Tuesday, October 09, 2012

Policy Exchange: gay marriage, lies, and duplicity

It gives His Grace no pleasure at all to write this post: Policy Exchange is David Cameron's favourite think-tank, and has some outstanding minds doing some excellent work for the advancement of the conservative cause, especially in the fields of education and poverty alleviation. But having twice been fobbed off by their Head of Communications Nick Faith, it is important to combat misrepresentation and obfuscation with a little light and truth.

As reported yesterday, Anglican Mainstream had planned to debate the issue of gay/equal marriage at a fringe event at the Conservative Party Conference, using the Policy Exchange booklet ‘What’s In A Name?’ as the starting point. After a month of preparation and negotiation, at rather late notice (last week), Policy Exchange decided to pull the plug on the event, citing the inability of both sides to engage an MP to lead the arguments. His Grace wrote that this seemed a little unfair, because at no point was the participation of MPs an explicit pre-condition for this debate to take place, and members of Anglican Mainstream have lost in the region of £1000.

Bizarrely, Nick Faith tweeted: ‘Anglican Mainstream agreed to hold an event post conference so very bizarre allegation that we're not up for a debate’.

His Grace responded that a debate at the Conservative Party Conference was always the agreement, not a debate in general at some point. He also enquired as to when the 'no debate without MP' policy emerged.

Nick Faith didn't answer the question: he responded: ‘that's not the case. PX doesn't hold conf fringes without MPs. Happy to discuss if you want to call’.

His Grace was reluctant to call, not merely because he lacks a corporeal presence, but also because there is little point augmenting a he-said-she-said conflagration with further uncorroborated conversation. Mr Faith wrote: ‘why don't you give me a ring or email me. I'm in and out of fringe meetings all day’.

His Grace sent an email, but has heard nothing back. This is odd, considering that the immediacy of a phone conversation was twice requested.

So, here are the facts of the case:

On 4th September, Alan Craig of the Anglican Mainstream wrote to Neil O'Brien, Director of Policy Exchange:
...I write to ask if Policy Exchange would be willing to debate and defend your publication 'What's In A Name?' at a fringe meeting, impartially chaired and hosted by the Bow Group, at the Conservative Party conference next month.

...If you agree to such a fringe debate...

...I am aware Policy Exchange already has a large fringe programme at the Conservative conference. However, equal/gay marriage is a vital cultural and family issue, and we very much hope you and your colleagues will be up for publicly defending your analysis and proposals in front of attendees at this important and influential political conference.
On 6th September, David Skelton, Deputy Director and Head of Research at Policy Exchange, replied:
Many thanks for your invitation to a debate on equal marriage at the Conservative Party conference and for your feedback on our report.

In principle, I would be very happy to participate in the debate.
On 18th September, a meeting took place at the offices of Policy Exchange, with David Skelton and Nick Faith, chaired by Ben Harris-Quinney of The Bow Group. They thrashed out the details of the debate which included that (a) PX would ask Joey Jones, deputy political editor of Sky, to chair the debate and (b) both sides would try to find a Tory MP to lead for their side in the debate. It was also agreed that they would use Jury’s Inn – PX’s venue for fringe events at the Conservative Party conference.

In the event, unsurprisingly, both sides had difficulty finding Tory MPs who would put their heads above the gay-marriage parapet and debate against each other. On 28th September David Skelton emailed suggested holding a debate at Policy Exchange in the autumn, when MPs were more likely to be available.

Anglican Mainstream responded on the same day:
Hi David,

I reckon we should continue trying for MPs (I've currently got invitations out to three) and, if that fails, PE and AM just put up our own two speakers each.

We plan to leaflet conference attendees so hopefully there'll be adequate numbers in the audience - especially if we offer strong coffee for a spicy early morning debate! The issue itself will help draw people in.

It is evident (in bold) from this email audit trail, that Anglican Mainstream are wholly justified in their assertion that the plan was always to hold a fringe meeting during the Conservative Party Conference. For Nick Faith to assert that ‘Anglican Mainstream agreed to hold an event post conference’ is patently false. It may be the case post-cancellation that there are attempts to keep the possibility alive, but to conflate a subsequent agreement with the original plans is duplicitous and obfuscational. Indeed, Anglican Mainstream clearly initially rejected the proposal, and continued discussion with PX on such details as coffee supply and how the debate would be promoted.

Then, last Wednesday (3rd October), Nick Faith evidently phoned Alan Craig, who wrote to David Skelton: 
Hi David,

I understand from Nick that you are considering pulling the debate next week as there are no MPs who will lead it, and that you are willing to offer a debate at Policy Exchange later in the autumn.

May I request that the debate goes ahead? The evidence is there will be significant interest even at that early hour and we (and you) need to road-test our ideas with ordinary conservative punters and away from the hot-house of Westminster.

If you could supply another speaker to yourself (Robert Flint or Blair Gibbs?) we could have two from each side and have a useful informative debate - which will be available to the rest of the world through your video recording!
The message was reiterated the next day, when it was made clear to PX that publicity had already been printed and paid for; intensive work had been carried out in response to ‘What's in A Name?’; one person had even taken days off work; hotels had been booked and travel arrangements made; and that both sides might benefit from ‘robust road-testing’ of their views in front of ordinary Conservative Party members. The plea was: ‘For the sake of honest democratic debate, we reckon the event should go ahead.’

Later that day, Nick Faith wrote to confirm the cancellation of the debate ‘for logistical reasons’. He claimed that 'Policy Exchange do not hold conference events without MPs present', explaining: ‘This has been the rule we have acted on in recent years and is based on the demands such events place on our resources and the fact that MPs are really needed to make a conference event a success.’

You will note from all the preceding correspondence that at no point, even in the final phone discussions, did Policy Exchange say that MP participation was a condition of holding the debate. Moreover, it is abundantly evident that Policy Exchange do, in fact, hold conference events without MPs being present:

See also here, here, here and here.

So, it being evident – contra Nick Faith’s assertion – that this was always about a debate during the Conservative Party Conference. And it being evident – contra Nick Faith’s assertion – that Policy Exchange do hold conference events without MPs being present. And it being evident – indeed, manifest common sense – that Anglican Mainstream would not have forked out £1000 and arranged travel and hotel accommodation if, as Nick Faith asserts, they ‘agreed to hold an event post conference’, it is patent, reasonable and incontestable to conclude that Policy Exchange is being disingenuous.

Given that Policy Exchange conducted all their equal/gay-marriage research and compiled ‘What’s in a Name?’, the natural conversation partners would be those who have similarly researched this minefield: MPs undoubtedly attract audiences, but so do contentious issues. Anglican Mainstream are left scratching their heads at Policy Exchange's insistence of the presence of non-experts to lead the discussion.
It is far more likely (indeed, persuasively plausible) that they cancelled this debate at the behest of the Conference organisers, in order that the media wouldn't be distracted from the big issues by Anglican 'bigots' and 'homophobes'.  

But His Grace would like to make it known that the ‘debate’ is proceeding today at 12.45pm in Room 107, Jury’s Inn, 245 Broad Street, Birmingham B1 2HQ. Alan Craig and Anglican Mainstream will argue against gay/equal marriage, and an empty chair (featured right) will make the case for.

Considering this evidence, at the very least Policy Exchange owe Anglican Mainstream an unreserved apology. It is His Grace’s view that they ought also to offer some financial compensation.

UPDATE: 12.30pm Policy Exchange agree to debate

David Skelton of Policy Exchange - the author of 'What's in a Name?' - has agreed to debate with Anglican Mainstream today, in Room 101, Jury's Inn, at 12.45. Canon Chris Sugden will be chairing the debate, and Dermot O'Callaghan will represent Anglican Mainstream.

His Grace thinks this is what you call a result.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep YOUR religion out of CIVIL marriage.

9 October 2012 at 10:20  
Blogger graham wood said...

Well Cranny. You have outlined the background and the the facts seem clear enough, and Policy X bottled out. The question is why?

Several answers spring to mind.

1. No courage of their convictions

2. No MP willing to stand for them possibly seen as a significant absence.

3. Policy X had no ability to argue their cause for SSM - simply lacking in intellectual integrity - or in other words no substantial case (the "equality of marriage" argument really a non runner)
In essence then, the Emperor really had no clothes and could not be seen naked at the Fringe.

4. Policy X well aware from many blogs and Anglican Mainstream of the very powerful arguments that are being mustered against SSM ideologically.

5. It may be that Cameron himself was behind the "pull" by Policy X

We should not forget that he has made this a "priority" policy, and this very morning BBC news reported it that way.
For a "priority policy" then to be seen to be shot down in flames as it may well have been by superior fire-power would be too embarrasing - it was pulled therefore.
It should be borne in mind that no Cabinet Minister, or MP has yet, publicly, made anything like a substantial case for SSM.
With the bogus "public consultation" exercise by government exposed for the fraud it was, they now hope it will get through without public debate and by default.

9 October 2012 at 10:33  
Blogger Brian West said...


There are civil wedding ceremonies, and religious wedding ceremonies, but there is only one marriage - in law and in fact. The notion that there is civil marriage, different from religious marriage, is a recent one, which tends to confuse the issue - perhaps intentionally.

9 October 2012 at 10:49  
Blogger William said...


"Keep YOUR religion out of CIVIL marriage."

Don't tell me that marriage is something that it isn't or ever has been.

9 October 2012 at 11:13  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

BeelZeeBub doesn't want debate either.

Anyway the giveaway here is when the guy from anglican whatsit says there will be "considerable interest" in a conference fringe debate.

That's the problem for the gay marriage lobby. There will be considerable interest which they cannot control.

9 October 2012 at 11:23  
Blogger raggedclown said...

What a joy to advocates of equal marriage the nature of its opponents is. Canting Carey, Shrieking Harpy Widdie, Nasty Norman Tebbit, a cyber narcissist who styles himself after a 16th archbishop... In short, the fifth column of our dreams, ensuring us a swift and emphatic victory. It would be rude not to say "thank you."

9 October 2012 at 11:25  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...


If you want cant try Ben Summerskill.

And stop using sexist language like "Harpy". Thanks.

9 October 2012 at 11:31  
Blogger William said...


You appear to have won the argument. May I be the first to congratulate you on your swift and emphatic victory.

9 October 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger gentlemind said...

There is a very simple approach to take when debating marriage. If you are talking to somebody who is either in favour of genderless marriage, "evolving" their view, or has no view, then you know you are talking to somebody who does not know what a marriage is/does.
You can then ask them what they think marriage is, and show them why it cannot be that. You can then ask them why they think marriage cannot be what it is, and show them that it can be, and is.

9 October 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger Gerhard Swart said...

Mmm, I remember athiest Polly Toynbee ducking out of debate with theist Wiliam Lane Craig in a similar fashion last November. Does this say something about leftists and rigorous debate?

9 October 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

hmmm. The Inspector missed a bit of useful dialogue this morning with some of those fellas who have problems with the ‘boy girl’ stuff. One does believe they are getting the jitters, if Pink News Comments are representative. They see their goal as Tantalus did. They are now demanding a published time table, and whipping of MPs, a three liner no less.

heh heh. They’ve been particularly rabid this week. A joy to read !

9 October 2012 at 17:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gentlemen, we must this week brace ourselves for the onslaught. One fears we are to encounter the full might of the dark and diseased forces of nefarious cock suckery as they force us to swallow what must never be swallowed, the unthinkable prospect of same sex marriage. Any man who fights with the Inspector on this can call himself his brother....

For God, Queen and Country we stand firm. For traditional family sake, the bedrock of this nation, as it is for others in the free world, we must defeat this plastic imposter.

Let all those who will, come forward, raise your right arm and at the top of your voice shout “AYE” !

{…to be followed by a rousing chorus of “Onward Christian Soldiers”…]

9 October 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Was your most recent "poetic" take on the subject really necessary Inspector?

9 October 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Belfast. No time for the sensibilities of faint hearts now. It’s total war you know. We MUST win this...

9 October 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Gerhard Swart said 9 October 2012 14:55

"Mmm, I remember athiest Polly Toynbee ducking out of debate with theist Wiliam Lane Craig in a similar fashion last November. Does this say something about leftists and rigorous debate?"

Just watched Conspiracy Road on BBC Iplayer where an unfunny lefty comedian decided to take several unassuming creationists to Grand Canyon and be made fools of by evolutionist scientists through stage managing the debate and conditions. Lefties are only interested in debate if they control the format and there must be an unbalanced panel ('scientists' vs fundamentalist joe public) rather than 2 informed scientific hypotheses/arguments...ie. Grand canyon could not possibly be formed by a cataclysmic flood and was shown 'scientifically' by pouring water from a bucket onto the ground?? Really using laboratory experimental conditions that may have occurred such as seismic plate shift and volcanic activity and underground water springs then?? Probably anything that may have confounded the evolutionists would have been left on the cutting floor as we must preserve the official status quo.
Good ole BBC, why let a thing like an equally balanced reasoned debate get in the way of public learning or education when atheistic/evolutionary programming policy must be enforced.

Poly would have loved to have faced a village vicar/priest rather than William Craig Lane to discuss if God exists but you must never face someone who knows as much if not more about the subject matter.


9 October 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This is all tactics.

Why did Anglican Mainstream approach Policy Exchange to request a debate. Because Policy Exchange has institutional presence. Because Anglican Mainstream needs to do something to create momentum for its position. Policy Exchange doesn't need the debate. It already represents the default institutional position. Why did Anglican Mainstream want the debate to be held during this conference? So that it would be noticed. So that Anglican Mainstream could leverage the noteriety of its opponent and the highly visible public venue to aid its cause.

And so we can understand why Policy Exchange would be willing to debate at some other time and some other place. That debate won't be noticed and thus could not be used as leverage by Anglican Mainstream. It is a way to marginalize AM and keep them marginalized. As I said before, you don't give an opponent a platform he doesn't deserve. You only debate peers, and then only because you have to.

Policy Exchange wins by doing nothing. It has no incentive to give AM want AM wants - a platform to move opinion in its direction. And so it won't happen.


9 October 2012 at 18:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If God had not meant for gays to get married, he would not have created a chosen

9 October 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So, what actually happened in the debate?

9 October 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger Flossie said...

His Grace is to be congratulated for making this debate happen. I don't suppose it would have, without his intervention, shaming them into it.

Of course PX had the advantage. Scheduling the speaker at half an hour's notice was not going to bring the punters in, resulting in a much smaller audience. But hey-ho, let's wait for the video.

9 October 2012 at 19:10  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


Oh now don't be silly - that would suggest that people were actually interested in listening to the debate.

Unless Cranmer gets hold of a transcript/audio, this will just be another "victory" chalked up by both sides, with those of us unable to attend none the wiser.

9 October 2012 at 21:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A brief overview of debate by those lovely people at BBC.

Tory conference: Activist anger over gay marriage



10 October 2012 at 08:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

and http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2012/10/09/equal-or-real-marriage-debate-at-tory-party-conference/

10 October 2012 at 08:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see that berk Carey has made Newsthump too!


10 October 2012 at 18:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

The homosexuals really don't like it when they don't get their own way.

The jungle drums are banging out
with juvenile complaints and obscene insults are flying towards both the *nasty* Tories and towards to orthodox Christians.

So much for *liberal pluralism*.

10 October 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well done Your Grace for exposing the truth behind the Policy Exchange lies and cowardice.

10 October 2012 at 21:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

We must remember that it is the male homosexuals who are chancing this gay marriage business. An unhappy crowd, they seek to relieve their despair by this plea for equality. They never mention that they are already equal and have been for some decades. Where is this discrimination they bleed over...

10 October 2012 at 21:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I saw members of the conservative party wearing badges at Conference reading:-


Note both a Conservative and a Leader required.

Cameron comes across as weak, insubstantial and rather lost. A callow youth. Rather like he knows the words to say but doesn't really know what they mean. All he has to fall back on is his Eton bullying style when the going gets tough.

Grass roots anger at homosexual marriage was very much in evidence in Birmingham.

Just how much Cameron is pushed about by the homosexual lobby is demonstrated in this youtube interview by Gaydor. It is painful to watch.


10 October 2012 at 21:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

After all that stuff about olympic athletes and the BBC apparently avoiding their Christian attributes, I've suddenly noticed something similar with that chap Jimmy Savile KCSG. Obviously it was a bit curious that he remained unmarried at his age but it has barely been mentioned in the current flurry of news that he was a practising Catholic too. Strange.

10 October 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

.... and he wore gold lame hotpants too!

10 October 2012 at 23:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Psst. You do know that thing about gold lamé hotpants is a pisstake of mine about homophobes, don't you? Lol.

10 October 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger gilesrowe said...

Check out Anglican Mainstream's website. Funnily enough, no mention on PX. Nice of PX's David Skelton to include in his winding up that 'Even a 2 year old knows what marriage is', because that is AM's case for Real marriage in a nutshell. Slam dunk victory for the non-Pinks then.

11 October 2012 at 01:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

... if you say so, we all believe you. I mean, as you've told us on many occassions, it's only here you express your *true* self.

11 October 2012 at 01:24  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

"We must remember that it is the male homosexuals who are chancing this gay marriage business"?

What a laughable comment inspector. Very few lesbians sit in a corner quietly embroidering each others overalls singing hymns as you would have them Inspector. The lesbian community is committed to ssm as well and is as militant as the male homosexual community.

11 October 2012 at 03:59  
Blogger Naomi King said...

By Wednesday morning the "party line" message coming down from MP's to us humble party members in Birmingham was, "The world isn't going to come to an end if we just give these homosexuals what they want, so why don't you just accept it and be quiet".

Well I am afraid to say Mr Cameron et al, you haven't heard anything yet. Just wait until you bring forward draft legislation, if you are foolish enough to do so, it will truly be "woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees and that write greviousness they have prescribed ... behold the Lord, the Lord of hosts, shall lop the bough with terror: and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled.

And remember all you MP's "fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". You have been warned, this is spiritual warfare !

Attack our moral and cultural life at your peril, you have been warned.

11 October 2012 at 06:16  
Blogger Naomi King said...

We're not speculating when we say there will be terrible consequences if marriage is redefined. We're already seeing them.

Dr. Angela McCaskill has the distinction of being the first deaf black woman to receive a PhD from Gallaudet University, Maryland where she has served as their Chief Diversity Officer and has worked as a teacher, administrator and leader for twenty-three years.

Yesterday she was summarily put on administrative leave while university officials "determine her future" at Gallaudet University. Why? Because it was brought to their attention that she signed the petition to allow the people of Maryland to vote on same-sex marriage !

No one is safe when marriage is redefined. The architects of same-sex marriage are bent on silencing and firing those who oppose their agenda. The irony of a university putting its own chief diversity officer on leave—a woman who by all accounts has served the institution with distinction for over two decades—simply because she chose to exercise her rights as a citizen, cannot be ignored.

This is a wake up call to all of us. We all have a stake in marriage. If we want to remain a society where free speech, religious liberty and the right to participate in our democracy are respected, we need to stand for marriage.

11 October 2012 at 06:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Poor Dodo. Even too dim for irony.

11 October 2012 at 06:30  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The call from homosexuals to abduct the term "marriage" is all about sanctification of sodomy, something the Holy Bible as the Word of God cannot tolerate. Homosexuality is not God's plan.

When the Holy Bible says “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand”, in Ezekiel 3 : 18, it places on all believers the irrevokable duty to preach this truth to the Nation.

11 October 2012 at 06:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"If we want to remain a society where free speech,
religious liberty and the right to participate in our democracy
are respected, we need to stand for marriage."

The depressing thing is that a conclusion like that probably seems reasonable and logical to some people too. Dear oh dear.

11 October 2012 at 06:49  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Just because David Cameron agrees with the homosexual community on this issue, doesn’t make him right. Marriage is a sacred institution established by God to create families. Two men or two women cannot procreate. It’s impossible. Thus the body of believers are taking a moral stand, a Christian stand and we will not be intimidated nor will we go away.

I am sure the homosexual community would love for us to disappear but this is a spiritual fight that they have started against the family and family life, against Christian, moral and cultural values and we will continue to engage in this spiritual war until the sacred institution of marriage is no longer under assault.

We need to save the family from being abducted and defiled.

Allowing homosexuals to use the term marriage and allowing their world view to become the new normal in this country will have overwhelming negative effects on our society.

The true message is children need both a mum and a dad.

Britain is sinning and to have a leadership which is encouraging and facilitating it is despicable.

The true and traditional definition of marriage is the union before God of one man and one woman, excessively and for life, for their mutual comfort and the procreation and nurture of children.

These are the radical imperatives of God.

Homosexuality is sin and by accepting a homosexual worldview we change our moral and sexual world view from God’s moral imperatives. This is highly dangerous and is why David Cameron has lost such respect in his party in the last 12 months.

The rank and file of the conservative party understand and preach the moral and traditional principles. This was clearly evidenced at the Coalition for Marriage Event at Finge on Tuesday.

Those in political leadership need to understand the consequence of promoting homosexual unions as same sex marriage.

Heed the warning. The population in this country are moved for righteousness; to the sound of the moral voice.

Our world view is not that of the homosexual and our goal is not to demonise homosexuals but to seek humane solutions to their needs. However, we are resolved to encounter those who seek to change forever the very nature of the marriage union from a man and woman to various homosexual distortions.

That may mean leaving the conservative party and joining Ukip with whom we find we have a real and true relationship if Mr Cameron insists of this blind journey of self destruction he seems intent on undertaking..

11 October 2012 at 07:11  
Blogger Naomi King said...

"one man and one woman, excessively and for life"

Sex in marriage is great and much to be encouraged but it should of course have said "exclusively".

11 October 2012 at 07:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What we need is for voters to collectively recognise that militant Christians are trying to force their minority religion onto the rest of us. Christianity in the UK has had its day and the sooner these militants realise that the better for everyone. Most people just want to get on with their own lives as they think best without a Christian Taleban trying to pull us back into the dark days of religious hegemony and strife and oppression.

11 October 2012 at 09:30  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Cressida de Nova said... @ 03:59

lesbians are "as militant as the male homosexual community".

So thats OK then ?

11 October 2012 at 09:59  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Don't be ridiculous Mrs. King. How could you possibly deduce from my comment on this thread that I support lesbianism. I find it odd how some men here are virulently opposed to male homosexuality yet sanction lesbianism fantasising that it is only male homosexuals who want ssm which is completely untrue.

11 October 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida, dear thing. You pull the male homosexuals out of the campaign, and it collapses. But do inform us of any high profile lesbians who will pick up the baton…

11 October 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Actually, I have to agree with cressida on this one and I speak with some personal experience.

Radical feminism in the 60's, often promoted by lesbians, paved the way for the homosexual agenda. The men may be noisey and more visible but lesbians are as active in pushing this forward.

11 October 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

We’ll have to disagree on this, old bird, as we have with many issues...

To victory, what !

11 October 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


That's what friends can do - disagree.

I think the *case* for homosexual marriage is on the rocks.

11 October 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Certainly when they have to debate their credo has no substance. They are thin on content. The light of the Lord and even sound moral and cultural judgement will defeat these whining homosexuals once we have the opportunity to expose the lies. There is no persecution of homosexuals, they have civil partnerships and recognition under the law. It is now persecution of people of Faith and the Moral majority they wish to attack and defeat. After all the Lord said he would give them over to a reprobate mind and so he has.

12 October 2012 at 14:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older