Wednesday, June 13, 2012

UKIP submission on gay marriage 'consultation'

UKIP today submitted its response to the Government's 'consultation' on plans to legislate for same-sex marriage. Despite the philosophical tensions (see here), UKIP oppose this legislation because 'they believe that contrary to the hype it is illiberal legislation that threatens rather than enhances civil liberties'. The submission is reproduced below, but in summary UKIP believes:
...that The State should play only a minimal role in the lives of the people of the United Kingdom; more particularly, given the scope of this consultation, in the lives of the people of England and Wales. As such we support the concept of civil partnerships. Civil partnerships represent an entirely common sense way of allowing gay men and women in our country to register in a formal way their long-term commitment to one another and to take advantage of various laws relating to, for example, succession and financial planning in the same way as heterosexual couples.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: "This consultation is merely gift wrapping (as the Government has clearly already made up its mind) and risks - due to both domestic and European Human Rights legislation - forcing religious groups into a situation were, by law, they must do that which they have a legitimate and moral right to oppose. That a Government Justice Minister, Crispin Blunt, himself gay, admitted to this merely strengthens our point. To that end, we in UKIP oppose the imposition of 'gay Marriage' as, rather than a confirmation of liberty and equality, it will instead be an imposition and a threat to those ideals."

So, as outraged gay UKIPpers flock back to the Conservative, Labour and LibDem parties(...), appalled at the bigoted homophobia of Nigel Farage, the hetero-traditionalists now have an alternative home.

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY SUBMISSION ON HOME OFFICE EQUAL CIVIL MARRIAGE CONSULTATION

The UK Independence Party Policy

The UK Independence Party's position on this issue may be stated simply: while UKIP fully supports the concept of civil partnerships, it opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage.

As a democratic libertarian Party, we believe that The State should play only a minimal role in the lives of the people of the United Kingdom; more particularly, given the scope of this consultation, in the lives of the people of England and Wales. As such we support the concept of civil partnerships. Civil partnerships represent an entirely common sense way of allowing gay men and women in our country to register in a formal way their long-term commitment to one another and to take advantage of various laws relating to, for example, succession and financial planning in the same way as heterosexual couples.

Civil partnerships in no way impinge upon the lives, beliefs, conscience and faith of other people. And the experience of our nation since the introduction of civil partnerships has been one of tolerant acceptance of them as a sensible way forward in adapting our society to meet changed attitudes of the 21st. century.

The UK Independence Party has many in its ranks who are gay men or women who have, without fuss or ostentation, taken advantage of the new arrangements. As a libertarian party, we are entirely at ease with their choice and wish all of them well.

Gay marriage is an entirely different thing altogether.

The Consultation paper states that in respect of four categories of marriage no changes to the law are proposed. These are:

1. A marriage according to the rites of the Church of England or Church in Wales;

2. A marriage according to the usages of the Society of Friends (the Quakers);

3. A marriage according to the usages of the Jewish religion;

A marriage conducted by some other Faith in a registered building in the presence of an authorised person (a marriage conducted through a religious ceremony and on registered religious premises).

On the other hand changes are proposed for the following categories:

1. A marriage in a register office conducted by a superintendent registrar and registered by a registrar. This ceremony cannot contain any religious elements e.g. hymns (it is proposed that this is open to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples).

2. A marriage on approved premises (e.g. a hotel) conducted by a superintendent registrar and registered by a registrar. This ceremony also cannot contain any religious elements e.g. hymns (it is proposed that this is open to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples).

3. A marriage for the housebound or detained. There is also the facility for marriage by Registrar Generals licence for “death bed” marriages (it is proposed that this is open to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples).

It may well be that that is all that the Government are currently proposing.

But it is noticeable that the Consultation document is singularly bereft of any or any realistic attention as to what are very likely to be, in the circumstances set out above, the unintended consequences of introducing , to use a popular shorthand, gay civil marriage that is entirely on a par with heterosexual civil marriage.

There are many gay and lesbian people in England and Wales who are persons of deep religious faith. It is inevitable that some (though by no means all) such people would wish to have the right to have a religious marriage celebrated in a Church or other such place according to the rites and rituals of their particular religion.

The problem is that many Churches are very strongly opposed, by reason of their religious faith, principles and conviction, deeply opposed to the concept of permitting gay couples to marry in their Church. It is thus equally inevitable that gay couples will seek the right to marry in Church and inevitable that Churches will refuse to permit them to do so.

We are quite sure that, whatever the Government's worthy declaration that it proposes no change to the duties of the Church in relation to the estate of marriage, there will,very soon after the introduction of gay civil marriage, be a challenge in first the domestic courts of England and Wales and then in the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the exclusion of gay people from the right to have a religious ceremony of marriage is unlawful discrimination against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

We believe that, given the current nature of the European Court of Human Rights' attitude to such matters, there is a very strong likelihood that the Court at Strasbourg will agree that it is an unlawful discrimination on those grounds and order the United Kingdom to introduce laws which will force Churches to marry gay people according to their rites, rituals and customs.

We are also sure that, if that were to take place, the Government would swiftly bend the knee to such a ruling and introduce such legislation.

If that happens and Churches were forced to marry gay people, it will be no more and no less than a wicked piece of tyranny by which the rights of hundreds of thousands of people of faith who hold true to the fundamental tenets of their religion will be ruthlessly trampled upon.

If that were to happen, it would by itself be a breach of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which says:

ARTICLE 9

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The intention of the Government to legislate to introduce civil same-sex marriage presents a very high risk of Churches and Faiths being forced to marry gay people. Their right to manifest their religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance will be struck down at the Altar of Equality.

It cannot be that legislating for religious gay marriage could be justified under Article 9.2 but we strongly fear - as do most of the Churches and Faiths of our country that, whatever the intentions of the Government are in this regard, such will be forced on them by the Strasbourg Court - a court which has a well-established track record of forcing the United Kingdom to adopt positions, such as votes for prisoners, which are anathema to our people. We believe that this case will be no different.

We believe that the Government must not take this step to far and risk the grave harm of undermining the rights of Churches and Faiths to decide for themselves who they will and will not marry.

We make a number of further observations.

Firstly that, however they may have dressed it up, this is not a consultation at all. The Consultation document makes it plain that the Government has made up its mind to legislate for same-sex civil marriage regardless of any dissenting views. This is thus an entirely bogus exercise. We suspect very strongly that it is intended as a distraction from the grave difficulties that the Government currently finds itself on a series of fronts such as the economy and Europe.

Secondly, we strongly suspect that the sudden desire of the Government to "consult" upon the matter of same-sex civil marriage is entirely driven by the fear that a case lodged in the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the UK's laws on marriage and civil partnerships are discriminatory of gay people and heterosexuals respectively[1] will lead to those laws being declared to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is, thus, a strong fear that the case will go against the UK and that the Government will suffer serious political damage when it is seen to be forced to act to change the law at the behest of the Strasbourg Court.

Given the current difficulties that the Government faces over such issues as votes for prisoners, it has concluded, we believe, that it cannot in this instance yet again be seen to be forced to act by the Strasbourg Court and is thus unwilling to take the political hit attendant upon that event.

Thirdly we must express our deep concern that, were Churches and Faiths to be forced to accept having to marry gay couples, that would, in the case of the Church of England, represent a threat to its position as the Established Church. The very act of having the Queen-in-Parliament pass laws that would utterly subvert the strongly-held beliefs of the Church of England would in turn risk destroying its position as The Established Church with her Majesty the Queen as its Supreme Governor.

We cannot believe that to risk doing that is in the interests of the United Kingdom.

Finally we pose this question: why now?

This is not a burning issue. It is not a matter which animates the daily social intercourse of our Nation. There is, apart from a small but noisy minority within the gay community, no strong demand for this. This is therefore not vital to the life and well-being of our Nation and, given the risks attendant upon it, should not be proceeded with.

60 Comments:

Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Can’t argue with any of that. A bit of common sense from the politicians. To think this man voted Conservative at a national level when he could have voted UKIP, that’s a real regret you know...

13 June 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"There is, apart from a small but noisy minority within the gay community, no strong demand for this."

Sums it up, really.

13 June 2012 at 19:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...and it’s the very types who wouldn’t consider marriage. Young, rampant, and too busy bumming around

13 June 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

heh heh. If this SSM goes through, so it will be taught in schools. Young lad comes home only to be ‘corrected’ by his parents about gay people. After all, they don’t want junior shacking up with an older queer type in the next few years. It looks like homophobia will be back where it primarily belongs. A discussion point in a heterosexual household, pointing out the sufferers on television programmes.

Forty five years of tolerance of homosexuality rolled back just like that. Interesting word, ‘tolerance’. It indicates two responsibilities. That of the tolerator to modify his attitude in response to the tolerated and that of the tolerated to avoid not making a nuisance of himself. Compromise really...

We’ll soon see what happens when one side abuses the arrangement...

13 June 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dad, that John Inman’s funny in that store, isn’t he ?

No son, he’s a poof. And it looks like he’s recently had his arse tapped by that grin on his face. Er, I am coming across at my most disapproving, aren’t I

’course you are dad

That’s my boy ! {PUSHES SHOULDERS BACK AND STOMACH IN – PATS SON ON HEAD}

13 June 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger The Stigler said...

"We believe that, given the current nature of the European Court of Human Rights' attitude to such matters, there is a very strong likelihood that the Court at Strasbourg will agree that it is an unlawful discrimination on those grounds and order the United Kingdom to introduce laws which will force Churches to marry gay people according to their rites, rituals and customs."

So, how come churches in the Netherlands have been allowed to discriminate for a decade?

If people object to gay marriage because it's against their pre-Enlightenment holy book then fine, but to declare it on libertarian grounds when the evidence says otherwise is clearly nonsense.

13 June 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Forgot to mention. It is the Inspector’s wish that the part of the father be first offered to Ray Winston...

13 June 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger Preacher said...

No Smoke & Mirrors with UKIP or Nigel Farage so it seems. How strange to see a politician who is not spinning like a Whirling Dervish, lying through his teeth & cosying up to anyone who might be useful.
I know where my vote is going next time there's an election.

Preacher.

13 June 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Well said Nigel and UKIP. And it's about time our weak government got some guts and stood up to Strasbourg with the two finger salute.

You know earlier I was sitting out watching and listening to the neighbours little children playing in their gardens, they are only about 7 or 8 and so lovely and innocent. Then I imagined that being taken away with the Terrence Higgins Trust homosexual education being thrust upon them and ruining their childhood.

Children have their own little ways of understanding why another child at school might have two daddies or two mummies, or a combination of three parents instead of a mother and a father. You don't have to corrupt their thoughts and minds from such an early age with sex education. They really don't think about sex at all. My friends niece enjoys dressing up and making cup cakes with her aunty, she is 9 and so timid and shy I couldn't imagine how she would cope with such sex education.

The “gay marriage” thing needs to be forgotten about. It's going against all common sense and reason as well as nature, and will make homosexuals really loathed again just as they and their place in society is genuinely becoming accepted. People like Ben Bradshaw and others like him do a lot more for promoting homosexuality as decent, respectable and as normal as it's ever going to be, than all these militant Stonewall Tatchell type bullies ever do in a lifetime. And as for the Terrence Higgins Trust, that outfit should be banned from going into schools.

The wider ramifications of “gay marriage” are too complex, deep, far and wide to be able to implement at Call me Dave's whim of trying to be a modern conservative. He is as shallow as a puddle.

13 June 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger Roy said...

There is a very nasty article by Simon Jenkins about the C of E and same-sex "marriage" in today's Guardian.

The marriage of church and state is anything but gay
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/12/marriage-church-state-gay-disestablish

"Anglicans emerge from this row looking absurdly pedantic. It's time to disestablish the Church of England."

He goes on to say "for a Christian sect to claim ownership of the legal definition of a human relationship is way out of order."

He is, of course, extremely dishonest because he knows that the Christian view that marriage is intrinsically heterosexual is one that has been common to all religions, all societies, all philosophies, all cultures and people since the dawn of history. He also implies, but does not have the courage to state it explicitly. that a politically correct clique can claim "ownership of the legal definition of a human relationship."

Furthermore he goes on to say "the church has been on the reactionary side in almost every political and social reform of the past two centuries. It opposed popular enfranchisement, secular schooling, easier divorce and legalised homosexuality."

I suppose even Simon Jenkins has heard of people such as Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, and William Booth.

As for the church and education both the C of E and non-conformist churches made a massive contribution to education in Britain both through the schools they established and through the work of Sunday schools.

In contrast, despite the enormous sums spent on education nowadays there is widespread dissatisfaction among employers with the standards of literacy and numeracy of school leavers. Our system of education is less rigorous than that of many Asian and eastern European countries, our prisons are full of people who are almost illiterate, and social mobility has stalled since the 1970s - and all because of fashionable educational theories of the kind espoused by the Guardian.

Yet, despite all the harm they have done the country in recent decades people like Simon Jenkins and other advocates of same-sex marriage like to pretend that they are reformers on a par with those who abolished slavery and that only a small group of reactionaries will disagree with them.

Perhaps UKIP will push the Liberals into fourth place at the next general election. Even fourth place would be more than they deserve. The only trouble is that neither the Conservative Party or the Labour Party deserves to win a general election. As Kissinger said at the time of the Iran-Iraw War, it is a pity they cannot both lose!

13 June 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dad, can we watch Gok Wan on the other side

No you bloody well can’t. I’m really annoyed at you for even suggesting it

Sorry Ray, er I mean Mr Winston, er I mean dad

Go to your room. Get out of my sight

13 June 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

A brilliant post, Mr Roy, that sums it up.

Oh that the Conservative Party were able to put out a rebuff to SSM such as UKIP has done. Sadly the Conservatives have been captured by the metropolitan elite and a great schism is opening between the party leadership and its former constituents.

The Conservatives have had their chance under Cameron, he's blown it, and the party deserve the fate of the 20th Century Liberal Party, consignment to oblivion.

13 June 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger useful in parts said...

this summary

http://bit.ly/K0X2k9

of the c of e press release and submission maybe useful

13 June 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger Robert Hagedorn said...

Sex with feces? Google First Scandal.

13 June 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

A modern take on the everyday interactions between children and their parents before all this 'free love' and 'human rights' and 'feminist' nonsense became so fashionable.

Days of innocence and stability when Noddy and Big Ears were unquestionably good friends, Batman was alpha male and TV channels were changed when unsuitable programmes were shown.

Homosexuals were just not discussed and voices were always lowered in front of the children. They were tolerated, as you so astutely observed, on the understanding they kept their personal, distasteful habits private.

I recall my first swear word in front of my father - "bollocks". Cassius Clay had just knocked down Henry Cooper.

He clipped me smartly across the ear.

"Not a word we say in this house, boy. Keep it for the gym."

"Yes Dad."

"If such words could be said in front of the ladies son, there are better ones to use"

Happy days!

13 June 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Dodo,
You can't leave out Bill and Ben the flower pot men and Andy Pandy.
In those times they would all have a gay day.

13 June 2012 at 23:44  
Blogger Owl said...

An excellent article YG. Thank you.

13 June 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Integrity

Indeed. And, paradoxically, boys could enjoy Andy Pandy and Loobie Loo without feeling self consciouse or sensing it wasn't permitted. Calamity Jane was sexy as a 'tom boy' but all woman, and Jane Fonda, well, we'll say no more ....

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

And we could laugh with Frankie Howard and Charlie Chaplin knowing they were 'different' somehow yet it was not an issue. They were just funny. (Well, I personally didn't think so but youknow what I mean).

14 June 2012 at 00:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

That should have been Charlie ("'ello my darlings") Drake!

14 June 2012 at 00:34  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

As I have stated many times in the past this is undoubtedly an attack of Christianity, but on a far more dangerous and fundamental level it is an attack on PROPERTY RIGHTS.

The state does not own the Anglican church, neither does it own your local pub. Once it is accepted that an otherwise perfectly legal act smoking for example can be banned under law on private premisses, all kinds of extremely nasty worms will soon enough be let out of the can.

The right to discriminate on whatever ground an individual wishes is a fundamental human right, which in common with all other fundamental human rights costs absolutely nothing at all, and without which we become nothing other then robotically obedient slaves to our ever more despotic hierarchy.

The CofE should, but undoubtedly will not do anything of the kind, politely tell the government to sod off.

It is a great pity our publicans have not so far collectively done so, for if they had, half of them would not have closed down by now, and our churches would not also be condemned to suffering a very similar fate.

It would appear to be ever more obvious that our very own establishment is committed to the destruction of our once reasonably cohesive society, working on the maxim, that if it works, utterly DESTROY it as soon as it becomes practically possible to do so.

If not, destroy it a little bit at a time, so that few enough notice its eventual passing into history. then change the history books, so that it may as well not have existed in the first place

Fabianism = inflicting murderously despotic MARXISM on the entire globe, one small step at a time.

14 June 2012 at 00:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Atlas

I agree there are forces at work but they are not human. There is no coordinated, orchastrated situation here. Our elites are as confused as the rest of us as the capitalist economic system and hedonistic, secular and godless social structure collapses around us.

Who knows how long this phase will last in human history and whether we will ever recover? It is in Our Maker's Hands.

14 June 2012 at 00:49  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Dear Dodo.

Please read my above comments, and hang your head in shame.

For it is clear that you have no idea what a human right actually is.

A human right is COST FREE, if something is claimed to be a Human right but actually cost anything at all it is very likely to be simply a form of Orwellian double speak.

A human right is also defined by its absolute inability to adversely affect any other human right.

If whatever it actually is, fails on either count then pay very careful attention, for the next human right on the establishments to-go list is likely to be your very own right to materially exist at all.

In other words, the human right not to be quite literally murdered or culled using any and all means available, by your own hierarchy or government.

14 June 2012 at 01:00  
Blogger Fausty said...

Your Grace,

Interesting possibilities appear to be emerging - such as an alliance between the CofE and UKIP.

Were that to occur, wouldn't the LibLabCon culture destroyers go after both with a vengeance!

Isn't it time for UKIP and the CofE to to devise a mutually benefical strategy to defeat these subversive elements which have taken control of our government?

14 June 2012 at 01:23  
Blogger Oswin said...

Well, that's all fair and reasonable. Well done UKIP.

14 June 2012 at 02:03  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace

UKIP declared for the side of right and righteousness early on in this argument. I am delighted to read their Consultation Submission, thank you for posting it.

God bless
Naomi

14 June 2012 at 05:40  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Oh, and a very well done for your work in defence of Marriage Classic in a largely depraved, immoral and Godless political sphere.

14 June 2012 at 06:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...

“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.”
2 Corinthians 10:5.

14 June 2012 at 06:04  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Go Nigel! :D

14 June 2012 at 07:07  
Blogger IanCad said...

A completely reasonable position that all Conservatives should endorse.
I have not followed this debate minutely and have always assumed that there was nothing in the proposed legislation that would compel any church (Even the CofE) to conduct Homo marriages if such an act would conflict with their beliefs.
Have I got this wrong?

14 June 2012 at 07:52  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The Queen as Defender of the Faith could not countenance anything that was not for the Glory of Jesus Christ!

Homo "marriage" is most certainly not for the Glory of Jesus Christ.

14 June 2012 at 08:13  
Blogger Flossie said...

I particularly liked 'If that happens and Churches were forced to marry gay people, it will be no more and no less than a wicked piece of tyranny by which the rights of hundreds of thousands of people of faith who hold true to the fundamental tenets of their religion will be ruthlessly trampled upon.'

David Cameron, Theresa May and Lynne Featherstone, please note.

I also hope that 'the enemy within' such as the appalling Giles Fraser and certain of our Bishops who appear to have forgotten the vows made at their consecration are taking note of the phrase 'thousands of people of faith who HOLD TRUE to the fundamental tenets of their religion ...

Something seems to have woken a lot of people up, though. The C4M petition has been gathering pace over the last couple of days. It will soon have reached 560,000.

14 June 2012 at 09:12  
Blogger Flossie said...

Ian Cad, I think you need to read the C of E's submission:

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1475149/s-s%20marriage.pdf

14 June 2012 at 09:48  
Blogger Roy said...

There is one thing in this and similar documents that I do not like. That is talk along the lines of if the government forces churches to conduct same-sex "marriages" ...

Can you imagine any of the original Apostles or any early Christians saying "I'm afraid we will have to change our doctrine because Nero has passed a law saying that he is a god?" The Jews under Roman occupation did not accept that either.

Can you imagine Martin Luther or any of the reformers in Britain, or the Wesleys or General Booth of the Salvation Army, or any of the great Christian leaders of recent centuries saying we are going to have to conduct same-sex marriages in our churches because the government is going to alter the law!?

Why then don't our present-day leaders say we will obey God, not men?

14 June 2012 at 10:00  
Blogger Hereward said...

I also hope that 'the enemy within' such as the appalling Giles Fraser and certain of our Bishops who appear to have forgotten the vows made at their consecration are taking note of the phrase 'thousands of people of faith who HOLD TRUE to the fundamental tenets of their religion ...

Well said Flossie. The CofE is going to have to make a far reaching choice if it is to avoid schism or degenerating into apostasy.

Unity or Fidelity that is the question.

Will it compromise doctrine to keep the peace or remain true to God's word and maintain a faithful witness whatever the cost. Trying to find a "middle way" on matters "gay" is a fudge that will never work.

14 June 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger IanCad said...

Flossie,
Thanks so much for the link. When time permits I shall read it in detail.
I did briefly speed scan the paper and in paragraph thirty seven this statement was made:
"There are religious bodies which have said that they are ready and willing to solemnize same-sex marriages."
Who are these "religious bodies"?
I don't doubt that they exist but for clarity I wish they were defined.

14 June 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger Flossie said...

IanCad, Unitarians already marry gay couples (or at least they do in the US where it is legal)and will do so here. Quakers also, and some other nonconformist denominations.

14 June 2012 at 11:51  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Roy said:

"Can you imagine any of the original Apostles or any early Christians saying "I'm afraid we will have to change our doctrine because Nero has passed a law saying that he is a god?""

Some of them did, Roy. They were known as Traditores, because they handed over to Diocletian's officials both their Christian Holy Books and their more recalcitrant fellow Christians - hence our word 'traitor'.

Later, there was a great controversy within the Church because some Christians, the Donatists, refused to accept that former Traditores could be accepted back into the Church as Bishops or Priests, with St. Augustine arguing that they could because no sin was too great for God to forgive, and because their effectiveness as Bishops and Priests depended not on their spotless characters but their Catholic orders.

Those today who refuse to accept the ministry of Bishops and Priests with liberal views on homosexuality are often called latter-day Donatists.

Funny how history repeats itself.

14 June 2012 at 12:19  
Blogger Nick said...

Marie1797, I'm glad you mentioned the issue of children. This has not been raised at all by supporters of gay marriage during this debate. You would expect a responsible government to carry out studies first and put systems in place to monitor the welfare of children of gay parents. But of course they won't because that would be discriminatory and homophobic, so the government attitude is "tough luck kids". There are several studies indicating the problems children of gay parents experience, just google it to find out.

There clearly has been little real debate on this issue, other than the pro-gay propaganda and vitriolic name-calling seen on the BBC and Channel 4 news. The typical line of "argument" used by the gay lobby is "It's going to happen, shut up, and you're a bigot/homophobe, etc.." No wonder the television haven't bothered to try and conduct a debate. with such profoundly intellectual, reasoned, and balanced arguments as these.

14 June 2012 at 13:49  
Blogger Anglican said...

I believe that Flossie (if it's the same Flossie) drew attention on another blog to the following:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/06/13/coming-soon-to-a-website-near-you/

14 June 2012 at 13:57  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Flossie said...
I particularly liked 'If that happens and Churches were forced to marry gay people, it will be no more and no less than a wicked piece of tyranny by which the rights of hundreds of thousands of people of faith who hold true to the fundamental tenets of their religion will be ruthlessly trampled upon.'

Quite right but surely it should say "millions" of people who hold true to the fundamental tenets of their religion.

14 June 2012 at 14:31  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"The UK Independence Party has many in its ranks who are gay men or women who have, without fuss or ostentation, taken advantage of the new arrangements."
That depends on what you mean by "many".

14 June 2012 at 14:34  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Flossie said...
I particularly liked 'If that happens and Churches were forced to marry gay people, it will be no more and no less than a wicked piece of tyranny by which the rights of hundreds of thousands of people of faith who hold true to the fundamental tenets of their religion will be ruthlessly trampled upon.'

Quite right but surely it should say "millions" of people who hold true to the fundamental tenets of their religion.

14 June 2012 at 14:36  
Blogger Nick said...

In the Netherlands, about 1% of gays get "married". So, not exactly a great demand for it.

14 June 2012 at 14:38  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Homosexual militants will settle for nothing less than the complete and total silencing of all opposition.

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/06/13/coming-soon-to-a-website-near-you/

Coming Soon To a Website Near You
If I have said it once, I have said it a zillion times: the homosexual militants will settle for nothing less than the complete and total silencing of all opposition. They will not stand for even one contrary voice, and they are working overtime to ensure every single voice raised against them is forever banished.

Thus these militants are amongst the most totalitarian, fascist and anti-democratic folks you will ever be unfortunate enough to encounter. They are bent on completely stifling any debate, and in making sure alterative opinions on this matter are never heard.

Consider what has happened here. This is shocking news. Behold the power of the homosexual militants to completely shut down entire websites. Check out what happens when you click on this link:www.massresistance.org/

You will not get the site you are looking for. Instead you will get the following bleak announcement: “The MassResistance website was suddenly taken off the Internet on Monday afternoon. Homosexual activists threatened our Internet hosting company and unfortunately the company capitulated. More information on that coming soon.”

Wow. Nazi Germany would be proud as punch about something like this. The gaystapo are on the march, and they will not rest until all individuals, groups, sites, books, magazines and so on are gathered up and burned in the streets. This is war folks.

Massresistance has been an absolute tower of strength in these wars. Ever since the American state of Massachusetts legalised homosexual marriage on May 17, 2004, all hell has broken loose. Freedoms of ordinary citizens have been stripped away at a frightening pace.

Thus massrersistance was set up to monitor this war against faith, family and freedom, and to offer resistance. It has been so successful that the homonazis have once again bullied and intimidated everyone in their path. Now they have badgered this ISP so severely that they have caved in and taken the site down.

While the militant thugs are salivating over this, it is just another blow struck against freedom and democracy. Right now this website no longer exists. So who will be next? My website could well be down the next time you look. And I have been warning about this for years now.

Continued...

14 June 2012 at 14:40  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Continued from previous

So don’t say you haven’t been warned. In the meantime, it is hoped that massresistance will get up again on another server. Until then, it is a very good thing I had copied some of their invaluable information previously. So now in the interests of showing solidarity with our pro-family, pro-freedom and pro-faith friends in Massachusetts, and in the interests of getting truth out into the public arena – before it is too late – I repost something of their material I have earlier posted:

One concerned father, Brian Camenker, was so appalled by all this that he wrote up the very real results. While his entire article deserves careful reading, I here offer large slabs of it. This is vitally important information which everyone needs to be aware of. Here is what this concerned Massachusetts father has to say about how the public schools have been impacted by all this:

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning. On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision. At my own children’s high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, `Give me a break. It’s legal now,’” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

14 June 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe! In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state. It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.

Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

14 June 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger Naomi King said...

He also examines how business has been adversely affected by all this:
-All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc. Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.
-The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
-Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce “marriage equality”.

After examining a number of other key areas which have been impacted by this, he concludes with these words: Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun. It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You’ve been forewarned.

And to the rest of the world: you’ve been forewarned.

www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/12/10/same-sex-marriage-who-says-nothing-will-change/

14 June 2012 at 14:45  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Shocking isn't it ?

14 June 2012 at 14:45  
Blogger Nick said...

No wonder politicians and the media are so frightened of the gay community.

Just as communism was intended to liberate the masses, but ended up causing some of the worst oppression the world has seen, so too with "Equality".

When Man tries to do better than God, we usually end up with a man-made abomination

14 June 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger Nick said...

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”


[Joseph Goebbels]

14 June 2012 at 16:04  
Blogger Elwin Daniels said...

Nigel gets it. Mqkes me proud to be a UKIP party member and voter.

14 June 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Wow ! Nick said...
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
@16:04

And the Devil is the author of all lies !

14 June 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Soon to be breaking news To be read in the style of a 1930s American newsreel commentator

It’s official, it’s back. After SSM is put on the National Curriculum along with all things aggressively gay, homophobia makes a welcome return to the nation’s living rooms. All over the UK, gay television celebrities are being scorned by fathers, and indeed, sometimes mothers as they desperately battle to keep their children above the line of decency. Heterosexual parents are making sure their Johnny and Jenny will one day make them grandparents, not pitiful sexual deviants ruing the day they were born, and regretting the time and expense wasted on raising them. One disappointed mother said “My son is a poof, and he’s always ill. I now wish we’d just had dogs instead”.

Meanwhile gay organisations are outraged. “We are outraged” said one. Another said “It’s outrageous”. A third spoke to us in dept. Their spokesman Danny said “Homophobia is so homophobic and hateful. Can you hold for a second, I’ve got a list of similar approved whining words somewhere. It’s also not fair. If fast food giants and manufacturers of fizzy pop are allowed to make the nation’s children fat and listless, then why can’t our somewhat secretive members be allowed to sexually predate the fit youth in this country.” In a forth gay organisation Jonathan said “We are going to the European Court of Human Rights over this. And we’ve massive amounts of government grants to pay for it too. By the time we’re finished, it will be illegal to be a parent !”

And finally, the last word to the man in the street. One said “You’re not one of those queers too are you. Now listen, we’ve had all were going to take from you lot. Leave families and their children alone. Get back to your clubs, and stay there. Quietly.”

14 June 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A long lost ‘son’ – homophobia - returns to the bosom of his heterosexual family…

I'm so alone, my love without you
You're part of everything I do
When you come back, and you're beside me
These are the words I'll say to you

Welcome home, welcome
Come on in, and close the door
You've been gone, too long
Welcome, you're home once more

I thought of all the things I'd say to you
When you come back to me someday
When you are here and we're together
With all my heart you'll hear me say…

14 June 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dad, with everything we’ve been taught at school about being gay, it being a valid lifestyle choice, and same sex marriage and the numerous ‘gonorrhoea awareness’ days it’s alright now isn’t it ?

What are you trying to tell me son

Well, I’ve met somebody. He’s a few years older than me but he has his own place, and I love him and he loves me and I’m moving in with him. His name is Danny

Well, I hope you and Danny are very happy together

Really Dad ! And to think I thought you would disapprove

Don’t get me wrong son, I just wanted our final words to be happy ones. Something you could remember your old dad by in the years to come. A memory to treasure if you will

You what ?

Now listen, you f__king disgrace. If you walk out that door and into this Danny’s, we are finished. Kaput. I never want to speak to you again, hear from you or even see you. Do I make myself perfectly clear. I will have no son. You will be dead to me.

Er. I’ll let Danny know it’s over then

Good lad, now sit down while your dad fetches you a beer. The football's on in five minutes

14 June 2012 at 18:19  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Office of Inspector General said...
"Heterosexual parents are making sure their Johnny and Jenny will one day make them grandparents,"

Quite so, this afternoon I was in the queue at the Post Office and two mothers about the age of 20 were discussing children. One said "I worry about my little brother aged 7 being a homosexual" and the other mother agreed she thought her child aged about 4 was homosexual ! This is absolutely true !

14 June 2012 at 20:44  
Blogger Naomi King said...

WEDNESDAY 13 JUNE 2012TEXT SIZE Churches step up campaign against gay marriage plan

Michael Settle
UK Political Editor
Scotsman
CHURCHES across Britain stepped up their campaign against gay marriage last night with Scotland for Marriage insisting the proposed exemption for priests and ministers, enabling them to refuse to solemnise same-sex ceremonies, was "completely worthless" because it would be successfully challenged in court on equality grounds.

The campaign, supported by among others the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Scotland and The Christian Institute, said legal opinion it had commissioned from leading QC Aidan O'Neill showed that equalising marriage would have a "draconian impact" on Scotland.

This would include:

l Priests and ministers being sued for refusing to allow gay marriages in their churches;

l workers facing the sack for opposing same-sex unions;

l schoolchildren being "forced to attend gay history lessons"; and

l couples being rejected as foster parents if they opposed the new equality legislation.

A campaign spokesman said: "This judgment lays bare Scottish Government promises of exemptions and protections for churches as completely worthless.

"This detailed legal analysis shows same-sex marriage is not about allowing same-sex couples to walk up the aisle as politicians and campaigners have wrongly claimed, it is about redefining society."

The campaign said Holyrood's proposed exemption allowing priests and ministers to refuse to hold a gay marriage would be worthless because the new law would become a "stepping stone for the gay rights lobby, using European human rights legislation, to eventually force the Government to capitulate and remove the clauses preventing the performance of the same-sex marriages by certain institutions or individuals".

The UK Government, which is also proposing an exemption for churches and other religious institutions, continued to insist yesterday that, according to its legal advice, "no Church of England minister should face a legal challenge" if they refused to solemnise a gay marriage.

However, Justice Minister Crispin Blunt conceded the aim of exempting religious groups from offering gay marriage might be "problematic legally".

Already, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of Catholics in Scotland, has lambasted the UK and Scottish governments for considering introducing gay civil marriage, saying it was a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

Yesterday, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales joined the Church of England in attacking the proposed equalisation of marriage.

Catholic bishops south of the Border described marriage as a "unique institution" whose distinguishing characteristics centred on the "biological complementarity" of men and women and the possibility of children.

A 500,000-strong petition opposing same-sex marriage was handed into Downing Street by the Coalition for Marriage.

Earlier, the Church of England warned legalising gay marriage could lead to it being forced out of its traditional role in wedding services and cause the biggest rupture with the state for 500 years. It even hinted the move could unravel its role as the established church.

Gay rights campaigners accused it of overreacting and of performing a "master-class in melodramatic scaremongering".

The controversial subject is set to become a political headache for Alex Salmond before it becomes one for David Cameron.

The Scottish Government's consultation, which received more than 50,000 responses, ended in December and the results are due to be published within a fortnight.

The UK Government's – which is thought to have attracted the biggest reaction ever to a public consultation with more than 100,000 responses – ends today with the results due before the end of the year.

14 June 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Reassurances are worthless.

The Homosexuals promised in 2005 that if they got civil partnerships they wouldn't want marriage. Well it didn't take them long to break that promise did it...

14 June 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger Naomi King said...

According to the Common Worship marriage service (derived from the Book of Common Prayer of 1662):

"The Bible teaches us that marriage is a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace, a holy mystery in which man and woman become one flesh. It is God's purpose that as husband and wife give themselves to each other in love throughout their lives, they shall be united in that love as Christ is united with his Church.

Marriage is given that husband and wife may comfort and help each other, living faithfully together in need and in plenty, in sorrow and in joy. It is given that with delight and tenderness they may know each other in love and through the joy of their bodily union may strengthen the union of their hearts and lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children may be born and nurtured in accordance with God's will, to his praise and glory.

In marriage husband and wife belong to one another and they begin a new life together in the community. It is a way of life that all should honour and it must not be undertaken carelessly, lightly or selfishly but reverently, responsibly and after serious thought.”

(Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Alternative Preface to the Marriage Service in Common Worship: Pastoral Services, p. 136).

So there we have it, the true and ONLY definition of marriage.

14 June 2012 at 21:04  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older