Same sex ‘marriage’.

The proposal to allow what is called same sex marriage is a serious matter which has the most profound ramifications for both American and British people. I ask that if you have turned to this article, you will continue to read through fully.

The Attorney General has warned, that if adopted it would have profound difficulties for individual consciences for people, who would be forced to obey the law’. In other words, the law of man superceding the law of God.

Whilst David Cameron has stated that Churches would not be forced to officiate at such events, it would be naïve at the extreme to accept such assurance, in addition to the fact that Mr Cameron cannot be trusted to keep assurances given generally. This assurance is negated by the European Court statement that whilst such ‘marriage’ is not generally enforceable, if a State has a Diversity Law, which Britain at least has, then Churches would be forced to comply. We also have Nick Clegg, who seems to have power beyond his mandate, and Ed Milliband, (leaders of the other two main parties) stating they are in favour of such events taking place in Churches. . The Church of England might have to stop celebrating marriage to avoid contravening the law

You can be quite certain if any Church Minister refused a same sex couple a ceremony in Church, there would be civil action, and there are plenty of such couples waiting to strike. We have seen the uncompromising attitude when owners of private hotels and b&b homes have been reduced to bankruptcy for refusing, on grounds of Christian belief, to allow same sex couples to occupy the same room; in addition after fines have been imposed by a criminal court.

We have witnessed the lies and obfuscation already, and the underhanded tactics of those trying to impose this on society. Meeting halls owned by public bodies have refused the opponents the chance of hiring their halls, and whilst every conceivable topic was discussed at fringe meetings at the Conservative conference, same sex marriage was a voided. Only a privately convened meeting was possible

Only the United Kingdom Independence Party opposes same sex marriage, which incidentally none of the three major parties had the courage to include in their manifestoes. In fact, despite this subject costing the party a massive number of defections, this passionate concern of David Cameron who thought it up in a moment of hysteria without party debate, and who deliberately misled by saying he supported it because he was a Conservative was an anathema to most Conservatives.

So let us look at the facts and distortions of this subject,

It is claimed same sex couples will promote marriage, yet in Europe since it has been introduced in some countries, marriage has fallen dramatically.

It is stated that the understanding of marriage has evolved, but since human creation marriage has been understood to be between a man and a woman. Same sex marriage would abandon thousands of years of legal tradition and practice.

It is claimed it would promote equality. We already have civil partnerships which have all the benefits of marriage, and much of the homosexual community have no interest in pursuing anything further. Equality does not mean we have to be the same, and if government really was intent on their meaning of equality, why do they not permit heterosexual couples to engage in civil partnerships.

It will have enormous impact on society. Sex education in schools will have to include teaching of homosexuality, and any teacher who declined to take part would lose their employment. Parents would not be allowed to exclude their children from classes

In Brazil, Netherlands and Canada it has led to three way relationships.

70% of people in this country are opposed to the proposal, a fact that the supporters tried to stop being advertised, supported by the Advertising Standards Authority, whose chairman is a supporter himself.

Any change would involve 3000 laws being affected which refer to marriage, and the terms husband and wife (already banned in places,) plus father and mother would no longer be lawful.

No person would be free to express a word against the law, and even prior to its enactment, people are being penalised for expressing a view. A man in Manchester was demoted for doing so, and a female diversity officer for a Maryland University who had been in office for 24 years (Dr Angela McCaskill) was suspended for supporting a vote on the subject in her locality.

The Archbishop of Ottawa set out the alarming consequences of same-sex “marriage” from the Canadian experience, recounting true experiences where people who opposed it were summoned to a tribunal without calling witnesses or even a lawyer, to face unqualified legal people judging and with the prospect of huge fines.

Canada has gone before us. The Archbishop tells that same sex marriage has resulted in the Bible being called 'hate literature'. Like the Roman Catholic adoption agencies here, there is 'growing pressure for the Church to comply or to be shut down'.

The Archbishop enumerates the consequences of same-sex marriages as including 'restrictions on freedoms; forced sex education; sexually confused children; sexual experimentation among children; and muzzling and debilitating the Church'.

In Britain a consultation was offered and whilst many thousands petitioned against such marriages, Nick Clegg and his unpleasant Minister Lynne Featherstone were attacking those who opposed as bigots and homophobes, and saying it was a question of when not if, before the consultation period had ended. Such is their understanding of democracy and integrity.

To oppose same sex marriage is not homophobic or bigotry, such opposition is not based against sexual orientation, but on respect for tradition and biblical teaching. God made man and then made woman to be joined together with the view to producing children. Such is the purpose of marriage. Civil partnerships provide all that marriage can offer in law, there cannot therefore be any reasonable or justifiable cause to create massive disruption, conflict and controversy.

I suspect David Cameron, who started this off, has no great belief in what he is proposing and this is all a great publicity stunt to make him appear ‘cool’ in liberal circles. Remember this was the man who helped at one time to put together a strong right wing manifesto.

I also suspect he secretly wishes he had kept his mouth shut about it having seen the strength of opposition and the number of people who have forsaken his party, taking their subscriptions with them. Why bring in assistance for support from America? Only pride and pressure from his Coalition partners can prevent him from putting the matter aside.

Remember, only the United Kingdom Independence Party provides political opposition, and I say that as a lifelong Conservative.
(until David Cameron became leader)