Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Is David Cameron about to force the Queen to break her Coronation Oath?

The newspapers today are full of reports of the likely consequences to the Church of England of the Government’s plans to redefine the institution of marriage to include same-sex unions, contra the official teaching of Church, as established by Act of Parliament. The Report has been hyped, selectively quoted, misquoted and misrepresented by much of the media, so His Grace urges you to READ IT for yourself and, like a good Protestant, forge your own understanding of its content instead of relying on the prophets and priests of journalism.

His Grace wishes to take the focus to where the MSM has not (yet) gone. The Report includes:
...Saying, therefore, as the consultation paper does, that no changes are proposed to marriage according to the rites of the Church of England overlooks the fact that the institution of marriage would have been redefined generally for the purposes of English law. At the very least that raises new and as yet unexplored questions about the implications for the current duties which English law imposes on clergy of the Established Church.
...The Canons of the Church of England are part of the law of England. The Queen‘s licence and the Royal Assent are required before a canon may be made and promulgated. Canons are additionally subject to statutory provisions which provide that they do not have effect if they are contrary to the customs, laws or statutes of the realm.
...Were legislation to be enacted by Parliament that changed the definition of marriage for the purposes of the law of England, the status and effect of the canonical provisions that set out the Church‘s doctrine of marriage as being between one man and one woman would be called into question. In this way too the consultation overlooks the implications of what is proposed for the position of the established Church. 
The legislation for same-sex marriage is the shallow proposal of a disingenuous government intent on an unsatisfactory and ill-considered reform . For many of the reasons His Grace has previously written about (eg HERE and HERE), the proposal is, as the Report concludes, ‘lacking in coherence’ because ‘redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage’.

There can be no protection for the Established Church from those militant gayists intent on securing their ‘rights’ against unjust discrimination: as the state church, it would be relentlessly assaulted by same-sex couples demanding equal treatment under the law, the consequence of which will be to undermine its status as the state church, which is exactly what they want. Uniformity is a logical consequence of equality. If the Courts of England do not enforce equality, the exemption being ‘guaranteed’ by the Government is unlikely to survive legal challenges in Strasbourg.

This is likely to result in a constitutional crisis: as human rights legislation forces the Church of England to treat homosexual couples in the same way as heterosexual couples, we are on the path to disestablishment as the Supreme Governor becomes embroiled in the mightiest church-state battle in centuries. At her Coronation she swore the Oath:
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do. 
According to the Laws of God and the Protestant Reformed Religion, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. According to the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Church of England it is ‘an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church’. Insofar as Her Majesty swore to preserve the rights and privileges of the Bishops and Clergy of England, she cannot give her Royal Assent either to a Bill of Parliament which would oblige her ministers to perform same-sex matrimonial services, or to one which seeks to disestablish the Church.

In such a scenario, would she pragmatically sign in order to avoid a crisis? One might hope that she, like George III, would tell her government:
“Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion? Was not my family seated on the Throne for that express purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, No, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure. I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my Oath. If I violate that Oath, I am no longer legal Sovereign in this country”
The shame, of course, is that a Conservative Prime Minister would ever put her in such a position.

154 Comments:

Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Well said, Mr Cranmer. Let us pray the Queen does take a stand on this most fundamental of issues. Better to loose the Monarchy than conceed without a fight.

12 June 2012 at 10:10  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I have forgiven the Queen for giving royal assent to the Abortion Act which has allowed the murder of 6 million children here in the UK since 1967. I pray to God that I don't have to forgive her for signing into legislation this attempt to sanctify what God abhors. I therefore thank God that the Christian Church (amongst others) is standing against this abomination.

12 June 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger Broadwood said...

Hurray and hurray, the CofE has mounted a superb and comprehensive rebuttal of the government's hideous proposals and elegantly and succinctly set out the case for the status quo.

It needs pointing out again and again, that all adults currently do have exactly the same right to enter into to marriage with a suitably eligible person, ie, one who is of the opposite gender, currently unmarried, and not too closely related or under age. That's what marriage is.

If some people (who are homosexually orientated) don't want to play by the rules, it is not a rights issue at all, it's about inclination. They should stop whining and take their ball home.

Football remains football because you're not allowed to bring a baseball bat onto the pitch - or it would become a different game altogether.

12 June 2012 at 10:17  
Blogger Hereward said...

YG

It is not a conservative PM that is putting QE2 on the spot, he is a post modern liberal with shifting values.

If SSM gets through Parliament it would be very difficult for royal assent to be withheld unless there were many millions who then directly petitioned the Sovereign against it.

It is possible that Her Majesty would give a “George III” response in any constitutional crisis, but even if she did I doubt if her likely successor would do the same.

Anyway what happened to the long grass that was eagerly awaiting the SSM proposal according to your previous post? Has it been mowed already?

12 June 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?"

Right minded Christians of all denominations understand the sanctity of marriage and its Biblical basis. There really can be no political compromise on this; no argument about being a 'Constitutional Monarch'. It goes to the heart of the Sovereign's role as Supreme Governor of the Established Church and her duty to Defend the Faith.

A refusal to give Royal Consent would test the Constitution and pit Crown and Church against the democratically elected government.

Elizabeth is loved by the people. I've no doubt such determined leadership would result in support for her and not the government who are attempting to bring in a law that is both anti-Christian and without a legitimate mandate.

12 June 2012 at 10:53  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

This sounds like a very strong argument for disestablishment of the Church of England. If the C of E cannot have its own laws that are different from those of the State – the implications are that the State is not allowed to make laws which are inconsistent with those of the C of E, which goes against every democratic instinct especially given that the C of E has nothing like majority support and only a very small number can actually bother to get involved on a regular basis. Or the C of E should accept that it has to amend its laws to fit in those of the State – which I’m afraid doesn’t do a lot for religious freedom – and is also incidentally the reason why the US State is explicitly secular so that religious freedom can be guaranteed. Or perhaps the best alternative is that the CofE separates itself from the State and so avoid the conflict between democracy and religious freedom. The role of the monarchy has changed before in the UK and I suspect could quite easily accommodate this change.

12 June 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"According to the Laws of God and the Protestant Reformed Religion, marriage is a union between a man and a woman"

Aren't Unitarians part of the Protestant Reformed Religion - if so this statement is not entirely true.

12 June 2012 at 10:56  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

It is not clear to me who is actually agitating for same sex marriages? And how many of those trying to force this change are there? Because I don't see this as being something that the majority of people in our nation are becoming exercised about. There is always the option to do nothing, and in generally it is the most satisfying and least costly.

12 June 2012 at 10:58  
Blogger David B said...

Disestablish and be done with it.

David B

12 June 2012 at 11:03  
Blogger Naomi King said...

John in Cheshire

In 2010 (the most recent year for which statistics are available) there were 6,500. So it would seem it is not the homosexuals who are clambering for this change.

12 June 2012 at 11:04  
Blogger Naomi King said...

That was 6,500 civil partnerships (in 2010). It would appear the homosexual lifestyle doesn't lend itself to commitment or fidelity.

12 June 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Cranmer said ...

" ... and, like a good Protestant, forge your own understanding of its content instead of relying on the prophets and priests of journalism."

Is this artile only intended for Protestant readers? What about other Christian denominations and your occsional Jewish, Muslim and Hindu guests? Do they not count? Are you suggesting that only Protestants are capable of reasoned, independent thought?

12 June 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Another little fact that is always omitted from these analyses is that there are now more civil than religous marriages within the UK.

12 June 2012 at 11:06  
Blogger graham wood said...

Hereward. I think you make good points, especially Cameron not being a Conservative, but rather a woolly minded post-modernist liberal.

Cranmer and other critics make the point that the SSM proposals have not been thought through in terms of their legal implications, and not least as Cranmer now points out, to the place of HMQ as head of the C of E as established by law.

I believe that it may well be the case that DC and his hare-brained advisers will have another think about SSM, and that these may be quietly dropped.
Will DC wish to precipitate a full blown conflict with the churches in the UK? Also risk the real possibility of a major split within his own party on SSM?
But more importantly, as Cranmer spotlights, would he wish to be the PM responsible for initiating a major constitutional crisis, albeit in the future?

You speculate : "It is possible that Her Majesty would give a “George III” response in any constitutional crisis"
According to the terms of the Coronation Oath Act HMQ would be forced to deny her Oath to "govern according to the law and custom".

Indeed, the Act exists precisely to preserve and maintain the Protestant (that is, Biblical) religion - at least in theory and in law.
I have no doubt that HMQ's advisers would in such a case inform her of what she already knew, namely that SSM would be a Trojan Horse which would bring about, in Cranmer's phrase: "the mightiest church-state battle in centuries."
IMO, and to state the obvious, the Coronation Oath Act would have to be either upheld or denied by HMQ in such circumstances. If the latter then the Act would first have to be repealed by Parliament to make way for disestablishment.
The question is: Could even Cameron and his lackeys be SO stupid and self defeating in thus grubbing about for a few more votes from the metropolitan "elite"?

12 June 2012 at 11:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

If marriage is redefined, then all marriages become 'gay marriages'.

12 June 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Graham Wood @ 11.17 asks, 'Could even Cameron and his lackeys be SO stupid and self defeating in thus grubbing about for a few more votes from the metropolitan "elite"?"

The answer has to be 'Yes'.

Otherwise, how did we get to this point in the first instance? Time and again, Cameron shows himself incapable of anything more than reflexive action. He is conditioned to the tactical and the 24 hour news cycle. Cameron seems temperamentally incapable of implementing a well thought out strategic plan. Evidence of this comes through the lack of guile and subtlety in his approach to SSM. It's a reckless frontal attack without preparation or articulation of the case for SSM.

Cameron narrowly survived challenge by the 1922 Committee with regard to Europe; how long before a crisis within the Conservative Party over SSM further erodes his support? It's not as though Cameron's judgement over Europe has been anything other than completely deficient. The 1922 Committee are entitled to ask if he is not equally wrong in promoting SSM.

This communicant now believes that the combination of Leveson and pressure from the 1922 Committee will cripple Cameron's premiership. The confluence of factors may force a split in the Coalition over the matter of SSM. Cameron seems likely to find himself without a majority in the HofC, sooner rather than later.

Indeed, Cameron may find himself visiting the Queen, not to explain why she must break Her Coronation Oath, but to advise that he must resign his commission so that a General Election can be called.

All because the homosexuals demand a right to equality that takes precedence over the diversity implicit in marriage. And they already have Civil Partnerships. Cameron may rue the day he announced his passionate support for SSM.

12 June 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger Naomi King said...

D Singh @ 11:42

Absolutely, all marriages become nothing more than "civil partnerships".

12 June 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger William said...

Indeed Mr Singh and Mrs King

All marriages will longer be sexual unions, but merely civil partnerships as you say.

12 June 2012 at 12:04  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

If Dave is supporting gay marriage 'because' he is a Conservative he must have contracted LibDemitis.

12 June 2012 at 12:08  
Blogger Pubcrawler said...

Not just the Coronation Oath. Magna Carta, clause 1 (still in force):

(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.

12 June 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Did anyone else hear the 'debate' on this morning's Today program between some bishop or other & Ben Summerskill, in which Ben Summerskill gave the best unintended piece of irony ever when he accused the CofE of being obsessed with sex!!

And maybe I misheard (because I was yelling at the mini-Rebels to brush their teeth) but did the Prime Sodomite say he was once invited to Number 10 Downing St to discuss WMD in Iraq?! Please tell me I misheard.

12 June 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

@Bluedog "Cameron shows himself incapable of anything more than reflexive action. He is conditioned to the tactical and the 24 hour news cycle."

I'm not sure why you think he is capable of acting in any other way given his entire working life has been within the Party machine except for a period when he went off to do PR/spinning for Carlton Communications. And his sidekick Osborne cannot even point to such a minor diversion.

Do I think that Cameron will risk all and take a principled stance (in either direction) on SSM? No - absolutely no chance whatsoever. My guess is that will be looking for a way to quietly put the whole issue into the long grass and spin himself as a reasonable man who listens to everyon to see whether or not there is a consensus - but he couldn't find any and there are much more important issues to pursue anyway. Unfortunately this is the approach that is being applied to everything.

12 June 2012 at 12:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

TBNGU

Aren't Unitarians part of the Protestant Reformed Religion?

No, they aren't. A Christian is by definition Trinitarian.

carl

12 June 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

Broadwood said...

...marriage with a suitably eligible person, ie, one who is of the opposite gender, currently unmarried, and not too closely related or under age...


An interesting point Broadwood. If SSM comes to pass, what will be the law regarding consanguinity? Will a gay be permitted to "marry" his brother? If not, why not?

And if the answer is "yes", then in the name of "fairness" and "equality" a man should be permitted to marry his sister or his daughter.

Pity Francis Maude and Cameron didn't stop and think for a few seconds before coming up with this crackpot proposal.

12 June 2012 at 12:57  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Why are we allowing homosexuals to change the use of words? Even the Church of England's paper refers to "gays" and "straights".

The words are, and should ever remain, "homosexual" and "heterosexual"; "disordered" and "ordered"; "deviant" and "normal".

Or are these terms "homophobic" now?

12 June 2012 at 12:59  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Carl Jacobs

Is that the generally accepted view or your own?

12 June 2012 at 12:59  
Blogger Damian said...

Has she not broken her coronation oath many times already?

12 June 2012 at 12:59  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Dodo the Dude

I would be careful there are plenty of not very nice words that were traditionally used for RCs as well.

12 June 2012 at 13:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dis-establishment does seem the best answer for the Church in England as opposed to the CoE. Note that capital 'C' in that sentence. The CoE is poised to plunge into the fever swamps of liberalism, and so will become no fit place for Christians. But doesn't the Monarchy rest atop the established church? If the later falls isn't the former fatally undermined? There is a Jacobin attitude beneath all this that might carry the outcome far beyond what is currently envisioned.

carl

12 June 2012 at 13:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'No bishop, no king.'

12 June 2012 at 13:10  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"There is a Jacobin attitude beneath all this"

If you look at your history you will find that there were many other nonconformists and other kinds of dissenters who campaigned for dis-establishment. It has already happened in Wales, Ireland and Scotland many years ago - so I suspect that the monarchy can survive if that is the democratic will.

12 June 2012 at 13:10  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

Your avatar appears to be in Roundhead uniform - is this right?

12 June 2012 at 13:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

TBNGU

There is no question about the historical accuracy of my statement. The Protestant Reformed faith is a Christian faith. Unitarianism represents a completely different religion from Christianity. To suggest that (say) George III would have considered Unitarians to be part of the Protestant Reformed Religion is to empty words of all meaning, and deny their ability to communicate across generations. In which case, you might as well commit all your founding documents to the flames, and concede your cherished rights to the judges who have the power to make words mean whatever they so desire.

carl

12 June 2012 at 13:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

It is in honour of my Lord Oliver Cromwell.

12 June 2012 at 13:47  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Carl Jacobs

I've just looked at the Unitarians website - given that UNitarians started only about 100 years ago, I very much douby that George III would have a view - but they do seem to suggest that they grew out of the less Calvinist elements of non conformism and have inherited quite a lot of their churches. They also seem to have no problem with being described as Christian.

Must say that if I were to get religion then they would be attractive to me at least.

12 June 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger IanCad said...

Carl,

Some very shrewd observations.
Having witnessed the vitality of religion in the USA; entirely due to the First Amendment, I find myself siding with the Neodisestablishmentarians. Granted the Constitutional obstacles are huge, and that the CofE has been a mighty force for good, it seems to me to be inevitable.
That the First Table of The Law has no place for Caesar is plain from Scripture. Let the state rule where it has authority.

BTW. Another tip of the hat to the colonies. The fly past at the end of the Queen's Jubilee celebrations was led by a US Douglas DC-3. There was a lone Lancaster bomber, a couple of Spitfires, and I think there were about five Hurricanes tagging along. No Mosquitoes, Fairey Swordfish, Halifaxes, or even a Sopwith trainer. Absolutely pathetic.

Ian.

12 June 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

TBNGU

given that UNitarians started only about 100 years ago

They actually go back farther than 100 years... there were plenty of Unitarians in the US in the first part of the 19th century ... but I was making a theoretical point. I mentioned George III because the original article mentioned George III. I could just as easily said "George III wouldn't have recognized Mormons as being part of the Protestant Reformed Faith."

carl

12 June 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

'We declared our intentions to preserve monarchy, and they still are so, unless necessity enforce an alteration. It’s granted the king has broken his trust, yet you are fearful to declare you will make no further addresses... look on the people you represent, and break not your trust, and expose not the honest party of your kingdom, who have bled for you, and suffer not misery to fall upon them for want of courage and resolution in you, else the honest people may take such courses as nature dictates to them.'

'Cruel necessity.'

Cromwell

12 June 2012 at 13:57  
Blogger Jon said...

+1 for what David B said.

12 June 2012 at 15:34  
Blogger gentlemind said...

The presence of an established church explains why the abolition of marriage in England and Wales has to be a two-stage affair. The first stage is to make marriage illegal. To do this, we have to create a new form of marriage that makes the authentic form look illegal. And to do that we have to split marriage in two: force authentic marriage into the hands of religion (against their will) and in its absence create a brand new institution - "Civil Marriage". Civil Marriage makes authentic marriage illegal. But how can something that was legal become illegal when it itself has not changed? The answer is simple: found Civil Marriage on a lie, and compare true marriage to that legal lie.

12 June 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger David B said...

I'm rather confused by what gentlemind terms 'authentic marriage'.

Does he imply that pre-Christian marriages, or marriages in part of the world where Christianity is not the dominant religion, are or were not authentic marriages?

Or that marriages conducted other than one particular sect of Christianity are not authentic?

That marriages between non Christians are not authentic?

Or what?

David B

12 June 2012 at 17:02  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Graham James of Norwich is as liberal as you could possible imagine. When even he is against this, then they really ought to take notice. But they won't.

Ed Miliband will, though. Never having threatened to whip this, he should now undertake not to include it in Labour's manifesto, either. It was in no one's last time. But both Coalition parties pretty much have to have it in 2015.

Labour does not, so it should not. Instead, it should simply make it clear that if anyone tried to bring this back as a Private Member's Bill, then Labour MPs would continue to have a free vote on it, as has always been the case.

12 June 2012 at 17:16  
Blogger gentlemind said...

@ David B

Authentic as in "real". Real marriage, as in "one man one woman". A definition of marriage that corresponds to physical reality, as oppose to a definition that is entirely meaningless.

12 June 2012 at 17:27  
Blogger David B said...

@ gentlemind

So an arranged loveless marriage between a man and a woman is authentic, while a loving marriage between two people of the same sex is not?

I'd have thought that there would be more than one parameter defining what constitutes a marriage.

I'd further think that mutual love is more a sine qua non of an authentic marriage than any other parameter.

David B

David B

12 June 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Haha you did it :) You made marriage meaningless as soon as you said love. I love everybody I meet David, but i cannot marry everybody.

Meaning is contained in a definition. By all means interpret that definition and find all the wriggle room you like within its walls. Allowing anybody other than one man and one woman to marry is not an interpretation of marriage. It is a statement that marriage has ceased to be what it always has been, and has become something that it previously never could have been. What is it that makes you feel reality is something to redefine, rather than work within?

12 June 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger John Punshon said...

If 'marriage' is to be redefined, surely the time has come to accept polygamy as a legal option for UK citizens. To restrict the redefinition to homosexual couples is surely discriminatory against polygamous severals (so to speak)

12 June 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

so His Grace urges you to READ IT for yourself and, like a good Protestant, forge your own understanding of its content instead of relying on the prophets and priests of journalism.

Great advice Your Grace, we should all beware of the dark art of journalism, and that of the priest-hoods, be they of the political educational, theological, theatrical, or scientific variety.

As gentlemind correctly alludes to, our masters think long term, while we are lucky to be able to plan further ahead then next weekend.

The important thing to fully understand is that our masters are MARXISTS, as outlined in The Communist Manifesto, which they themselves commissioned, published, and distributed over 150 years ago.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall it may have escaped the notice of the majority that we have become more, not less communist in every way imaginable. If you are one of these people, then it serves you right for paying attention to your school teachers, college lecturers, corrupted politicians, religious leaders, and main stream journalists, most especially those favorably presented to us by The BBC.

Now it is Capitalisms turn to apparently fall like a more metaphorical ton of bricks, making way for an apparent New World Order.

Apparently so, because the exact same people who have been controlling Communism and Capitalism since the manifestation of both, namely The Old World Order, will forever be controlling the new one.

Understand that you have no friends in established politics, or religion, only those who claim to be, while secretly conspiring with their apparent sworn enemies to screw you and your families over BIG TIME.

This concept is not so hard for those with a reactionary, or rightist mindset to come to terms with, however those of a radical or leftist persuasion find it all but impossible to accept that they have been so incredibly gullible.

Indeed showing university indoctrinated leftists that they do not possess a thought in their mind that has not been planted there by their own sworn enemy is like telling a member of The RCC, that his cult is headed up by Satans representative on Earth.

12 June 2012 at 18:09  
Blogger David B said...

Marriage has been redefined before - by permitting divorce, and by changing property rights of women, forbidding forced sex in marriage....

It is a sense of justice that leads me to think that it should be redefined in this case.

Looking back at the comments on a BBC website story on this, I see that a number of CoE clergymen agree with me.

David B

12 June 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

Hello Mr. Singh! Where's 'God's Own Englishman' been recently? :o)

12 June 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger gentlemind said...

David, it is a mistake to say marriage has been redefined before - a mistake Chris Bryant MP repeated on the BBC today. The design of marriage has improved, in much the same way that the design of a television has. What would happen if we changed the definition of "Television"?

The definition of marriage corresponds with something physically real. It cannot be changed without lying.

12 June 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The Church of England says Government plans to redefine marriage could spark a constitutional crisis, shattering the 500-year link between church and state.

In a submission to the Government’s consultation, the Church says the Government plans are not thought through or legally sound.

The Government’s consultation paper wrongly implies that there are two categories of marriage, “civil” and “religious” – “this is to mistake the wedding ceremony for the institution of marriage”, the church says.

It adds that changing the State’s understanding of marriage will, therefore, change the way marriage is defined for everybody.

And, despite the government’s assurances to the contrary, it will change the nature of marriages solemnized in churches and other places of worship.

The Church said that redefining marriage: “would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history.

“Marriage benefits society in many ways, not only by promoting mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which includes, for many, the possibility of procreation.

“The law should not seek to define away the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women.”

It says churches could be hauled off to court and the promised opt-outs to protect religious liberty would be unlikely to survive domestic or European court rulings.

The Church’s submission to the consultation concludes that “imposing for essentially ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise”.

Colin Hart, Campaign Director of the Coalition for Marriage said: “The Church of England is right. The Government’s plan will redefine marriage for everyone, damaging the very nature of marriage as a place for nurturing children, and it will plunge churches into legal chaos.

“It shows that the Government’s plans are ill judged and divisive. It’s time to drop this fringe issue and concentrate on things like reviving the economy.”

12 June 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
D. Singh said...Cromwell is his hero. Cromwell was a great Bible man, but if his Parliament had continued, there would be no monarchy today.

tory boys never grow up said @11:06...Another little fact that is always omitted from these analyses is that there are now more civil than religious marriages within the UK. Can you justify this?

I saw a report on the BBC TV news during the day where they reported on the CofE SSM submission. As your Grace said it was somewhat overstated and delivered with a spin that Shane Warne would be proud of. It also quoted Stonewall who claimed the report was a great example of scaremongering.
Later in the day Stone wall were reported as saying that 80% of the population under 50 were in favour of SSM.

12 June 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger Roy said...

Why should David Cameron worry about forcing the Queen to break her oath? After all, he doesn't worry about breaking his own promises.

Would anyone buy a used promise of a referendum from that man?

12 June 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
This is an appeal to all communicants to include a little more information about yourselves in your Profile page.
Thank you

12 June 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Outstanding Your Grace. Your missals are all good but this is one of the most powerful. What a punch it packs !

You have the Inspector’s admiration, Sir !

We could well be left with our Queen refusing to sign the bill. If she did so, and as Supreme Governor of the CofE, she has no choice in the matter, she would do so with the majority of the people’s blessings. Of course, Cameron would be finished, and the coalition may well collapse. But it would be a price worth paying. To roll back this long term collapse in the values of decency and regain much lost ground. There has to be a start and this is as good as any.

How would the homosexuals greet it ?A shrug of the shoulders in the main, and perhaps surprise that it got as far as it did. The incredibly small number of organised homosexual militants would be outraged. But they’ve always been that way and will continue to be, as the unhappy people they are. Anyone who has taken the trouble to view their sites will find self pity, self loathing, and just anger. Much of it is therapeutic of course.

You see, far from being the fearless, proud and defiant types they appear to be on site, one has the feeling they are in reality secretives and hide away their true selves during the day and use the sites as a punch bag at night. Desperately sad, but we must not feel too sorry for them. Any concessions granted, like SSM, they will put in their pocket and go on to the next demand.

They hope the day will come when ALL at least give homosexuality a go. (…There you are Mr Cameron, prepare a bill to enforce that !...). That way, it will validate their very existence. They live for the day they are no longer on the outside. SSM won’t give them that.

12 June 2012 at 18:39  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
This is an appeal to all communicants to include a little more information about yourselves in your Profile page.
Thank you.
Your Grace,
I suspect that Her Majesty has little choice in what she signs off. If she is presented with a Bill for SSM to sign off, would she be breaking constitutional laws by signing i.e. her own oath, and would she be unconstitutional also to refuse because it conflicts with her oath?

I suspect they might point a gun at her Corgi, as in the film Johnny English, in order to make her sign.

12 June 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
This is an appeal to all communicants to include a little more information about yourselves in your Profile page.
Thank you.
Your Grace,
I suspect that Her Majesty has little choice in what she signs off. If she is presented with a Bill for SSM to sign off, would she be breaking constitutional laws by signing i.e. her own oath, and would she be unconstitutional also to refuse because it conflicts with her oath?

I suspect they might point a gun at her Corgi, as in the film Johnny English, in order to make her sign.

12 June 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
This is an appeal to all communicants to include a little more information about yourselves in your Profile page.
Thank you.
Your Grace,
I suspect that Her Majesty has little choice in what she signs off. If she is presented with a Bill for SSM to sign off, would she be breaking constitutional laws by signing i.e. her own oath, and would she be unconstitutional also to refuse because it conflicts with her oath?

I suspect they might point a gun at her Corgi, as in the film Johnny English, in order to make her sign.

12 June 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
(Numbers 35:33)

A reason given for regicide.

Cromwell a "hero"? A great "bible man"?

Certainly he believed that God was actively directing affairs of the realm through the actions of "chosen people" and that he was one such person. He interpreted victories as indications of God's approval of his actions, and defeats as signs that God was directing him in another direction.

12 June 2012 at 18:56  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Having now read the PDF of the Church of England's consultation response (highly recommended), i can understand why the newspapers concentrated on the church/state clash. The real meat is in the mundane points raised by the Church of England: ending a "ban" on something that has never existed? Introducing a new legal institution that will instantly make two present institutions unlawful? The invention of "Civil Marriage" and "Religious Marriage"? Etc etc. Featherstone et al ought to be mocked out of office.

Interstingly, the Church assumes the definition of "Civil Marriage" will be "The voluntary union for life of any two persons". There has been no government declaration of what the new definition would be. How can MPs vote for the creation of something without knowing what the definition of that something will be? Canada quitely dropped the "for life" aspect when redefining marriage. Are we planning to do the same? when will we know? Before or after a vote?

12 June 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Integrity said ...

"This is an appeal to all communicants to include a little more information about yourselves in your Profile page."

With people like DanJ0 about? I really don't think so!

12 June 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John P: "If 'marriage' is to be redefined, surely the time has come to accept polygamy as a legal option for UK citizens. To restrict the redefinition to homosexual couples is surely discriminatory against polygamous severals (so to speak)"

Is the only argument you have against polygamous marriage at the moment that we can't or won't change the existing definition any more?

12 June 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger David B said...

@ Mr Integrity

I think my profile complete enough, but is there anything you would like to see added?

@ gentlemind.

I don't see your position on marriage as unarguable.

I repeat my view that a marriage has a number of contributing factors, and that it is not necessary for a genuine marriage to have all of them.

Rather as if one attempts to define the word 'sport' one finds a number of contributing factors to the definition, but it is not necessary for a sport to be played between two competing teams.

David B

12 June 2012 at 19:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

gentlemind: "The invention of "Civil Marriage" and "Religious Marriage"?"

We already have civil marriage. It must by law be free of religious stuff. The definition of marriage has been changed many years ago so that non-religious people may marry without doing so in a religious service.

12 June 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger gentlemind said...

@ gentlemind.

David B said @ gentlemind. I don't see your position on marriage as unarguable.

I repeat my view that a marriage has a number of contributing factors, and that it is not necessary for a genuine marriage to have all of them.

Rather as if one attempts to define the word 'sport' one finds a number of contributing factors to the definition, but it is not necessary for a sport to be played between two competing teams.

Try a specific sport. I may be able to fulfil many aspects of being a footballer - keep fit, wear the strip, give inane interviews - but none of this tells you whether or not i can kick a ball. And kicking a ball is central to the purpose of football. The aspects of marriage only make sense within the context of the purpose of marriage. The ability to fulfil many aspects of marriage - to love, grow together, to be committed - does not give the ability to be one man and one woman. So the question for you is twofold: "Is the complementary nature of the two sexes central to the purpose of marriage?" I guess you have already decided the answer is "No". So the next question is "What then is the purpose of marriage?" I think you will have difficulty answering that question.

12 June 2012 at 19:41  
Blogger gentlemind said...

DanJO said gentlemind: "The invention of "Civil Marriage" and "Religious Marriage"?"

We already have civil marriage. It must by law be free of religious stuff. The definition of marriage has been changed many years ago so that non-religious people may marry without doing so in a religious service.

Hello DanJO. I enjoy your comments on this wonderful blog. Civil and religious marriage exist as ceremonies. The government seeks to make them exist as institutions. And, no, marriage has never been redefined. All marriages have been between one man and one woman.

12 June 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

gentlemind: "The government seeks to make them exist as institutions."

Ah, I see the distinction you're drawing though I'd be surprised if many religious people would agree that the difference is just a matter of ceremonies. Marriage is a social institution. Religious marriage is a social institution plus a sacrament of some sort involving a god.

"And, no, marriage has never been redefined. All marriages have been between one man and one woman."

I'd have thought the existence of no-fault divorce, or divorce for reasons other than adultery, would have been a significant change to the social institution. It hardly seems like a life-long commitment in that case, more like a legal contract in basic form with all the social stuff on top.

12 June 2012 at 19:52  
Blogger gentlemind said...

No-fault divorce didn't change the definition either! :) It simply changed one of the surrounding laws. We could change the laws on polygamy and incestuous marriage, and still not change the definition of marriage.

12 June 2012 at 20:04  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Graham Wood said “Will DC wish to precipitate a full blown conflict with the churches in the UK?”
Tory boys never grow up said “Do I think that Cameron will risk all and take a principled stance?”

More to the point will the churches take a discipline stance and demand this be dropped. If Muslims can force the headmaster of a primary school to be sacked simply because of an innocuous statement in a speech why can’t we exert a bit of muscle of something which is important. However, I’m not sure Church leaders are willing to take the chance. Just look at how the Catholic Church just accepted the closure of its adoption agencies without hardly a whimper. Pathetic.

Atlas Shrugged. The RCC is not headed by satan’s representative on Earth. It’s easy to make statement but less easy to justify them. Easier to justify the RCC by the accuracy of its prophesies. In 1917 Our Lady at Fatima told us that Russia would spread her errors throughout the World and this has clearly come true. She told us that there would be a second world war if men do not amend their lives. Maybe you noticed that that also came true. Another prophecy was that many nations would be annihilated. Under Communism and the European Union that also came true. She also said that wars are the result of our sinfulness and we seem to have constant warfare nowadays. Perhaps it is something to do with our legalization of abortion, divorce, homosexuality, contraception, arms trading, human trafficking, pornography, brothels and gambling on stock markets.

However, you are right about satan ruling the present World. Jesus told us that satan would have his time on Earth before the second coming. Look around – the signs are there which means that the second coming may not be far off and when that happens it is judgement time. Also don’t forget that satan’s followers try and obtain the Catholic Eucharist in order to desecrate it at their satanic rituals. Even the Satanists can see that the Catholic Church is the enemy of satan and it is the Catholic Church they reserve their full fury for. Don't join them.

12 June 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

gentlemind: "No-fault divorce didn't change the definition either!"

Doesn't at least religious marriage require a solemn vow to remain together "until death us do part"? Can one flesh become two again? Can a man sunder what God has brought together? If marriage is actually a sacrament, either formally or informally, then hasn't divorce, especially no-fault divorce, changed that?

12 June 2012 at 20:41  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Your Grace,

How can a mere Prime Minister "force" a Monarch -apparently appointed by your Sky God- to do anything? Is not your Queen the supreme Pope of the Church of England?

12 June 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Actually Alpha at one time the British Monarch had more power than the Pope. Head of the Church in England and Absolute Monarch too. Undisputed temporal and spiritual power.

12 June 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree. Well done Sir. You’ve identified the foul stench of Godless human activity...

abortion, divorce, homosexuality, contraception, arms trading, human trafficking, pornography, brothels and gambling on stock markets

And now we have the possibility of SSM on top. Itself reeking of the foul stench of Godless gays. Just thank Christ for Him showing us the right way....

12 June 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger Naomi King said...

bluedog said... @11:53

Cameron may rue the day he announced his passionate support for SSM.

I do pray that he does, and that as suggested the combination of Leveson and pressure from the 1922 Committee will cripple Cameron's premiership and that he finds himself without a majority in the HofC and having to visit the Queen to request a General Election.

Of course this may not be the answer because I understand the Liberal Democrats are in talks with the Labour party about forming an alternative coalition. The fight may have to go on for a long time yet.

12 June 2012 at 21:52  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Dear Dodo

Wrong, very wrong.

The Pope has always had far more power, wealth and authority then the monarch of any country, or indeed Empire, very much including this one.

You call yourself a Roman Catholic?

The entire wealth of The British Crown is only held by the Queen of England under license from The Pope in Rome. This country is in fact a vassal of The Vatican, as is the vast majority of the rest of the entire world.

The Queen of England is little more then a well kept safe keeper for the inestimable wealth and power of The Roman Catholic Church, and she knows it, even if you clearly don't.

Only don't feel too bad, yourself and your ignorance are in plenty of likewise company. This is not the sort of knowledge that the powers that be would wish to become common, we are after all supposed to be a protestant nation.

A very similar relationship exists between the RCC, and The CofE, although don't expect our infamous ABofC to get over mouthy on the subject of who really works under who either.

You may note that while His Holy Father does concert tours around the planet kissing the ground of his various properties on arrival, and having both his rings kissed by presidents and potentates, no one but the ABofC's various concubines give more then a passing attention to his opinions on anything.

Ok, the Guardian sometimes does, but only when it wishes to take the utter piss out of The Anglican Chrurch, ( which lets face it is hardly rocket science, ) and hardly anyone but wanabe BBC employees read that filthy Marxist rag anymore.

Having said that, even The Pope is only a figurehead for something far darker.

12 June 2012 at 21:56  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Atlas ,

Who is the Pope the figurehead for then?

12 June 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Thank you inspector @ 21:48

I did suggest a Religious backlash might breach out soon, starting with ...abortion, adultery, fornication, divorce, homosexuality, contraception, arms trading, human trafficking, pornography, brothels and gambling on the stock market... the foul stench of Godless human activity. All of which activities bring misery in this life, and without Christ and repentance, damnation in the next.

12 June 2012 at 22:09  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha Maybe you can shed light on the real power behind Atlas's beliefs about the Pope.

Is there a species 'out there' who experiment with life forms and with creating the necessary conditions for it to develop? A species that could have placed us here some 100,000 million years and have been monitoring and interfering with our history?

12 June 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mrs King. What is startlingly obvious about these vile human activities is how unhappy it makes people.

To keep a good stock of deer, it is necessary to cull the worst of them. Will there come a time...

12 June 2012 at 22:26  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Dodo,

Draconis obtained solar space travel capabilities in (your year) 1066 AD and whilst our Empire is vast- approx. 7,000 systems (the British Space Empire a mere 60!) we are all but regional powers in the galactic sense- there are 3 great empires who control several galaxies, trillions of stars, Quadrillions of life forms. But why would any of them be interested in this little planet- nice as its females and beer are?

12 June 2012 at 22:30  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Although as I understand it the oldest, most powerful race of the universe, whose government is called the "Communion" has existed for at least 10 billion years-the largest of all empires, several thousand galaxies fall under their rule, but why they would give a toss about this planet who knows. (Although I understand they are interested in buying Chelsea FC, but are refusing to bailout the EU).

12 June 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha

I see you are partial to the female form. I have noticed this before. Are their homosexual in your world and do they rights?

12 June 2012 at 22:36  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Mr Integrity

Marriage statistics can be found here http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-249125

see the 2nd spreadheet

As you will see 68% of marriages are now civil marriages - civil marriages have been in the majority since 1994.

12 June 2012 at 22:46  
Blogger Owl said...

There would be a far greater backlash from a lot of people who may not be religious (in the sense of creed) but want to keep the form of traditional marriage (as in the UK) and it's promise to support family life.

For some strange reason, Dan and Co. like to suggest that SSM is favoured by non-religious people. This is a downright lie.


It is just further manipulation (get the idea accross that everyone wants it and that they must know what they are talking about, therefore, I should think that way too).

Too many people are aware of what's going on.

Dave is just doing his master's bidding and seems totally unaware that he is just digging his own (political) grave.

12 June 2012 at 22:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "For some strange reason, Dan and Co. like to suggest that SSM is favoured by non-religious people. This is a downright lie."

I've provided a number of recent and not so recent surveys to back up my comments. You're merely asserting.

Like Tory Boys up there, I've also presented statistics too from the ONS but no-one seems that interested in the facts.

I'm waiting for an apology from you, by the way. Don't feel you have to wait on ceremony or anything.

12 June 2012 at 22:54  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Dodo, we don't ask and we don't tell; homosexuality isn't a taboo, but neither is it promoted or really discussed, we have better things to discuss. There are quite a few Omnisexuals. (There are other races who are purely homosexual and breed via exo-wombs, but that is a different story).

We do have male and female genders, despite the dangers this poses for a space travelling species,but unlike your culture both are wholly dependent upon each other for pro-creation and life.

Having said that, we are more liberal in our attitudes when it comes to group sex, multiple wives and the like; it is quite acceptable to have mistresses as well, we do live for much longer than humans.

The joys of being a telepathic society you see.

12 June 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger Owl said...

On my using my son's name you are right. I concede the point. My apologies.

That you deliberately used it in an obnoxious post stands.

That you deleted a post which I had already replied to and afterwards maintained that it was just correcting spelling mistakes is a bareface lie. It was a completely different post which appeared and made my reply nonsensical.

You have changed from "open minded" to "openly supporting" SSM.

At least you are now showing your true stonewellian colours.

It is funny how opinion polls arrive at a result. I suppose that he who pays the piper........

I just listen to the people. I must tell them that the opinion poll says that they have a different opinion. What a joke.

12 June 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Looks like we are still waiting for Atlas Shrugged to tell us what the dark powers are, that lie behind the Pope ruling the world...

12 June 2012 at 23:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "On my using my son's name you are right. I concede the point. My apologies."

Then I won't mention it anymore.

12 June 2012 at 23:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "It is funny how opinion polls arrive at a result. I suppose that he who pays the piper........"

Well, I've been quite keen to use the surveys commissioned by Catholic Voices for that very reason. The latest one suggests that 10% of the male population might not be heterosexual, you know. Yet there's lots of hot air about that figure from some of the religionists here when it has cropped up in the past.

I'd have posted the Stonewall/YouGov survey which has just been mentioned and linked to in the Times but I'm not comfortable claiming much from that given that it has been analysed and presented by Stonewall itself. 70% in favour, it claims in the headline. I can provide a link from the Times if you like, I haven't even bothered reading it for the reason I've just stated.

12 June 2012 at 23:47  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

A comment from Owl
"That you deliberately used it in an obnoxious post stands."

Something of a trade mark, I'd say and you haven't answered it.

12 June 2012 at 23:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, almost all of Owl's posts are obnoxious, and not just to me. I just treat him in like manner to the way I'm treated by him, as I do with most people.

13 June 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo

You expect me to believe you? Afterall, it's just forum chess to you. It gives you a metaphorical rise winding people up - and probably a physical one too. I've noticed too how you latch on limpit like to new bloggers to play your little game.

Just like homosexual sex, your intercourse on here lacks authenticity and substance and is sterile.

13 June 2012 at 00:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, it's neither here nor there to me what you think down there in your gutter.

13 June 2012 at 01:06  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, trust me I think very little of you.

Must be cosy in your little one bedroomed flat. Do you watch travel programmes in between blogging? Now don't forget to complete those dossiers on us all before bed tonight in readiness for tomorrow's forum chess. It must be so exciting collecting and storing this information and planning your tactics.

Now you know my Christian name I can reveal I have two eyes, two ears, a nose and a mouth. Highly confidential that so do keep it to yourself.

Is it gentlemind you're targetting now? You should try to adapt your opening moves - so predictable.

13 June 2012 at 01:36  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Danjo - A Japanese Pop Song
(Means Boy-Girl)

The Chorus:
"Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl
Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl
Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Girl-Boy-Girl-Boy- Girl
Girl-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl
Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl
Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl
Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Girl-Boy-Girl-Boy- Girl
Girl-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl
Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl
Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl
Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Girl-Boy-Girl-Boy- Girl
Girl-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl!!"

13 June 2012 at 01:51  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

otoko onna
otoka onna
danjo danjo
danjo
boom boom
thud crash

danjo danjo
danjo
boom boom
thud crash

13 June 2012 at 01:59  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Atlas

Sounds quite exhausting the sex lives of alien beings. And group sex? Goodness, Mrs Dodo would never approve!

13 June 2012 at 02:03  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 June 2012 at 02:07  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

cressida de nova

Looking somewhat risqué tonight,young lady! Mind the 'Bis h's blood pressure.

"danjo danjo
danjo
boom boom
thud crash

Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl
Boy-Girl-Boy-Boy-Girl-Boy-Girl

13 June 2012 at 02:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

So, yesterday my wife (planning as she was to make beer brats and knowing that I like to try new brands) brought me home a six-pack of beer called "Moose Drool." Not exceptional. Not bad. I'd give it a B/B-. Little did she know how much I would need it tonight after coming home from work only to find a third consecutive thread consumed by this kind of pointless disputation.

Dodo, you are my ally in most things, and so I care about how you present yourself. If I might be so forward as to give you some advice:

1. Stop insulting your opponent.

2. Stop making indefensible allegations about your opponent's personal life.

3. Do not return insult for insult. It is far more effective to ignore an insult than it is to respond to it.

If you would do only these three things, you would dramatically improve your effectiveness. Dramatically. I don't think you understand how badly you come across at times. But it's easily fixable if you would just treat your opponent with respect.

I would not say this if I didn't want to help. I would never say anything like this to DanJ0 no matter my opinion. He and I stand across a chasm. You and I do not. Please remember that it is better to receive the punishment of a friend than it is to receive the kisses of an enemy.

carl

13 June 2012 at 02:18  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Showing a bit of leg and my new tattoo to steer this blog out on to the heterosexual seas..stuck on the homosexual reef at the moment.
It is the Miss Scarlet de Borgia side of me emerging. I expect that my flame will be doused in holy water soon enough.

13 June 2012 at 02:19  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Just to let you know Doddles,my kisses are not those of an enemy.Carl is right about ignoring insults. He ignores mine all the time.

Carl
Is' making beer brats' a cute American Morman way of saying that you are having Christian sex with your wife?

13 June 2012 at 02:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Cressida

No, it means you baste the brats in beer before you cook them.

carl

13 June 2012 at 02:47  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Seems an unnecessarily cruel way of dealing with troublesome children.

13 June 2012 at 03:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Alas, unable to enlarge your avatar, Cressida!

13 June 2012 at 03:45  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

@Atlas ,

Who is the Pope the figurehead for then?

12 June 2012 22:04

I think I have given enough clues already, perhaps you may care to work it out for yourself?

The clue is in the word DARK.

My friend you must have been around for a few decades at least by now, therefore you cannot seriously be telling me that you have not noticed that there is most evidently something very wrong with this place.

This is now the year 2012, not 1712. Our masters have now achieved technological advancements that in many respects make Star Trek look modest in its aspirations. Yet we get only a tiny fraction of it, and half the population of the world still goes to bed half starving.

It is now clearer then ever before that the people charged with the responsibility of making this world better for all, for example world political and religious leaders, scientists, and the institutions they represent have succeeded in only making life longer and ever more prosperous for themselves.

This entire planet is run by the very darkest forces of pure unadulterated EVIL, and for the exclusive interests of same, surely this fact is self apparent.

We have quite obviously been lied to by the very people we trusted the most to tell us the truth. Otherwise the world would not be in the state that it now is, indeed it has always been this way, otherwise our history books would be filled with human grace, not a continual liturgy of horrendous tyranny regularly punctuated with ever more bloody wars.

Still not got it?

Ok.

The name of our ultimate master on this planet of death and destruction, starts with S, ends in N, and the middle 3 letters are T,A,and E, but not necessarily in that particular order.

Please let me know when you have finally worked it out.

13 June 2012 at 04:07  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Tis a pity Oswin...think you would like the tattoo:)

13 June 2012 at 04:19  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Atlas, Your clues are simply insinuations backed up by no evidence. Are you married to Len perchance? I notice you haven’t answered my points about Catholic prophecy which has come true indicating a power beyond that of mere men. Neither have you picked up on my point that the followers of the DARK master hate the Catholic Eucharist and make every attempt to desecrate it. They do not give any thought to desecrating Protestant bread. The gospels tell us that the demons themselves testified to Jesus and here we have the modern demons doing the same but you refuse to accept the evidence preferring the newspeak you have been fed. The time of satan appears to be upon us so we can I think expect the second coming to arrive fairly soon but St. Paul tells us it will be preceded by the time of great tribulation, prophesied by Jesus and St. Paul. The current financial collapse which is imminent and the refusal of the powers that be to condemn the Islamic heresy tells us that the master of lies has control of the media which do not publish the disastrous conditions Christians have to live under the dispensation of the Arab Spring. There has already been huge persecution and recently the Presidential candidate in Egypt stated that Christians will have to start paying the Jizya tax or leave. There have already been many Christian girls kidnapped and forced into marriages with Muslim warlords in Pakistan and Iraq and when they escape, the perpetrators go to the police demanding they force the girls to be returned. The police do not even consider the possibility of prosecuting the offenders. Satanic Islam is with us and seeking to dominate the world but who is controlling them?

13 June 2012 at 04:53  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Yes Atlas we are agreed about satan and my statement about baseless insinuation was about your suggestion that the Catholic Church is under satan's dominion.

13 June 2012 at 04:55  
Blogger Naomi King said...

the key point is that marriage, the union of one man and one woman was instituted by Almighty God and confirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ and no earthly government has the power to change it. That’s what our petition says: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/defendmarriage/

Marriage depends on its physical expression in consummation. The Government cannot even define that term or adultery in a homosexual context. A pair of homosexuals can never be ‘one flesh’ as our Lord defined it.

I have learnt that there are homosexuals responding to the Consultation on homosexual "marriage" from as far away as California, so we all need to make every effort. Please pray that there will be an overwhelming rejection of this wicked idea and that we have all played our part in this rejection !

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

13 June 2012 at 06:47  
Blogger David B said...

@ gentlemind, who said

"So the next question is "What then is the purpose of marriage?" I think you will have difficulty answering that question."

I do have difficulty in answering that, because I think the question leading and poorly framed.

It implies that there is one single purpose of marriage, while to my mind the reality of the situation is that there are a number of purposes of marriage, some of which will have more or less emphasis in particular marriages, and at different times within articular marriage, but none of which are a sine qua non.

David B

13 June 2012 at 07:38  
Blogger David B said...

@ Naomi King

If you want to believe that Genesis is literally true, or divinely inspired or whatever, then that is up to you.

If you want your marriage to reflect Christian values, then that is also up to you.

Let us not forget that Biblical views of marriage have been used to forbid divorce, to justify rape in marriage and wife beating....

Biblical views on marriage are all very well for believers, but my view is that it is profoundly wrong for them to be imposed on society as a whole.

David B

13 June 2012 at 07:56  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Betty has form in this area already,signing treaties against the welfare of the English people,and since all of these issues are the agenda of her own private nwo club,she will sign.This is much the same as russians starving under stalin,all were convinced that if only uncle joe knew what was going on,he would move to prevent any further theft of thier harvests,when in fact ,he was responsible for the policy in the first place,do not let this traitor decieve you,the six treaties ,this, and the destruction of our society are her goals,why give a thought about England ,when you can control the entire world.

13 June 2012 at 08:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Oswin

Writing reports and defending our glorious faith at Conservative Home.

13 June 2012 at 08:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Mr Integrity stated (12 June at 18.31) ‘but if his [Cromwell’s] Parliament had continued, there would be no monarchy today.’

Thanks to the parliamentary forces the monarchy’s doctrine of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ has been terminated.

Thanks to the Christians of the 17th century the doctrine of ‘sovereign immunity’ has been breached and mass murderers can be tried in the Hague.

What was Milosevic's defence at his trial for war crimes? ‘By what authority do you try me?’

What was King Charles I’s defence? ‘By what authority do you try me?’

Thanks to Christians we have the doctrine of Habeas Corpus (where the ‘little man’ can command the powers of the State to ‘produce the body’).

Thanks to Lord Cromwell who readmitted the Jews to this country in 1656 – for salvation is from the Jews.

Thanks to Christians who in 1215 wrote Magna Carta (the great Charter of England) the following articles still cited in modern American case law:

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Thanks to Winston S. Churchill for driving the establishment of the Jewish state, Israel: 1948.

The battle for this nation’s soul has, this day, fallen upon this generation’s shoulders.

May the Lord our God crown our efforts with success.

13 June 2012 at 09:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Peaceful Dude said...

Thank you carl.

Your comments are appreciated. However, I am a bird easily riled and more used to street fighting than verbal exchanges. If only I had wings that could fly; no words would be necessary. I could silently express my views about my opponents with much greater and more immediate impact.

13 June 2012 at 09:29  
Blogger Lex Ferenda said...

I'm all for gay marriage. Why shouldn't they suffer like the rest of us?

13 June 2012 at 09:43  
Blogger Chauntrye Pryste said...

HM's Coronation Oath was broken at the moment the CofE abandoned an all male clergy.
History is always a problem to revolutionaries-that's why they try to suppress it.
Thus "equality" now means "everybody doing the same things" and uncomfortable facts in history have to be discarded.
"any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, [was]ever allowed to remain on record" Orwell 1984

13 June 2012 at 11:17  
Blogger Naomi King said...

David

Yes I do believe the Holy Bible is true and that Jesus Christ, as our Messiah, is the TRUTH and that he affords the only way to salvation.

13 June 2012 at 11:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 June 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger David B said...

@Naomi

Believe as you see fit by all means.

And by all means do not have a gay marriage, by all means refuse to attend or privately recognise as a marriage such ceremonies undertaken by divorcees, gay people or whatever, whether they be friends, sons or daughters, nieces or nephews.

But, as I would also say to someone campaigning for sharia law, please do not seek to impose your beliefs on people who think you mistaken.

David B

13 June 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

But, as I would also say to someone campaigning for sharia law, please do not seek to impose your beliefs on people who think you mistaken.

Your argument appears to be that marriage is a private matter so gay marriage is of no concern to anyone else. This is very confused. Marriage just is a public institution, it is a public recognition of something (though what it is a recognition of will be unclear to you in view of the fact that you cannot provide a sine qua non for it).

This is why the Government argument that they won't be imposing gay marriage on the churches is confused even if their position isn't defeated in the courts. Underlying it is a confusion between a wedding service and a marriage.

For these reasons, those who are pro gay "marriage" are not able to help themselves to arguments about equality or liberality.

13 June 2012 at 16:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Albert, you ole Son of a Gun. Welcome back!

13 June 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you Dodo. I am not sure that I am back. I came to the conclusion that I spent too much time blogging and that most (or even all of it) is entirely fruitless.

For the most part, no one on the internet changes his mind (including myself) and at best all one does is get the opportunity to develop one's arguments!

13 June 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. Halfway in planning a memorial service for you. Bought the wreath, and some bricks for the coffin...

This man had a change of heart over Israel. Now completely neutral on the subject, a “don’t know” thanks to this site...

13 June 2012 at 19:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Albert

I have to say I have found many of your posts very helpful in claryfying and afirming my faith.

13 June 2012 at 19:15  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Albert, Very nice to see you back but yes I agree that a lot of time can be spent on the internet. That said, lot's of people read blogsso maybe some seed is falling on good soil.

I would also agree with David B on the imperative of rejecting Sharia law. However the point about not imposing beliefs is difficult to avoid. This whole blog is about certain people imposing an ethic on the society of which I am a part. So far it has forced me to subsidize abortions, and basket case nations like Pakistan. Jesus said we cannot serve two masters and your argument only benefits those who are atheist. No position is neutral. Whatever become law, imposes restrictions on others. Jesus said you cannot serve two master so it is better to find out the best one and go with that. It's better than the draconian measure that were part and parcel of Communism and Islam and better than forcing Christian to deny their beliefs.

13 June 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you all. Shacklefree you hit the nail on the head with your remarks about neutrality.

All the evidence is that very few homosexuals want marriage - very few actually get married where it is allowed. The purpose of gay "marriage" is precisely to gain legal recognition of their unions and to be able to require that recognition of others. It is fundamentally a matter of having an instrument by which to coerce people to submit to their will.

In saying this, I am referring not to homosexuals per se but to people who are campaigning for it. That this isn't a matter of equality is evident from sources as diverse as the ECHR through to Stonewall themselves, who have only been supporting gay marriage for less than 2 years! Yet suddenly we are all expected to fall into line with them.

Obviously it is a matter of will and coercion not of reason and equality.

13 June 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger Oswin said...

Cressida @ 04:19 : my magnifying glass proved little better...I considered using my jewelers' loupe, but thought it undignified.

Curses; to be so hidebound!

14 June 2012 at 02:48  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

OK Oswin ...just for you for old times sake.

Right click photo.. click Copy to Desktop


Go to Desktop.. right click Paste

This should bring the photo on to your Desktop .

Click on the photo and this should zoom it to larger.

Then you can tell me what the tattoo says:)

14 June 2012 at 03:12  
Blogger gentlemind said...

David B said @ gentlemind, who said

"So the next question is "What then is the purpose of marriage?" I think you will have difficulty answering that question."

I do have difficulty in answering that, because I think the question leading and poorly framed.

It implies that there is one single purpose of marriage, while to my mind the reality of the situation is that there are a number of purposes of marriage, some of which will have more or less emphasis in particular marriages, and at different times within articular marriage, but none of which are a sine qua non.

If a swimming pool doesn't have walls, there is no swimming pool. Your nebulous vision of marriage has to be condensed into a solid legal definition. I would again suggest that as soon as you change the definition...the walls disappear. Have a try?

14 June 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Gentlemind,

A very good point. The trouble is that they know full well that they are actually replacing and imposing a new (and inadequate) definition of marriage. As far as liberalism and tolerance go, they are wolves in sheeps' clothing.

14 June 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Albert and Gentlemind

Truly admirable contributions.

Thank you for permitting me to see a little further.

14 June 2012 at 15:34  
Blogger Oswin said...

Cressida: not able to 'right click' on my scrivening-glass. Will try it later, on my 'witch-ball' ...

14 June 2012 at 16:18  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Oswin, you must become more technologically au fait with the modern world. Toss out the pocket watch,monocle and the snuff box.

14 June 2012 at 17:00  
Blogger William said...

Albert 13 June 2012 22:10

That is spot on. One can but hope and pray that this becomes more and more apparent to the wider public as soon as possible.

14 June 2012 at 17:03  
Blogger len said...

Cressida I am beginning to think you are Dodo`s alter ego?.Perhaps his feminine side?.

Forgive me if I am wrong.... I know this could be taken as an insult.

14 June 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger len said...

Welcome back Mr Singh, once more into the fray. And Albert welcome back, I hope your cutlass is finely honed and your powder dry?.

14 June 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

LOL...len, Dodo and I have a Catholic background in common but as you know I am at odds with the magesterium on a few issues that will never be resolved which means I have been excommunicated from the Church in that I am disallowed from receiving the sacraments.

Also my mode of expression is far more restrained. I do forgive you and your provocative remark . I wonder what has motivated this.I do tend to support anyone who is being targetted as you well know.
I have done this for you and you also have done this for me in the past. I support Dodo on some Catholic issues and I do wish some sort of peaceful discourse could be entered into between the two of you.I suppose rather than being his feminine side I could be his feminine side kick. All this enmity
does not achieve anything.

14 June 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you Len.

14 June 2012 at 21:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida
What does a "feminine side kick" do? Before agreeing to this arrangement, I need to understand what it entails.

15 June 2012 at 00:19  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

It entails giving you a swift kick in the pants when you become obstreperous!

15 June 2012 at 04:35  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Thank you len. It's good to read the posts here - many really do have razor sharp intellects.

15 June 2012 at 07:43  
Blogger What's in a Name? said...

About 24 years ago, I was present at a meeting in London when Clifford Hill, widely accepted as a prophetic voice in Britain, symbolically tore off his clerical collar, saying that the Lord would tear the Church of England from her position of established authority if she continued down the road of disobedience to the Word of God. This present crisis brought this event back to my mind with some force.
If the C of E is disestablished (and has not the Prince of Wales said that he wishes to be known as 'Defender of Faiths' when (and if) he becomes King - who knows what the Duke of Cambridge thinks about such matters) then it would truly be judgement beginning at the house of God.
Personally, I have a great deal of time for George Fox and don't hold with Old Covenant traditions like religious buildings, rituals, vestments, smells and bells, denominations, ordained popes, priests and pastors, (such things are worldly, natural and carnal).
The Body of Christ is at her spiritual strongest when she isn't shackled by state control and while I believe that persecution will increase greatly as a result of a disestablishment, the purging would do the true Body of Christ a great deal of good.

15 June 2012 at 09:33  
Blogger Nick said...

It sickens me that all this fuss is just because of a noisy group of undeserving individuals have managed to manipulate the politicians. I can think of much more deserving groups who don't squeal like tetchy children when they want something.

Cameron risks more than forcing Her Majesty to break her Oath. He risks fracturing society. He also threatens the right of all religious groups in the UK to practice their religion without interference. That may of course be the gay lobby other agenda. How dare they call us bigots!

15 June 2012 at 11:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida

Metaphorical? Besides, I am never obstreperous.

15 June 2012 at 18:56  
Blogger len said...

Whats in a name?.

I am rather inclined to agree with you.(comment 15 June 2012 09:33)

The Church decided to compromise with the State and suffered its greatest tragedy under Constantine.This led to the corruption of the Gospel.
Whenever the'Church' becomes involved with the State corruption ensues.
The Church is not of this World and cannot conform to Worldly values and morals the Church must stand alone if necessary!.

The Catholic Church became corrupted Centuries ago, the corruption of the Anglican Church is an ongoing thing,many of the Protestant Churches have become obsessed by' prosperity teachers'and seem to worship Mammon instead of the God of the Bible.

I believe the Great Apostasy is well under way in the' established Church' and many will fall away under deceptive teachings.

Its not all 'doom and gloom' however because the Gospel is advancing rapidly in communist Countries and everywhere where the Holy Spirit is accepted and allowed to work unrestricted by the rules and regulation of' religious practices'.

Unless the Church repents and gets back to Biblical Christianity then secularists will trample it underfoot.

The 'letters to the Churches' in Revelation spell this out quite clearly!.

16 June 2012 at 09:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

lp len

Why do you doubt the words of Christ?

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The powers of darkness, Satan and his agents will never be able to bring down the Church He established!

The Catholic Church has been through its trials, God knows you remind us and boast about them often enough. However, Christ likened the Apostolic Church to a house built on a rock.

All the efforts of Hell will never be able to prevail over the Church of Christ.

By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error or practice whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Catholic Church of Christ.

16 June 2012 at 14:28  
Blogger len said...

Dodo you are Centuries too late!.

'That ship' left a long time ago.

Can you really not see that your religion is a corruption of the 'real thing'?.

If that IS the case I sincerely feel sorry for you because you truly are without hope.

All you have is the hollow words and false the promises of the Catholic religious system(surely corrupt religions are a master stroke of the enemy of God.)

16 June 2012 at 15:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

lp len

So you don't trust the words of Christ?

The Catholic Church today stands as a beckon guiding men on the true path. Alone in the West it is consistent and clear on the great moral and social issues of our time. This did not happen by 'chance'.

You clearly do not understand the Bible if you believe God's Church would have a sinless and trouble free history.

16 June 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger len said...

Dodo

Jesus said Christians would suffer persecution. But who could have guessed it would come from within the Catholic religious system?.

A sinless Church would be too much to hope for in this fallen World but come of it Dodo have you seriously looked at the heresies the Catholic church has 'added 'to the Gospel.

16 June 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger len said...

The Words of Christ have been manipulated into the' Catholic version' of the gospel.

No one outside of Catholicism believes that Jesus gave Peter the authority to start the' Catholic religious system'.

The' twisting of the Word' betrays the author of deception.

16 June 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Now there's a truism little pope len!

If the had accepted the words of Christ in the Gospel, had faith and stayed true to the Church, joining those who reformed it from within, they would be Catholic.

You silly boy!

16 June 2012 at 23:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older