A response to the Government consultation paper: ‘Equal civil marriage: a consultation’
THE TRIVIALISATION OF MATRIMONY
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Marriage instituted by God as the first social institution
- Marriage endorsed and affirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ
- The limits of earthly government
- The consummation of marriage
- The exclusivity of marriage vs homosexual promiscuity
- The Government cannot define ‘gay’ consummation or adultery!
- Marriage as the bedrock of society
- Marriage and children
- Same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a human right
- Same-sex ‘marriage’ threatens religious freedom
- Same-sex ‘marriage’ strips the meaning out of marriage
- The public are opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’
- What about civil partnerships?
- Conclusion.
Written by Robin Phillips and Stephen Green
First published May 2012
Revised June 2012
Copyright: Christian Voice
Wernlwyd, Pen-y-bont, Carmarthen, SA33 6QN
Telephone: 01994 484544
https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/
email: info@christianvoice.org.uk
Note: Bible quotations are from the Authorised / King James Version
Note: In the text, we follow the Parliamentary convention that the Government and the public are both plural.
1 Introduction
This booklet will seek to make a case for maintaining the current understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The coalition Government have just closed a consultation on how best to implement same-sex ‘marriages’ in England and Wales. The consultation document was published following comments from David Cameron that he is committed to legalizing gay ‘marriage’ prior to the 2015 general election.
a consultation on the implementation of same-sex ‘marriages’ in England and Wales. The consultation document was published following comments from the Prime Minister David Cameron MP that he intends to legalise gay ‘marriage’ prior to the 2015 general election.
In addition to allowing homosexual couples to get ‘married’, the proposed changes will also allow a person to change their legal gender without having to end his (to include her) existing marriage. It will also allow current civil partnerships to be converted into ‘marriages.’
In the ‘Ministerial Foreword’ at the beginning of the consultation document, Home Secretary Theresa May MP and Minister for Equalities Lynne Featherstone MP made clear the Government’s position on the matter:
‘We do not think that the ban on same-sex couples getting married should continue. Put simply, it’s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.’
This led some family activists to suggest that the Government are trying to preempt the findings of the consultation. ‘By stating a firm commitment to change the legal definition of marriage at this stage,’ commented family campaigner Norman Wells of Family and Youth Concern, ‘the government is pre-empting the outcome of its consultation exercise and acting in a profoundly undemocratic way.’
All except the first two questions in the consultation document dealt with issues surrounding implementation rather than the morality (or lack thereof) involved in changing the definition of marriage. It follows that anyone opposed to changing the definition did not wish to answer these ‘implementation’ questions.
The consultation software objected to people leaving blank responses to questions, so responses by those opposed are likely to be full of ‘don’t knows’.
The government computer logged each respondent’s IP address but did not ask for the name or address of either the respondent or of any body on behalf of whom the respondent was replying. Anyone anywhere in the world could reply, and if they were clever enough to change their computer’s IP address, they could reply as many times as they wanted. This does not discredit the consultation as a way of garnering opinions, but does invalidate any democratic worth it might have had.
2. Marriage instituted by God as the first social institution
It has been suggested that as ‘gay marriage’ will be restricted to civil ceremonies, that the measure does not affect the church. Firstly, we argue in Chapter 10 below that the church will have to conform under anti-discrimination law, whatever the politicians say now.
Secondly, and of even more importance, as the Church of England pointed out in its response, ‘the legal institution of marriage into which people enter is the same whether they marry using a civil or a religious form of ceremony.
‘Arguments that suggest ‘religious marriage’ is separate and different from ‘civil marriage’, and will not be affected by the proposed redefinition, … mistake the form of the ceremony for the institution itself.’
Thirdly, just as counterfeit banknotes devalue genuine currency, ‘gay marriage’ will devalue genuine marriage. Fourthly, any necessary redefinition of adultery and/or consummation will affect every marriage. So this concerns us all.
Regardless of whether a marriage takes place in a church or a civil ceremony, it has to be, in current English and Scottish law, and in an overwhelming number of jurisdictions world-wide, between a man and a woman. The rationale behind this is explained in the opening chapters of the first book of the Bible:
Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:23-24: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
When the Bible talks about ‘one flesh’ it refers to the physical act of marriage, in which a husband and wife come together in full sexual intercourse. The physical complementarity between male and female anatomy that makes sexual intercourse possible reflects the social, emotional and spiritual complementarity which exists between the sexes.
Some advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ have tried to get around the force of the above verses by suggesting that the Biblical authors did not understand about homosexuality, or did not understand about monogamous same-sex unions. However, ancient records show that homosexuality was prevalent in the Ancient Near East and the ancient Mediterranean world. Despite that, marriage in these cultures stayed resolutely as a relationship between a man and a woman.
3. Marriage Endorsed and Affirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ
In the Gospel of Mark, we read that Jesus Christ spoke these remarkable words:
Mark 10:6-9: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
These comments, which are also recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, clearly show that our blessed Lord considered marriage to be a creation ordinance between a male and a female.
Even though this shows that Jesus considered the one-flesh union to be between members of the opposite sex, it isn’t enough for some. It is sometimes asked why, if homosexuality is such a bad sin, did Jesus never mention it directly? Professor Tom Wright, former Bishop of Durham, answered that question like this in an interview with Dick Staub:
‘Jesus didn’t need to speak explicitly against homosexuality for the same reason that he didn’t speak against heroin addiction. It was not a problem in the world of his day [in that part of the world]. It would be a very trivialized read of Jesus if we imagined that Jesus simply came to give us a set of teachings on every possible subject that we might ever want to know anything about.’
The Lord Jesus also never condemned bestiality or incest in his earthly ministry, yet his teaching on marriage necessarily excludes these perversions.
We need also to remember that the Lord Jesus Christ, as the second person of the Holy Trinity, was present in the beginning, and that the whole Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, inspired the whole Bible. The Law, the Prophets and the writings of the Apostles are as much the words of Jesus Christ as those he spoke while on earth.
4. The limits of earthly government
The comment of the Lord Jesus ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder’ is normally understood as standing in opposition to the liberal divorce law advocated by the Hillel school of Pharisees in his day – and of course our modern ‘divorce-on-demand’ laws in Britain and across the Western world.
But his words have a deeper significance. The current Government is trying to ‘put asunder’ the whole of God’s holy institution of marriage.
During Her Coronation on 2nd June 1953, and before she was anointed and crowned, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth was asked by the Archbishop, inter alia:
‘Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?’
And the Queen replied: ‘All this I solemnly promise to do.’
Next the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland presented the Bible to the Queen. Between them, the Archbishop and Moderator said to her:
‘Our gracious Queen: to keep your majesty ever mindful of the Law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes, we present you with this book, the most valuable thing that this world affords. Here is Wisdom; This is the royal Law; these are the lively oracles of God.’
The Archbishop told Her Majesty when she was given the Orb from the Crown Jewels:
‘Receive this Orb set under the Cross, and remember that the whole world is subject to the Power and Empire of Christ our Redeemer.’
It follows that Her Majesty’s Government can no more change the definition of marriage than they can declare that God does not exist.
The consultation document deliberately frames the debate in terms of lifting the ‘ban’ on same-sex marriages, so as to reduce the whole controversy to those who favour ‘equal access’ and those who seemingly don’t. Even to frame the debate in these terms implies that same-sex ‘marriage’ is both conceivable and possible.
However, the very nature of the marriage institution necessarily excludes the unions of same-sex couples, just as it excludes unions between people and non-humans. Because of this, it is meaningless to speak of there being a ‘ban.’
We would not say that there is a ‘ban’ on men and clocks getting married because it is not possible for this to happen. Similarly, if it is impossible for members of the same sex to get married, then it follows that it is meaningless to speak of there being a ‘ban.’
5. The consummation of marriage
Fundamental to marriage is its consummation. In Genesis and in the teaching on it from the Lord Jesus, a one-flesh relationship was emphasised. The Apostle Paul tells the Corinthians that the reason not to go with a prostitute is not because you might catch something, but because you become one flesh with her:
1Cor 6:16: What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
1Cor 6:16: What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
So becoming ‘one flesh’ has a sexual foundation.
With that understood, becoming ‘one flesh’ is something a pair of homosexuals can never do. In the immortal words of Dr David Reuben (author of Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex), they are ‘trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces’.
Under Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a marriage is voidable if it has not been consummated due to the incapacity of either party to consummate it. Consummation requires sexual intercourse which is ordinary and complete. How will a pair of lesbians or two men achieve consummation of their ‘marriage’ with only half the necessary equipment?
In downplaying the importance of a one-flesh consummation in marriage, ‘what people do in their bedrooms’, advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ have tried to reduce the meaning of marriage to merely a loving, committed relationship between two adults. It is an emotional and relational union that creates the necessary conditions for marriage, they argue, not what you do with your bodies. In this view, the physical anatomy of the adults becomes irrelevant since marriage is merely about the communion of souls in a committed and affectionate relationship. However, if this were taken at face value, the body has little or nothing to do with marriage at all, which invalidates the vital importance of consummation.
In addition, a ‘loving and committed relationship’ may be a necessary condition of marriage but it is not sufficient. Many adults love one another and are committed to one another. They could be relations or friends, but however strong such commitments are they could never be considered ‘marriage’. Two homosexuals do not qualify for marriage merely because they claim to love one another.
6. The exclusivity of marriage vs homosexual promiscuity
The comments Christ made when asked about divorce emphasise that faithfulness and exclusivity are central to a proper understanding of marriage. However, these have little relevance in a homosexual context, as statistics on homosexual relationships, many from homosexual researchers, have shown again and again.
Some have argued that same-sex ‘marriage’ will encourage homosexual men to be more monogamous. Given what we know of homosexual relationships, this is unlikely. Even in longer-term gay relationships, one or both parties tend to have what they call ‘flings’, separately or even together. The words of pro-homosexual intellectual Andrew Sullivan are worth quoting in this regard (from his book Virtually Normal): ‘there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman’ The German psychologist and homosexual activist Martin Dannecker made a very similar admission in his book Theories of Homosexuality
‘It is clear that homosexual relationships cannot be measured with the same standard applied to heterosexual relationships.’
The statistical research confirms these statements. A survey of homosexual behaviour patterns in the Danish towns of Copenhagen and Aarhus reported in 1984 that the average number of homosexual partners during the last year had been 18.1 for the Aarhus sample, and 28.2 for the men in Copenhagen. The authors of the survey, Peter Ebbesen, Robert J. Biggar and Mads Melbye, explain the greater promiscuity reported in Copenhagen as a product of more liberal attitudes. They write:
‘In the last decade a greater acceptance of homosexuality has developed in the Western world; and Copenhagen, in particular since 1970, has developed into a major tourist centre for HS men.’
Around the median number of sexual partners, the survey found very few ‘monogamous’ homosexual men: ‘In Copenhagen and Aarhus respectively, 8% and 9% reported that they had been monogamous during the past year, but 5% and 2% claimed to have had at least 100 sex partners during the same 1-year period.’
Martin Dannecker reports as follows on his own survey, the results of which are clearly comparable to what was found in Denmark. Young homosexuals were asked how many sexual partners they had had since their first sexual experience:
‘The homosexual men questioned by Reimut Reiche and myself gave the following picture: 11% up to 10 (partners); 9% 11 to 20; 80% more than 20 … In our survey of homosexual men, one in seven turned out to have had sex with more than 50 men in the previous year, which led us to view such high numbers as normal.’
Research in America shows a higher level of homosexual promiscuity even than that claimed by the men in the Danish and German surveys. The American homosexual activist Dr Morin, chairman of the American Psychological Association’s ethics committee conducted a study of 824 homosexual men to find that fear of AIDS had lowered their claimed numbers of partners from 70 per year in 1982 to 50 per year by 1984. McKusick et al reported claimed reductions from 76 to 47 over a similar period. Dr Hunter Handsfield, Director of the Seattle Sexually Transmitted Disease Control Program, commented that in ‘the context of the severity of AIDS, these changes are almost ludicrous.’
In addition, the claimed numbers of partners are probably underestimated, because homosexuals often do not count every person with whom they have anonymous sex as a ‘partner.’ One 1980 survey asked homosexual males to keep a diary. The men had estimated that they had 60 partners per year on average, but the diaries confirmed the real figure to be around 100. Bell and Weinberg, authors of another large study, wrote:
‘During the course of research on AIDS it was discovered that the average homosexual who was interviewed had had 550 different sexual partners; the AIDS victims considered by themselves averaged 1,100 different sexual partners; some reported as many as 20,000. … For example, one homosexual reported: “I believe my estimate of 4,000 sex partners to be very accurate. I have been actively gay since I was 13 (thirty-one years ago). An average of two or three new partners per week is not excessive, especially when one considers that I will have ten to twelve partners during one night at the baths.”‘
In his paper ‘Monogamous or Not: Understanding and Counselling Gay Male Couples‘ (2000) Professor Michael C. LaSala opened with the statement: ‘Mental health practitioners might be surprised to learn that many gay men establish and maintain relationships that allow outside sexual activity.’
Summing up the evidence, LaSala wrote:
‘McWhirter and Mattison (1984) found that all of the men in their sample of 156 couples who had been together over 5 years described their relationships as non-monogamous by mutual agreement or ‘open.’ In a nationwide survey of 1,749 gay men and lesbians, 10% of the gay men stated they were in open relationships (Bryant & Demian, 1994). Among a United Kingdom sample of 252 coupled gay men, 56.3% were in relationships that allowed for outside sex (Hickson et al., 1992). While the percentages vary, these findings suggest that a proportion of coupled gay men agree not to be sexually exclusive.’
The Biblical and traditional view of marriage is that it is sexually exclusive. Any sexual contact outside the marriage can give rise to a charge of adultery. Sexual faithfulness and emotional faithfulness are indistinguishable. In contrast, LaSala reported that a different standard operated for the homosexuals:
‘Shernoff (1995) stated that for coupled men who agree to be non-monogamous, the term fidelity does not mean sexual faithfulness but refers to the ’emotional primacy of the relationship between two men’ (p. 45). The sexually non-monogamous couples interviewed for McWhirter and Mattison’s (1984) study clearly stated that outside sex was solely recreational and added variety to their sex lives without interfering with their emotional commitments to their partners.’
7. The Government cannot define ‘gay’ consummation or adultery!
The Government’s consultation document reveals that they have failed to give sufficient attention to the practicalities involved in changing the existing definition of marriage. Astonishingly, they admit that they have no idea what consummation and adultery could possibly mean within a same-sex context:
‘Specifically, non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law. However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery.’
The Government cannot get off this particular hook so easily. An understanding of what constitutes consummation and adultery is at the heart of marital law, and they are admitting they do not have a clue what these concepts might look like in the homosexual context they are themselves proposing.
Any new definition of consummation and adultery will profoundly affect the meaning of these terms within heterosexual marriages, so the Government must offer a redefinition of consummation and adultery in advance of bringing a ‘gay marriage’ bill forward. It is totally inadequate to pass the buck to the judiciary.
8. Marriage as the bedrock of society
Marriage at all times and in all countries has been the union of a man and a woman. Even where polygamy was practised, it was exclusively heterosexual. In societies where homosexuality was regarded as acceptable, such as Ancient Greece, there was never a thought that two people of the same sex could be ‘married.’ Nowhere in the world, until this century, has homosexual ‘marriage’ ever been considered. This should not be surprising, given that marriage is not simply a ‘tradition’, but a divine ordinance from the dawn of time.
Because marriage is the bedrock of any stable civilization, societies which allowed their family base to crumble have been swept aside by stronger, monogamous civilisations. In his 1934 book, Sex and Culture, British anthropologist J. D. Unwin chronicled the historical decline of 86 different cultures. His exhaustive survey revealed that ‘strict marital monogamy’ was central to social energy and growth. Indeed, no society flourished for more than three generations without it. When that happened, the society was usually taken over by a stronger monogamous civilisation. Unwin wrote,
‘In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence.’
Unwin added, chillingly, ‘I know of no exception to this rule.’
9. Marriage and children
We have seen that marriage is a one-flesh communion of a man and a woman, consummated by a reproductive sexual act. Every marital act is potentially reproductive whether or not children actually result from it. Even when couples use contraception they are paradoxically demonstrating that every sexual act has the potential for new life.
A primary goal of marriage, stated first in the Book of Common Prayer‘s ‘Form of Solemnization of Matrimony ‘ is ‘for the procreation of children’, which are a heritage of the Lord, as Psalm 127:3 puts it. In order to give birth to a child, despite modern technology, a mother and a father are inevitably both required.
To have a child of ‘their’ own, a homosexual couple have to involve a person of the opposite sex either as a sperm donor or as a surrogate mother, and try as they might to pretend otherwise, only one of them is the child’s real parent.
On that subject, research has shown that children raised in single-sex households do not fare as well as those children who have both a mother and a father. As Sotirios Sarantakos put it in ‘Children in Three Contexts’ (Children Australia, volume 21, 1996) drawing on a range of research data:
‘Studies show that children do best in life with a biological mother and father acting in complementary roles. One study showed that married heterosexual parents “offer the best environment for a child’s social and educational development’ and that such children perform better at school than those from families led by homosexual couples”.’
In infertile couples the sexual expression of marriage still contains the intention to procreate. For these couples and those past childbearing age, a husband and wife are part of a divine institution with the conception and raising of children at its heart. Husband and wife are united as a procreative unit. God is creator, they are pro-creators. Whether it is in marriage or in the animal world, only a mated pair can be a complete organism capable of procreation.
By contrast, homosexual acts have no more relationship to procreation than they have they ability to unite those indulging in them as a one-flesh unit. Whatever they are, these acts can never be marital nor can relationships integrated around them be marriages. Same-sex partners are physically incapable of marriage and physically incapable of having children together.
If same-sex unions are allowed to be called ‘marriages’, then homosexual activists may be able to claim greater acceptance of adoption of children by homosexuals, which is still opposed by a majority of the public.
Adoption procedure is complicated today by the fact that children can be lawfully put up for adoption against the wishes of their parents. If homosexuals were to be seen in any sense to be ‘stealing’ other people’s children, greater resentment could build up against ‘freeing for adoption’ than is even currently the case.
10. Same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a human right
Nine days after the UK Government opened their consultation on the implementation of gay ‘marriage’, judges at the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the ability for same-sex couples to ‘marry’ is not a human right.
The case went before the Strasbourg Court after the French lesbian couple, Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, complained that they were being discriminated against by not being able to adopt an 11 year-old as a couple. The judges declared that those in a same-sex partnership cannot be expected to have the same rights and privileges as married couples, adding,
‘With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.’
The judges also declared that governments are not required to legislate for same-sex ‘marriage’ since ‘the protection of family in the traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and legitimate reason which might justify a difference in treatment.’
11. Same-sex ‘marriage’ threatens religious freedom
The Government’s consultation document repeatedly states that any changes to the law would apply only to civil marriages and not to marriages conducted on religious premises. Churches and other religious institutions will not, it says, be forced to provide wedding ceremonies to same-sex couples. Assurances such as the following are peppered throughout the consultation document:
‘No religious organisation, premises, or leader would face a successful legal challenge for failing to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple, whether or not the religious organisation, premises or leader involved performs marriages for opposite-sex couples. We are clear that no one should face successful legal action for hate speech or discrimination if they preach their belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.’
Despite these guarantees, we believe that Government assurances of safeguarding religious liberties cannot be relied upon. They may argue that a legal challenge would not be ‘successful’, but fighting such a challenge will still take up a lot of time and a huge amount of money with no guarantee of success. When civil partnerships were introduced, the Government of the day were adamant that this was not a half-way house to same-sex ‘marriage’. Events proved otherwise. Similarly, this government may say that the new proposals are not preliminary to forcing churches to solemnize same-sex ‘marriages’, but what is to stop a future government from pursuing the itinerary of ‘equality’ to this final goal?
Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone even said in a BBC Radio 5Live interview that ‘it may be that [the issue of same-sex marriage in a place of religious worship] comes back another day.’ This could happen sooner than we think. Equality laws introduced by Labour in 2007 and subsequently enshrined in the 2010 Equality Act could make it difficult, even illegal, for any Government to try to maintain this two-tier system of civil marriage and religious marriage.
In March, when judges at the European Court of Human Rights declared that the ability for same-sex couples to ‘marry’ is not a human right, they also stated that if same-sex couples are allowed to ‘marry’, then any church that refuses to offer wedding services to them will be guilty of discrimination.
‘Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex,’ the judges said, ‘member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation.’
This ruling confirmed what Church of England lawyers have already understood from analysing EU equality laws, namely that if same-sex ‘marriages’ are legalized, then churches will have to perform ‘gay’ wedding ceremonies. Discrimination law specialist Neil Addison commented on the ruling:
‘Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage. This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises.’
Legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ could also have broader implications for Christians across every sector of public life. If the Government’s proposals pass, third parties, such as institutions, pension providers, businesses, insurance companies, teachers and private individuals would be forced to treat these counterfeit ‘marriages’ in the same way that they treat real marriages. The Governments’ own impact assessment stated that the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ would have to be removed from official data held by the immigration and tax authorities. In how many other areas of public life would these terms have to be expunged? Recent history foretells a bleak outlook for employees who, as a matter of conscience, cannot cooperate with the degrading of marriage.
It is a significant fact that throughout the consultation document not once does it guarantee protection to those who may have religious reasons for not recognizing the civil ‘marriages’ of same-sex couples. The Government are proposing to impose a change on how all of us must define marriage. Those who refuse to cooperate with the redefinitions will be in breach of the law.
When fighting against same-sex marriage in the United States, Dennis Prager listed some possible consequences to changing the laws:
‘Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming; to do so would be declared ‘heterosexist’ and morally equivalent to racist. . . . Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. . . .’
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
‘Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger; if they show only women’s fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
‘Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
‘Traditional Jews and Christians i.e., those who believe in a divine scripture will be marginalized.’ (Cited by S. T. Karnick in ‘The Tyranny of the Minority: How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex “Marriage” Undermines a Free Society‘)
S. T. Karnick argued similarly in an article for Salvo magazine, pointing out that far from being the tolerant option, those who champion same-sex ‘marriage’ are actually fiercely coercive and intolerant:
‘Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. What’s at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what’s in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such ‘marriages.’ Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions.
‘Although pro-homosexual radicals continually refer to the forced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ as a civil right, as well as a matter of liberating society from hidebound prejudices, such policies are actually the government-enforced imposition of a small group’s sexual values on a reluctant and indeed strongly resistant population.’
12. Same-sex ‘marriage’ strips the meaning out of marriage
The Government’s consultation paper continually presents the issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ in terms of ‘equal access.’ In their simplistic and philosophically unsophisticated way, the issue becomes a straightforward question of fairness. However, if we accept that the principle of equality means that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same rights as married couples (including the right to call their union a ‘marriage’), then in order to be logically consistent we would also have to say that a definition of marriage which includes both heterosexual and same-sex unions, yet excludes unions with animals or multiple partners, is also failing to provide equal protection under the law to someone or other.
Indeed, if someone is bisexual, then in order for their sexuality to be fully expressed, their ‘marriage’ must include a minimum of at least one person from each sex. Thus, the argument that we should not discriminate based on sexual orientation, if carried to its logical conclusion, necessitates ‘threesomes’ at least.
In reality, any new definition of marriage that Government may wish to impose on the public opens the door to an endless series of redefinitions in years to come. This is because what is true of the word marriage is true of any noun: to define a word as one thing is necessarily to exclude that word as being some other thing. A noun that can mean anything is a noun that means nothing. Unless the term ‘marriage’ is to collapse into complete vacuity, it must necessarily exclude certain types of unions.
These concerns are underscored if we consider the course that those nations that have already legalized same-sex ‘marriage’ have already embarked upon. In allowing for homosexual ‘marriages’ they inadvertently and inevitably opened the door to additional redefinitions. After the Netherlands legalized same-sex ‘marriage,’ they began giving legal recognition to threesomes. After Spain did the same they began changing birth certificates so as to refer to ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’ rather than ‘mother’ and ‘father’. In Mexico City, proposals were subsequently introduced to allow for fixed-term marriages. Canada introduced ‘gay marriage’ and there are now credible and logical attempts to use the measure as a precedent for legalising polygamy.
Does Britain really want to embark on this same route?
13. The public are opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’
The Government have not brought forward this issue because there is an outcry among the public for same-sex ‘marriage.’ Rather, they are pursuing this course as a means to pacify the powerful yet tiny homosexual lobby, who represent perhaps 1% of the adult population.
In contrast, a recent Comes poll found that 70% of the population supports the view that marriage should remain an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman. Stonewall did their own poll and secured an opposite result by framing the question in their favour. MP’s postbags will reveal constituents’ priorities. Moreover, the Coalition for Marriage petition, which opposes any change in the definition of marriage, gained half a million signatures in less than three months. (The current figure can be seen at www.c4m.org.uk). An opposing petition, calling for gay marriage, barely mustered a tenth of that.
By taking such a strong lead for ‘gay marriage’, the Prime Minister has shown himself to be out of touch with the public.
14. What about civil partnerships?
The present system of civil partnerships already gives homosexual couples all the benefits of marriage. The Government have made clear in their consultation that they plan to keep civil partnerships and to keep restricting them to same-sex couples only. Homosexual couples could either register a civil partnership or have a ‘marriage.’ Those already in civil partnerships could ‘upgrade’ to marriage. This two-tier system seems to go against the agenda of equality that is ostensibly behind the gay ‘marriage’ proposals.
Finally, as civil partnerships bestow all the benefits of marriage, why do homosexuals need marriage at all? The answer must be that they crave the honour that the institution of marriage confers. They cannot bear it that their relationships are in any sense ‘not equal’ to marriage. But as we have shown in this paper, they are demanding the impossible. In a sense, the ‘gay’ quest for marriage mirrors the ‘gay’ life itself, as ‘naked civil servant’ Quentin Crisp described it, ‘the vain search’ for a masculine man who would love him. What he wanted has never existed and will never exist. The same is true of the desire for ‘gay marriage’.
15. Conclusion
Marriage was instituted by God and affirmed by Jesus Christ as a one-flesh union between man and woman. The United Kingdom has a Christian constitution and no earthly government has the power to change what God has set in place. Church marriage and civil marriage differ in ceremony but are identical in nature.
Consummation validates a marriage and adultery is a betrayal of it, but both depend on sexual actualization. Lacking between them the full set of sexual equipment, two homosexual men or two lesbians can neither consummate a ‘gay marriage’ nor commit adultery within one. The Government has no idea how to redefine consummation or adultery in a homosexual context. They must do so, as any redefinition would affect every genuine (ie heterosexual) marriage.
Marriage, based on the one-flesh union of male and female, is the bedrock of society and the intended place for the raising of children. Despite modern technology, both male and female components are necessary for procreation and a homosexual couple between them lack the full set of genetic material.
The European Court has established that same-sex marriage is not a human right and the British public are opposed to it. It rights no arguable wrong as civil partnership conveys all the benefits of marriage already but it would set in train a human rights Behemoth which would impinge on religious freedom..
We pray that Parliamentarians will oppose ‘gay marriage’ by every means open to them.
And finally:
(1) This resource is available in booklet form from the contact given below.
(2) The authors of this paper are always happy to address meetings and debates
Email stephen@christianvoice.org.uk or telephone 01994 484544 or mobile 07931 490050
