For the sake of argument, let us overlook the little point that gay "marriage" hasn't actually been passed through Parliament - though from the way the PM is going on about it, he considers it to be a fait accompli. We shall also overlook the fact that this has nothing to do with equality before the law, as civil partnerships already provide this.
I want to look at the assurances being given by the Prime Minister.
He said: "I'm a massive supporter of marriage and I don't want gay people to be excluded from a great institution. But let me be absolutely one hundred per cent clear, if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn't want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it. That is absolutely clear in the legislation."
No, it isn't.
The European Court of Human Rights, back in March this year, ruled that same-sex marriage is not a human right. In its conclusion, it also pointed out that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples.
There is always the slight possibility that I am sharper, and more on-the-ball that the Prime Minister's legal advisors. It's about as slight as my chances of being elected Pope. So that means the Prime Minister is giving assurances which he hasn't checked out (ie. he's mind-blowingly stupid.) Alternatively, he's lying through his teeth, and assumes that the British Public are too stupid to notice...
I didn't ever think that I'd prefer to think the Prime Minister of the country is a blithering idiot...
Blithering idiot is, I think, a generous interpretation. I suggest that he is a useful idiot for those who want to dismantle this country's Christian inheritance.
ReplyDeleteThe long-term consequences have not even been considered. That a flabby, debauched society with no faith backbone will be in no state to counter a takeover by a cadre for whom equality and human rights, democracy even, are an abomination.
Rest assured, once the bill was passed, gays would be presenting themselves for 'banns'at each and every church they know would refuse them. A foregone conclusion.
ReplyDeleteMac
ReplyDeleteI am so angry about this, i don't think i can write coherently. I have told my MP Oliver Letwin that I will never vote Conservative again. This is a great betrayal.
Is Cameron lying or stupid? Probably both. My mum used to say that there is none so blind as those who won't see.
The so called free vote in the commons is meaningless as Milliband and Clegg will impose 3 line whips.
The honourable thing for Tory MPs to do if they oppose same sex marriage is to inform Cameron that they will resign their seats forthwith and precipitate an election. But I dream...
"Cameron's Either Lying Or Stupid..."
ReplyDeleteBOTH !!!
Cameron is Toast !!!
He's just lost the next General Election for
the Conservative Party.
UKIP will have a field day (and a massively increased vote).
Good-bye, Dave.
This makes a mockery of democracy. Lying appears to be the default position of the coalition. We saw it first with Mr Clegg's turnaround over tuition fees and it continues. This is, of course the result of a contraceptive mentality. Acts proper to the "honourable estate" of marriage are equated with those of the depraved.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know how countries like Spain work this out? Presumably the Church in Spain doesn't offer same-sex "marriages" (even though they are legal in Spain) yet must offer Catholic marriage to men and women who seek it? And Spain would be subject to EU law just like the UK.
ReplyDeleteI do think Cameron is a blithering idiot on this - but it is up the Church to stand up to the state if necessary: do the bishops have the spine?
Christopher, has Spain actually redefined "marriage" or does it just allow civil partnerships? The EU legislation says there's no discrimination with the latter case, only with the former...
ReplyDeleteMany theories have been advanced. I don't accept Peter Tatchell's take on this, that Cameron's U-turn in 2011 was as a result of Stonewall's support for 4 couples seeking access to CPs and 8 homosexuals seeking access to 'marriage'. But this probably gave them ideas, along with some much-needed leverage with the LibDems when AV and Lords Reform fell through (as they are probably still holding out on the Boundary changes). In any case Eric Pickles (and allegedly, other senior Cabinet ministers) are now agitating for us to withdraw from the wicked jurisdiction of the ECHR, which, he claims, would require us drawing up a 'Bill of Rights'(?). Hence this tiny group who now run both the Tory Party (and the Country) are weaving a very intricate and sticky web, and one which they are still spinning furiously.
ReplyDeleteThe most plausible explanation for Fr Finigan's recent Quo vadis? question, was that put forward by Peter Hitchens in the Spectator in March of this year, 'The Gay marriage trap'. He argued along the lines that Cameron wants to re-brand the Conservative Party as modern so as to expand their electoral appeal. Oliver Letwin allegedly suggested they needed to shed about 25% of their base and the effective abolition of marriage (with CPs for all) arose as the perfect vehicle. Hence it would follow that Cameron appears unconcerned that the base has crumbled at a constituency level (as has proven to be the case), and would be delighted by all the flak he is having to take from Conservative MPs, as he would see this as good PR. Damian Thompson's post about Cameron's leadership style..'retiring to the Officers mess for a spot of pudding, while the..infantry get mown down", was the best strapline of his time in office to date that I have seen. Charles Moore's recent comments about democracy itself being at stake, are also apposite.
So it appears that almost every man, woman and child in the country is merely collateral damage, in this taxpayer funded rebranding exercise
But whatever his motivation, yes, Cameron is a fool, and yes, he is lying. We all need to wait to see the outline due to be unveiled next Thursday, and the more detailed proposals in the new year to decide upon the most effective response.
The final straw.
ReplyDeleteI'm voting Ukip.
And all that guff in the consultation document about
ReplyDeletedistinguishing between civil and religious marriage,
as if there were two sorts under law, and that the
changes would affect only civil marriage. It just shows
horrible cynicism, because he's obviously
counting on the fact that by the next election
in two years time most people will have forgotten
what all the fuss was about. Well, we must show
him that we're not such total fools!