Saturday, June 15, 2013

Leading Christian opponents of same-sex marriage knighted


Gerald Howarth MP (left) is arguably the most vocal Anglican opponent of same-sex marriage in the House of Commons (“..aggressive homosexual community..”). His knighthood was announced last September, 'in recognition of (his) longstanding public service to the country'.

Edward Leigh MP (right) is arguably the most vocal Roman Catholic opponent of same-sex marriage in the House of Commons ("..the merciless prism of equality.."). He was knighted today, 'for public and political service'.

Both awards are undoubtedly merited - for defending the Faith if not distinguished dedication to public service.

But His Grace will forgive those cynics who might infer that the Prime Minister is engaged in a little Church-placating.

46 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Will this bring unity or foster division, Your Grace? “Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill.”

:)

Peace.

15 June 2013 at 11:28  
Blogger Nick said...

I'm glad about these knighthoods as these two men represent the unheard views o many in this country. My advice to these two men, and other SSM opponents is : Never shut up and never put up.

15 June 2013 at 12:30  
Blogger LEN said...

The prime Minister attempting to be 'all things to all people'?. Surely this would mean compromising any sort of value system?.

Cameron has quite clearly displayed where he stands in matters regarding Christianity and Christian morality and value systems.

Perhaps Cameron will [keep] following Blair and' do God' when he has feels compelled to find some sort of excuse for pushing through anti- Christian laws?.

15 June 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger ukFred said...

Cameron and his little fat friend Salmond need to get a grip on the police after this episode in Edinburgh, which I believe occurred on 25th May this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC71N2aDk_k

Further information is available on UKRepent dot com or Mindrenewers dot com.

15 June 2013 at 14:21  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Congratulations to these two men who have told it like it is, for the faith. I admire their Christian courage.
But the fact that it is one for each Church, in a sense, so soon after the Bill passed through The Commons, is a clear indication to me that Cameron is trying to reconstruct bridges with the Christian communities. But unfortunately it's not just the bridges that he has broken, but the solid ground of marriage on either side of the spans, the abutments, upon which so much in our society has always rested. It has been undermined by this most ignorant and unconservative of sham, spinning "Conservative" PMs.
Vote Ukip, for a breath of sanity and true democracy.

15 June 2013 at 14:44  
Blogger Peter D said...

As much as it is deserved, Gerald Howarth should consider refusing to accept this honour. Now that would have a public impact.

15 June 2013 at 15:45  
Blogger Nick said...

Peter D

I understand your point about refusing the knighthood. However, this is an honour bestowed by the Queen, who is Defender of the Faith, so it may be better to accept it. If these MPs really want to make a public impact, they should tear up their Tory party memberships and join UKIP.


ukfred

I watched the video and agree that this looks very much like the Police abusing their powers. I wonder if the malicious vermin who made the false allegations were arrested for wasting police time, or the police themselves are to be charged with malicious arrest?

15 June 2013 at 16:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A fellow rubbed his eyes in disbelief this morning at the news stand. Tony Robinson has accepted a knighthood. Last time this man checked, he was a raving republican. Also one suspected him of Marxist leanings too, though one can’t put a finger on it. Say suspected as one no doubt expects that’s all in the past now that he has risen to the top level...

EU behind it all, that’s what it is !

15 June 2013 at 17:36  
Blogger Johnnyrvf said...

From what I have read and seen the honour of a knighthood has been so sullied by various crooks and opportunists as to make membership of the Mafia seem to be taking up Holy Orders in comparison to having the 'title' cur in front of ones name oh sorry, should I have spelt it sir?

15 June 2013 at 17:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Here’s to a bit of honesty in the citations in future...

“For services to their own shameless self enrichment”

“For services to a massive ego”

“For services while climbing the greasy pole”

”For not getting caught”

“For lying while holding political office”

“For services to a foreign power”

“For treachery”

Well, the honours committee know where they can find this man if they need him...




15 June 2013 at 18:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, brilliant interview with Norman AND Lady Tebbit on SSM over at Pink News...


15 June 2013 at 18:44  
Blogger Peter D said...

Nick said ...
" ... this is an honour bestowed by the Queen, who is Defender of the Faith."

As much as I respect Her Majesty, she too has become a prisoner of modern secularism because of the constitutional nature of the Monarchy and the Established Church. Even she recently suggested a revision to "Defender of the Faith" (ironically, a title given to Henry VIII by the Pope for his robust defence of Catholicism) towards defender of all faiths.

Watch what her successor will do.

15 June 2013 at 18:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Chaps, brilliant interview with Norman AND Lady Tebbit on SSM over at Pink News..."

Is it the one published in the Guardian?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/15/norman-tebbit-interview

I quite like Tebbit for his libertarian bent but he does come over as a bit of a fossil there. I thought the plethysmograph thing was a bit mean. A cliché but ...

http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

15 June 2013 at 19:50  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"As much as I respect Her Majesty, she too has become a prisoner of modern secularism because of the constitutional nature of the Monarchy and the Established Church. Even she recently suggested a revision to "Defender of the Faith" (ironically, a title given to Henry VIII by the Pope for his robust defence of Catholicism) towards defender of all faiths."

Peter D,

Could you please point His Grace (and his readers and communicants) to where Her Majesty - the Supreme Governor of the Church of England - has advocated amending the Constitution in order that she might become 'Defender of all faiths'?

His Grace will give you as couple of hours. Bless you.

15 June 2013 at 19:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Yes DanJ0, the same.

One thanks you for ‘plethysmograph’. A useful pub quiz answer, but doubt being able to drop it into his conversations at the tea rooms without having his face slapped.

15 June 2013 at 20:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

On the subject of ‘defender of faiths’, can’t say it has come up in the last decade or two. One hopes your man Charles has been ‘seen to’ by royal advisors...

15 June 2013 at 20:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It was probably Lord Sacks in the Times a couple of weeks ago, talking (as I read it) about her role (and the CofE) as defending religious tolerance.

15 June 2013 at 20:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This whole 'Knight' thing would be much more meaningful if you had to do something 'knightly' to earn the title. Like slaying a dragon, or rescuing Maid Marion, or holding the line at Rorke's Drift. But 'being a member of Parliament?' Really?

carl

15 June 2013 at 21:14  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Carl

Slaying dragons is banned thanks to Health & Safety law, rescuing Maid Marion is sexist and we can't even hold the line at Dover thanks to our EU overlords. England is not what it was.

15 June 2013 at 21:46  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your cynicism is well-founded, Your Grace. The knighthoods how ever well-deserved, are merely cloth, beads and axes for the natives while the new overlords steal that greatest of Commons, the institution of marriage.

15 June 2013 at 22:02  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Could someone please remind Her Majesty that there is a precedent for monarchs refusing to sign Bills from Parliament The Royal Assent was refused in 1708, when Queen Anne refused her Assent to a Bill for settling the Militia in Scotland Also, Queen Victoria refused to make sexual relations between women illegal. (It seems she believed that to be an impossible situation) .
So your Majesty, you may also think that two people of the same sex could not be married since marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Drop your pen or smudge the ink, but whichever way, don't sign.
BTW. Didn't see you at Runneymede today or was that before your time?

15 June 2013 at 22:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jay Bee

There are still options. The prospective Knight could sack the BBC. He could determine if the Prime Minister weighs more than a duck. Or he could go on a quest in search of that most elusive of all eventualities - a couple of homosexual 20-something males in a stable monogamous faithful permanent marriage.

No reason to give up hope.

carl

15 June 2013 at 22:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl mentioning Rorke’s Drift reminds the Inspector that valiant efforts are still being waged in the Lords. Although the principle of SSM is now a foregone conclusion, that excellent chap Geoffrey Dear and others like him are trying to engineer some semblance of tolerance by tabling amendments for victims of the legislation. To wit, registrars and teachers who want nothing to do with the outrage.

If it so pleases His Grace, a post by him on the struggle would far eclipse this man’s commentary concerns...

15 June 2013 at 22:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Integrity. Her Majesty and her consort are now of such senior years that few in this kingdom would begrudge them ‘doing a Benedict’ and putting their feet up for what few years they have left. But not before the Queen does for the first and only time in her reign – to refuse the Royal Assent. Let her go out as she is, the most important Christian in the land. The monarch that refused to acknowledge the ridiculous idea that people of the same sex could marry each other.


15 June 2013 at 22:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

An intriguing thought, Mr Inspector @ 22.26. HM Queen is indeed at an age where she could feign deafness to a ridiculous entreaty. The problem is both she and her consort both have their marbles and probably fear the wrath of the pagans at the Palace of Westminster would be visited upon her offspring.

15 June 2013 at 22:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well Mr Hound, the line in the sand has to be drawn at sometime. If Her Majesty refuses SSM, what is the worst that can happen ? The removal of the necessity for royal assent of course. But then, that’s no great loss if all it is is a rubber stamp...

15 June 2013 at 23:26  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Peter D,

Four hours.. His Grace is still waiting. If you cannot adduce evidence, please retract your libel and apologise.

15 June 2013 at 23:46  
Blogger Peter D said...

Archbishop

Apologies; I did not notice your earlier question to me.

Her Majesty has never indicated any desire to change the Constitution or the oaths future Monarchs will swear. I was alluding to one of her recent Christmas messages where she talked about the Monarch defending the rights of all faiths, not a revision to the Constitution. However, I believe Charles has suggested 'Defender of Faiths' as being more appropriate.

My point is that the 'faith' of secularism cannot be contained by a Christian Constitutional Monarch and our pluralistic, parliamentary democracy undermines her ability to be 'Defender of the Faith'.

When she signs legislation as Queen and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, that approves of abortion, divorce and soon homosexual 'marriage', she is acting against orthodox Christian teaching.

Wouldn't you agree?


16 June 2013 at 00:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector:"If Her Majesty refuses SSM, what is the worst that can happen ? The removal of the necessity for royal assent of course."

There would be a constitutional crisis, I expect, and republicans would ask the general public whether we actually need or want a monarchy. The monarchy is quite popular now but it could quite quickly go out of favour again, especially when/if Charles becomes king. I'm a republican in theory, thinking the idea of a hereditary Royal Family is a bit absurd, but I'm content with the way things are provided the monarch is just there, not making waves or drawing too much attention to our quirky constitution

16 June 2013 at 07:37  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I abhor seeing our moral, clear thinking Christian Queen being forced by essentially pagan thinking people into signing into force anti-Christian laws. We are a Christian country in name only now. Democracy too is a mere facade. There can be only decline now for this once blessed land. The medieval monasteries were the lifeboats of knowledge and Christian virtue. Time for us to build some new lifeboats I think. The orthodox of all denominations must work together on this project.

16 June 2013 at 08:33  
Blogger Peter D said...

Presumably Her Majesty could legitimately withhold Royal Assent from homosexual 'marriage' legislation as it is against the (current) teachings of the Church of England on the nature of marriage. Whilst the Bishops in the Lords were advised to exercise their consciences on this by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Monarch has a higher duty.

Unlike contraception, abortion and divorce, where the Church of England adopted 'modernist' and 'liberal' doctrines, there has been no such change in relation to marriage.

In her role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the (Christian) Faith, she is duty bound to uphold Christianity. in her realm. By not withholding Royal Assent to a piece of legislation which her Church teaches would be harmful to our society, wouldn't she be a breach of her Coronation oath?

Admittedly, this wouldn't be terribly 'tolerant' towards homosexuals, a protected group under the Equality Act but it seems to me to be required by her Coronation oath. Toleration for other faiths, including atheists, stops at the point at which such toleration becomes harmful to the greater good according to the Christian understanding of God's laws.

16 June 2013 at 09:44  
Blogger John Wrake said...

We do not know why Her Majesty has not refused to ratify legislation contrary to the English Constitution.

What is quite clear is that She is a prisoner of those Ministers, including Prime Ministers and members of the Privy Council, who have committed treason, lied to the electorate, packed the Houses of Commons and Lords with those who have broken their oaths of allegiance for Party advantage or republican opinion, ably supported by a Civil Service which they have politicised.

In 2010, the Press revealed to the public the Rotten Parliament, with Members busily falsifying their expenses or condoning the presence of those who did.

The reaction? The current attempts to muzzle the Press, rather than treating offenders as ordinary citizens are treated.

We now have The Wicked Parliament, continuing to break the Constitution and seeking to elevate the cult of equality above the Faith on which this nation has been built.

It is time for those who have sworn to serve the Monarch and those who respect Her long years of service to the nation, to give Her their support and to reject those who pretend their loyalty while seeking our destruction.

John Wrake

16 June 2013 at 10:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Which part of the Oath is relevant here?

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

Is it that bit? If so then does it refer to her as an individual, acting as an individual, or to her role as Queen, acting in a legal capacity?

16 June 2013 at 10:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Toleration for other faiths, including atheists, stops at the point at which such toleration becomes harmful to the greater good according to the Christian understanding of God's laws."

You and your co-relionists have no power anymore to oppress the population. Be thankful the rest of us have toleration too.

16 June 2013 at 11:00  
Blogger John Wrake said...

DanJO at 0.49

You are referring to Her Coronation Oath, which is concerned with her role as Queen.

I say again, we do not know why She has ratified legislation that is contrary to the Constitution, beyond the fact that the Parliament Act of 1912 purported to remove Her ability to refuse to ratify Bills put forward by Her ministers.

The treason which is destroying the nation began much earlier than 2010.

John Wrake

16 June 2013 at 11:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr John Wrake @ 10.40 says, 'It is time for those who have sworn to serve the Monarch and those who respect Her long years of service to the nation, to give Her their support and to reject those who pretend their loyalty while seeking our destruction.'

Similar thoughts have been swirling around this communicant's mind, too. Will there come a time when the people find a leader outside the palpably corrupt junta that now governs Britain and take action directe?

A possible tipping point may come after Dave's referendum on Europe, whenever that may be. A blogger in the DT has revealed the following interview of Cameron by the Spanish newspaper El Pais. A few weeks ago, Cameron was asked a straight question,

"If the result of a referendum was that the British people wanted to leave the EU, will you be taking Britain out of the EU?"

Cameron replied,

"I would not! What I want is a looser arrangement with the EU".

What sanction will the British apply to Cameron if he betrays them twice over a referendum on the sovereignty of the UK?

It is now quite clear to this communicant that if the referendum went against Cameron he would repeat the SSM stunt. Calling on his true coalition partners in the Labour Party, Cameron would ram through an Act invalidating the referendum with the support of the ineffably corrupt UK Upper House.

In which event His Grace's communicants rightly would call on Mme de Nova, in loco Mme Defarge, to erect an EU-approved guillotine in Parliament Square. Cameron first, followed by Clarke, Maude, Bryant, Blair, Brown and Straw.

16 June 2013 at 11:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. thinking the idea of a hereditary Royal Family is a bit absurd,

Good to see you appreciate ‘absurd’. Here’s something that isn’t...

The Queen, beloved of the people on one side. SSM, beloved of politicians, militant homosexuality, a few mothers of homosexuals, and degenerate couldn’t care less liberal types on the other.

Of course there would be a constitutional crisis, and the press, with their readers preference in mind, would immediately point the finger at our shower in parliament. Swiftly, a motion is raised. “This house unequivocally voices its support for Elizabeth II, our gracious Queen, and the institution of monarchy.” Crisis over. And there’s something left by the bins that day – can you guess what it is ?

16 June 2013 at 11:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Well, this may seem like a draft question, but if opposing SSM marriage was all it took to get a knighthood, why aren't we communicating with 'sir' Inspector?

16 June 2013 at 13:55  
Blogger Peter D said...

bluedog
"A possible tipping point may come after Dave's referendum on Europe, whenever that may be."

I think the tipping point will come should be asked to assent to homosexual 'marriage'. This is a direct contravention of the Church of England's teaching on the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.

DanJ0
Quite right the relevant section of the oath is:

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

The utmost of her power is, of course, curtailed by the constitutional nature of the Monarchy and our largely unwritten constitution.

She will have to not only consider her role as Queen but also Supreme Governor of the Established Church. In exercising her conscience on how far she can resist she'll take into account precipitating a constitutional crisis that could see the end of the Monarchy and the Established Church. Given her successor, I believe she should refuse.

"You and your co-relionists have no power anymore to oppress the population. Be thankful the rest of us have toleration too."

It isn't about what you think or what I think but what the Coronation Oath obliges the Monarch to do.

Her Majesty will have to determine the best course for doing her uttermost to keep her sacred oath to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel. Homosexual 'marriage', alongside the protected status of homosexuals under the Equality Act 2010, is a clear contravention of God's Law and the profession of the Gospel.

Even you, though you are an atheist, must understand this as you are familiar with the Gospel and the positions of the Catholic Church and the Church of England on homosexuality and marriage.

16 June 2013 at 14:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Her Majesty will have to determine the best course for doing her uttermost to keep her sacred oath to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel. Homosexual 'marriage', alongside the protected status of homosexuals under the Equality Act 2010, is a clear contravention of God's Law and the profession of the Gospel."

That's if she sees that part of the oath as applying to her personal conduct whilst in the job or as applying to her legal role in the constitution, as I have said. Given the previous laws she has signed, it seems hard to see that it's the latter. Same-sex marriage is pretty trivial in the scheme of things compared to those, despite all the huffing and puffing (no pun intended) by some. I doubt she'd refuse now but it'd be quite interesting if she did, whether over same-sex marriage of something else, as it might well cause a debate with enough power to trigger at least a reworking of the institution of monarchy. At that point, I think we'd likely become a fully secular republic of sorts as I reckon most people are done with the idea of religion in politics these days.

16 June 2013 at 19:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That said, I'd still prefer a constitutional monarchy for the time being, especially when the current Queen is our monarch, even if the notion of monarchy is a little absurd these days.

16 June 2013 at 19:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Her Majesty does have one option which be acceptable to this man at least in the circumstances. She could send the bill back to parliament if contains no consideration for Christians. To wit, the lawful right to contract out of SSM if a registrar or teacher. So, they had better be put in by the Lords and pretty damn quick...

16 June 2013 at 19:52  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJo said ...
"Same-sex marriage is pretty trivial in the scheme of things compared to those, despite all the huffing and puffing (no pun intended) by some."

That's the whole point, homosexual 'marriage' isn't a trivial issue at all for Christians. Previous legislation on moral issues have, I believe, been consistent with the Church of England's accommodation to contraception, divorce and even abortion. On each of these this compromise with what orthodox Christianity regards as evil has always led to more and more liberalisation. Civil partnerships could just about be defended as an equality issue, though personally I think it should have been opposed because once the State formally approved of what is, from a Christian perspective, a perversity it would predictably lead to further demands.

The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and also has a role in giving Royal assent to legislation.

Maybe it is time to end the 'Erastian' settlement brought in by the Protestant Reformation where the Monarch is seen to be supreme in both secular and church matters.

16 June 2013 at 22:00  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Peter:

Long before the SSM issue, I read a book by Alister McGrath about the future of Christianity. He predicted that the transnational churches (Catholic, Pentecostal) would expand, but that the national-type ones (including Lutheran) would not survive in their existing form, but would have to merge.

Events might yet prove him right.

16 June 2013 at 22:57  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 June 2013 at 23:23  
Blogger Peter D said...

.... aaaarrrggghhhh .... not the Pentecostals ...!!!!!

16 June 2013 at 23:25  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older