An Englishman’s home is his castle – unless it interferes with gay rights
And now the Earl of Devon, a committed Christian, has lost the right to determine who enters his home and for what purpose. He said: "I am a Christian and therefore it (homosexuality) is objectionable to my Christian religion." He told The Daily Mail: "I have to follow my religion in this case. “This is the way it has to be. I have no option. As a Christian I have to object to this."
He has not, as some headlines state, ‘banned gay marriages’ at Powderham Castle; he simply desired that he and his house would serve the Lord, and under his roof marriage would continue to be defined as the union of one man and one woman. He has also placed God above Mammon insofar as the decision will cost the castle up to £200,000 a year in lost revenue.
Whatever one thinks of same-sex civil partnerships, one has to admire a man who puts principle before money. He would never qualify as a politician.
It is the first time such action has been taken against a venue in light of the Sexual Orientation Regulations. But the Earl now finds himself under siege from ‘gay rights campaigners’, who are not content that the Earl has had his licence to host civil marriage ceremonies (gay or straight) revoked, but are intent on persecuting him further. They insist that because Powderham Castle has ‘conditional’ exemption from inheritance tax because it is open to the public, that the exemption should be withdrawn because the castle is ‘not accessible to all members of the public without exception’.
This is, of course, a ludicrous assertion. The Earl of Devon does not demand that visitors to his home complete a form outlining their sexual preferences, and then admit or expel them on the basis of that response. He has simply determined that, under his roof, marriage shall be in accordance with the orthodox Christian understanding of the term. If he is forced by law to transgress the bounds of his conscience, he has decided that none shall enjoy his home for their wedding ceremony.
Ben Summerskill, who works for Stonewall, a ‘gay rights group’, called the Earl ‘rather sad’.
Cranmer would like to point out that pursuing a man with a fatuous Treasury investigation is ‘sad’, and so is being so embittered and absorbed by one’s own proclivities that one dedicates one’s life to imposing them upon everyone else. Is it not discriminatory not to permit a person the luxury of holding their own opinion, even in their own home?
It is perhaps significant that Devon County Council, the body responsible for issuing and revoking the Earl’s licence, is a member of the ‘Stonewall Diversity Champions programme’. As much as His Grace adores diversity and never ceases to marvel at the infinite variety of creation, he shall not be applying for membership of this programme.
The Sexual Orientation Regulations are nothing to do with equality. The law is prejudicial towards Christians. It is a wonderful law indeed which has the unintended consequence of limiting the adoption options of some of the nation’s most vulnerable children, and which deprives young heterosexual couples of their dream wedding at Powderham Castle.