as the proposals anent the redefinition of the God-ordained institution of marriage as between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life, is concerned, I hope that the Scottish Government will take the hint as well.  I have already e-mailed Mr Salmond to inform him that the SNP support for this redefinition lost him my First Preference vote on Thursday.  Okay, so I would have given myself that vote in any case - but the SNP didn't even receive my Second Preference!

God does work in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.  Could it be that the results on Thursday were actually His means of having this proposal taken out of play?  It will be interesting to hear the Queen's Speech (actually, the Government's Speech, read by HM!) on Wednesday!   I only know that He is the Sovereign God, Whose plans and purposes shall come to pass - regardless of political parties and/or personalities.  All praise and glory to His Name.

Prime Minister calls for a "return to Christian values"!

It is reported that, yesterday, the Prime Minister delivered a staunch defence of the role of religion as he condemned a growing “do as you please” culture.  In a speech to celebrate the 400th birthday of the King James Bible (the Authorised Version), he said the New Testament had helped give our country “a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today”.  He said we should “actively stand up and defend” these Christian values.  

Is this the same David Cameron who promised, in October, to introduce full homosexual marriage by 2015, ending the legal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman?  Such a move, whatever else one may think about it, is totally contrary to the Christian (aka Biblical) values that the PM is here espousing! 

   

He is also reported as having stated: “Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong.  ‘Live and let live’ has too often become ‘do what you please’.”  Yet I am unaware of any intervention, or even comment, from either the PM or his office, when a gang of Somali Muslim women who attacked a passer-by in a city centre walked free  from court after a judge heard they were ‘not used  to being drunk’ because of their religion.  If they had been true to their religion they would not have been consuming alcohol at all.  That situation was one of the best "Have your cake and eat it" ones of which I have heard in a long time!   

This is also the Prime Minister who declined to support four of the Christians who have been severely discriminated against in the work-place - because of their overt Christian faith.  They had hoped for support from Ministers after a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, appealed to the Prime Minister on their behalf. But the Government told the European Court of Human Rights that it backed the British judges and does not accept that the Christians have suffered discrimination. To the dismay of Lord Carey, the Government even said that wearing a cross or a crucifix was not a ‘generally recognised’ Christian practice – even 'though every Christian knows that it is a hugely significant symbol.  

If the PM is so keen on a return to Christian values - and he would have my full support in such a venture - then he should perhaps start reading the Bible, and learning something of what it is really saying. 

Or is this just the usual spin from a politician - speaking to his audience, but with not a single iota of sincerity and integrity?

Moving the goalposts!

I was unsure as to which of two thoughts I would share, this evening.  The decision has been made for me - neither of them!

I have just been informed that, despite what we were led to think, it now appears that ANYONE in the UK AND BEYOND can respond the Scottish Government's consultation on redefining marriage.

Yesterday, the pro-same-gender-marriage groups let it slip that they are asking people outside Scotland to respond, suggesting that the Scottish Government will accept non-Scottish responses.  It looks like they're movging the goalposts at the last minute (the consultation closes on Friday).

Don't let them get away with it, complete your response today at:

http://www.christian.org.uk/marriagescotland/

Please GET OTHERS TO DO LIKEWISE. Ask your friends and family, wherever they live in the UK OR BEYOND, to complete a response. 

And please pray that the legal definition of marriage will be retained throughout the UK.

More on marriage!

I was in Edinburgh, this morning, with more than 150 others, demonstrating in support of the traditional meaning of marriage as being a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life. The numbers would probably have been greater, but the organisers deliberately didn't put out much publicity in order that the demonstration would not be hijacked by opponents.

It was a dignified demo, with Gordon Wilson (former leader of the SNP), Cardinal Keith O'Brien, and Ann Allen, being the 'keynote' speakers, and each making an impassioned plea for the continuance of marriage as defined by Article 161 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which clearly states that it is a union of 'a man and a woman'. The importance of a child's right to a father and a mother was also stressed, as was the fact that the homosexual/lesbia community (small 'though it is!) already have all of the legal rights of a traditionally married heterosexual couple, in civil partnerships. Indeed, a civil partnership gives the two persons involved greater rights than, e.g., two elderly siblings who share a home - but not a bed!

The demand for "same-gender marriage" has nothing to do with equality, but a lot to do with a continuing effort to undermine one of the basic building blocks of a stable society - the family.

It was also pointed out that to redefine marriage would open the same 'can of worms' that has been opened in countries like Canada where a man is using the legislation to claim that he may have a legal polygamus 'marriege'! Here, in Motherwell, there was an outcry just a few months ago, when a brother and sister were caught in a full sexual act in the local railway station; and the young man was taken to court. However, if marriage is redefined, could not the failure to permit such an incestuous relationship be seen as discriminatory?!

As history often shows, we tamper with the design of the Creator at our peril. It is to be hoped that the Scottish Government will listen to the will of the people of Scotland, rather than give in to the demands of a vociferous minority, within a minority!

Redefining marriage!

The following is the text of a communication that I have just sent off to the Civil Partnerships Consultation.  This consultation is with reference to the proposal, by the current government, to permit the civil contract between two persons of the same gender to be entered into within a church building (or any other 'religious' building), and to receive a religious blessing from a member of the clergy.

The proposed amendment to the 2004 Act would apply, as far as I can make out, only to England and Wales.  However, the First Minister of the Scottish Government has already stated that he is sympathetic to such a move within Scotland, and there is certainly a strong lobby group seeking such a change, north of the border.  Given the more traditional values that are often maintained in the Province, the N.I. Assembly might stand firm for a little longer - but would undue pressure from the rest of the U.K. lead them to eventually 'cave in'?

If you wish to make your own submission to the consultation (before June 23rd), you could go to www.care.org.uk/civilpartnerships for some initial guidance.

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

Please note my concerns with regard to the proposed amendment to the Civil Partnerships Act (2004) which Act permits two people of the same gender to enter into a partnership on a secular foundation. As such, like civil marriage, civil partnerships have to be registered in a secular venue and without religious content.

It is my understanding that the amendment proposed by both Rt. Hon. Theresa May MP, Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, and Lynne Featherstone MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Equalities would, if accepted, bring about a substantial change to this situation, by "permitting" such civil contracts to be entered into within consecrated buildings, and to receive a 'blessing' from a minister of religion. 

My concerns are, among others, that if civil contracts and services of blessing were to be held so consecutively, then they would quickly become combined, and the secular nature of the civil partnership would be clearly compromised.  This situation would also create the anomalous situation in which the contractual union of two persons of the same gender would have been formalised within a religious context - something, I am certain, that was never in the minds of those who legislated for the 2004 Act.

Marriage, I would respectfully suggest is, in the eyes of the vast majority of the British people, the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life.  This traditional marriage is also, I would submit, the best environment of the upbringing of a child.  it is surely of consequence that same-gender partnerships are incapable, without assistance from someone of the opposite gender, of producing offspring.  Perhaps nature, itself, is trying to tell us something!!

Although it is stated that such 'blessings' will not be forced upon the clergy (para 2.5, inter al), I note that, on p.48 of the Consultation Document, the statement is made, concerning the proposal, that "It gives same-sex couples from faith groups that opt in a legal right to celebrate and form their union in the place where they worship, a civil law right available to opposite-sex couples through religious marriage." (my emphasis).  Recent judgments would, at least, suggest that the homosexual/lesbian.bisexual lobby groups would be all too ready to claim such a "legal right" - and to take legal action if their wishes were not met!

I am also concerned that this would be, as has happened in so many instances in the past, the "thin end of the wedge".  I note that the Ministerial Foreword ends with the statement that "During our engagement with stakeholders on these proposals it was also made clear by many that there is a desire to move further towards equal marriage and partnerships. This document does not  over these further steps, but our commitment remains to consult on how legislation can develop, working with all those who have an interest in this area." (my emphases).  This wording, it seems to me, indicates a clear willingness, at least on the part of the signatories, to make further moves towards the full redefinition of marriage, as is the stated objective of a number of the more vocal members of the homosexual/lesbian/bisexual lobby.

The terms of Human Rights, and Equality, legislation have already led to a dramatic curtailment of freedom of belief and worship within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  I fear that if this proposed Amendment were to enter the Statute Book, it would merely give the more militant members of the homosexual/lesbian/bisexual community further opportunity to undermine marriage, the family, and society itself