Gay marriage - 'a policy dreamt up in Notting Hill'
This coming week will see a culmination in the quest to introduce gay/equal marriage: on Tuesday, the House of Commons will make its voice known in the first vote on the matter, and the process to redefine marriage will have begun. Even Tony Blair never went as far as riding roughshod over history, traducing culture and ignoring biology. For New Labour, Civil Partnership was deemed sufficient to establish legal parity for homosexuals and lesbians, and amendment to that Act on matters of taxation and pension rights is deemed insufficient by David Cameron to strengthen the equality.
Gay marriage is the Prime Minister's personal mission - pursued, he insists, because he's a Conservative - despite it 'ripping apart' his party and causing more heartache and angst than any matter since reform of the Corn Laws. It may be a form of justice, but it is appalling politics. Even 'banging on about Europe' has taken a back seat to gay marriage. And it is distinctly possible that the Bill will pass its first Commons hurdle with a majority of the Conservative Parliamentary Party having voted against it. It is sure to attract overwhelmimg Labour and LibDem support, but Cameron's discomfort at the thought of only a minority of Tory MPs voting for his policy is sure to fester like an unlanced boil for many months to come, risking a permanent scar deeper even than any ever inflicted by 'Europe'.
Local Conservative associations are bleeding members by the thousand, with chairmen and other senior officers resigning or simply not renewing their life-long party membership. One chairman dubbed gay marriage 'a policy dreamt up in Notting Hill', echoing Liam Fox's assertion that it is the obsession of a 'metropolitan elite'. Dr Fox has much more to say: the letter he sent recently to one of his constituents not only amounted to an alternative manifesto; it was a true conservative response to Cameron's attack on the natural order. For Liam Fox, the policy is not only 'a form of social engineering of which Conservatives should be instinctively wary', it is 'divisive, ill thought through and constitutionally wrong'. It is time for him to return to the front line. 'The principle of altering the accepted legal status of the majority of the population in order to satisfy what appears to be a very small, if vocal, minority is not a good basis on which to build a tolerant and stable society', he wrote.
But the constitutional dimension is of no consequence at all to David Cameron: the implications for the Church of England and the Royal Family go right over his head. Everyone knows that the Bill is a dog's breakfast of 'quadruple locks', random exemptions, religious straitjackets and fake assertions of equality. Anyone with half a brain will understand that its religious assurances are provisional and its locks are eminently pickable. Equality is the new inviolable state orthodoxy: there can be no lasting exemptions, no conscience considerations and no organisational opt-outs. All must conform, or face the consequences of inquisition and suffer the same historic fate of all heretics.
And so the Christian solidiers have been mobilised: meddlesone (and/or turbulent) priests are confronting the Prime Minister, and the churches are 'briefing' MPs. For the Church of England, there is concern for the 'uncertain and unforeseen consequences for wider society and the common good when marriage is redefined in gender-neutral terms'. For the Church of Rome, there is opposition to a policy which 'fundamentally seeks to break the existing legal link between the institution of marriage and sexual exclusivity, loyalty and responsibility for the children of the marriage'. Both reports merit reading in their entirety.
As far as His Grace knows, Liam Fox's letter has not been published in its entirety, so here it is (click to enlarge). If you can't be bothered to read the bigoted views of the tedious clerics, here's one Conservative politician whose observations and warnings merit very serious consideration indeed: