A Scottish health board has said sex education needs protection from parents.
Dumfries and Galloway health board has voiced its opposition to a Scottish Government plan to allow teachers and students to opt out of lessons on equal marriage and same-sex relationships.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Scotland’s largest health board, is also opposed to new draft guidance for sex education lessons that would allow teachers or pupils to opt out on the grounds of ‘conscience’.
In a submission to ministers, the board said: “It is extremely concerning that teaching staff would be provided an opportunity to refuse to participate in this particular aspect of the curriculum … There are other areas of the taught curriculum where ‘conscience’ may be a factor – e.g. modern studies or religious education – where no option to withdraw is provided.”
The Glasgow & Clyde board argued that staff who opt out from sex education lessons on the grounds of ‘conscience’ may only need what they described as ‘training’ to overcome their objections.
Dumfries and Galloway health board warned against allowing pupils to opt out of lessons using a ‘conscience clause’, arguing, without any evidence, that this ‘could lead’ to ‘intimidation’ by parents of their children and the ‘entire basis’ of sex education being ‘undermined’ in Scotland.
“As we move forward into an era where same-sex marriage is permitted, there may be significant campaigns by parents in relation to (sex education) which alludes to same‐sex unions and there is a need to protect programmes from activities of this sort,” Dumfries and Galloway Health Board said.
Their comments indicate why sex educators and pro-homosexual teachers are prone to introducing amoral topics without telling parents in advance. Parents are regarded in sex education circles as a barrier to the sort of indoctrination the sex educators want to carry out.
Dumfries & Galloway Health Board headquarters building.Taken by Darrin Antrobus
According to the homosexual website PinkNews, health chiefs also protested against the guidance recommending pupils learn about “the values of a stable and loving family life”, arguing this was insensitive to those youngsters who did not grow up in such an environment.
It gets worse. Some health boards even objected to the phrase “both sexes” being used in the guidance, stating this was “problematic” for youngsters ‘who are transgender’.
In response, a Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government is currently updating its existing guidance on the Conduct of Relationships, Sexual Health and Parenthood Education in Scottish Schools document and as part of that has sought views from various organisations and individuals.
“We are considering carefully the comments we have received and will publish an updated version in due course.”
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
At the end of January 2015, Benedict Cumberbatch and Stephen Fry sent a letter to the Government asking them to pardon 49,000 homosexual men convicted of gross indecency under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Acts 1885.
Mr Cumberbatch recently played codebreaker Alan Turing, who was convicted of gross indecency in 1952, and pardonned by Her Majesty in 2013. Stephen Fry is of course a self-proclaimed homosexual, so in that sense he has a dog in this fight. But in the circles in which they move, both must at least know or know of men who were convicted of gross indecency before the law was changed.
In a video just published on Youtube, I support their campaign on the grounds that this must be the most intelligent, compassionate, sophisticated and plain clever generation that has ever walked this earth, so that if something is not against the law now, it never should have been. Follow the argument to its logical conclusion on the video.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
If approved, a gay-friendly school could open in Manchester within the next three years.
Plans to open the first LGBT school in Britain were revealed last week.
The school, which would open in Manchester, is designedfor students age 13 and up who are bullied or otherwise struggling in mainstream schools.
If approved, the school could open its doors within the next three years. From the plans outlined so far, the school would have the capacity for 40 full-time students and 20 part-time students, with part-time students attending the mainstream school if they wish.
The Department for Communities and Local Government, which is looking into an alternative education for LGBT students, donated £63,000 for a “feasibility study.” This study will assess demand for the institution and help purchase the community centre from the Manchester City Council.
A Manchester City Council spokeswoman said:
“We supported LGBT Youth NW in their bid for funding to look at the feasibility of expanding their premises and developing the work they do,” she said.
“One of their development ambitions is around how they might make additional educational support available to LGBT young people. We’ve had an initial discussion with them about that but there are no current plans that we’re aware of to open a LGBT school in the city.”
Critics have lambasted the idea as lawful segregation that would inhibit tolerance efforts, not help them.
Tom Loughton, Tory MP and former education minister, said:
“We need to do a lot more to combat homophobic bullying and to create a more tolerant society.
“But I cannot see how segregating a group of young people identified by their sexuality can aid better engagement and understanding.
“The way to achieve more integration, understanding and empathy is not by segregating members of one group, and this would seem to me to be a step backwards from achieving tolerance.”
Paul Nuttall, educational spokesman and UKIP deputy leader stated: ‘This idea does nothing but foster division.
“At a time that successive governments have closed all but a few special schools, why this sudden exception, if not for reasons of political correctness?
“Integration is the key to understanding, and it is utterly bizarre to be taking a step that highlights differences and adds nothing of value to a child’s education.”
Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said: “There is simply no way that we will approve a free school specifically for LGBT young people.
“Pupils regardless of their sexuality should be educated in mainstream schools which should be equipped to tackle any bullying that should occur.”
Director for the LGBT Youth North West, Amelia Lee, said this school is “not about making a little, safe enclave away from the real world.”
She argued that right now the education system “sets up 5%-10% of pupils to fail” because the structure does not take the needs of LGBT students into account.
In addition, Lee said that the school would be “LGBT inclusive, but not exclusive.”
Writing in the Gay Star News, Elly Barnes arguedthat “education is key to eradicating all forms of discrimination including those of different gender and sexual diversities.”
The Founder and CEO of “Educate to Celebrate” believes that creating an LGBT-friendly school in Manchester will help, but it is not the long-term answer.
“Making ALL schools LGBT-friendly is the solution. Giving all teachers, staff and parents the confidence, training and resources to change ingrained attitudes amd make positive institutional change; this is the way forward to achieving social justice in the education system.”
“The key is to make LGBT-Friendly schools though delivering training to all staff, updating policies, creating resources for an LGBT-Inclusive curriculum, increasing visibility in the environment and engaging the community in events.”
Sally Carr, Founder and Operational Director of LGBT Youth NW told Christian Today that because the school is open to all students, not just LGBT students, the criticism of creating a gay “ghetto” is misplaced.
“Much like you would expect Christian schools to be absent of prejudice towards Christianity, this would be a school free from homophobia, transphobia and biphobia. These things have no place in modern British society.”
Carr also believes that Christians can help prevent gay children from being bullied in UK schools.
“I think Christians, particularly straight Christians, need to listen more than we speak,” she said. “There’s a need to listen to young LGBT people, and if they say that the current system is not working we need to take that seriously. We need to change the system so that future LGBT people are able to live and find God and find that God loves them, both at work and at play and at church.
“That has to be our highest priority, keeping young people from giving up on life and giving up on God.”
David Walker, Bishop of Manchester, agreed that LGBT students in mainstream schools could use extra support. He said that “the Church of England has made its position very clear that we strongly oppose homophobic bullying in schools.
“We are committed to eliminating homophobic bullying in all Church of England Schools and we produce national resources and guidance for teachers to use.
“However we recognise that other schools are not there yet.
“If pupils are being bullied because of their sexual orientation I would support alternative provision for them within the council’s service.”
Rev Sally Hitchiner, who founded Diverse Church, a support network that allows LGBT Christians to connect, believes this proposed school could help struggling LGBT students.
“I think it’s a tragedy that it’s needed,” she said, “but for students involved it might be a lifeline. Far too many LGBT students face misunderstanding and isolation to the point that some of take their own lives.
“However, I think the highest priority has to be enabling every school in the country to be a supportive and safe place for all of its people.”
Amelia Lee will wait until after the general election to move forward with an application to the school. If approved, students would be able to start in about three years.The grant received from the Department for Communities and Local Government said the grant was not to set up the school, but only to help purchase the community centre from the Manchester City Council.
The plans for this school are based on the Harvey Milk School in New York, which is designed for, but not exclusive to, LGBT students. It is named after Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to a public office in America.
Lee secured a meeting with Department of Education officials after visiting the Harvey Milk School last year.
While it is true that as Christians we are to love and minister to one another, there is a difference between loving someone and turning a blind eye to their sin. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:9: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” Another name for “abusers of themselves with mankind is homosexuality. The Bible clearly teaches that people who practice these sins will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But if they repent of this sin, He will be faithful and just to forgive them their sin and cleanse them from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Bill Mariott: happy to go against his Mormon beliefs so long as it makes money.
As a hotel chain founded and headed by Mormons, you would think Marriott Hotels would be a bastion of heterosexual, family-friendly orthodoxy.
But not a bit of it. Whatever makes money is the guiding principle for CEO Bill Marriott, even if it means going against his Mormon beliefs:
“Our church is very much opposed to alcohol and we’re probably one of the biggest sales engines of liquor in the United States”, Bill Marriott told Business Week. “I don’t drink. We serve a lot of liquor. You’re in business. You’ve got to make money,” he said. “We have to appeal to the masses out there, no matter what their beliefs are.”
It took until 2011 for Marriott to rid their rooms of on-demand pornography channels. The porn in Marriott’s rooms was an embarrassment for Mitt Romney when he ran for president of the United States in 2008. But the decision to take pay-for filth off the menu ended up not being one of morality or propriety, but money.
But perhaps the strangest move of all has been Marriott’s aligning of themselves as a ‘gay friendly’ establishment.
It seems to have started when Marriott refused to donate to the campaign run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in favour of Proposition 8, the Californian measure to strike down ‘gay marriage’.
Diane Brady of Business Week says: ‘As a result, when his church actively campaigned against same-sex marriage in California, neither Marriott nor the hotel chain donated any money to the cause. Instead, he stepped into the drama by publicly reinforcing his company’s commitment to gay rights through domestic partners benefits and services aimed at gay couples’.
Then, in 2012, a Marriott hotel in Chicago hosted the “International Mr. Leather Competition,” a leather fetish pageant. Some effort apparently went into prising the event, and its estimated 16,000 participants, away from the Hyatt Towers venue down the street.
As SunTimes put it, ‘To understand International Mr. Leather better, consider the way Chicago DJ Ron Geronimo described to Gopride.com the scene at the gatherin’s 2011 Black and Blue Ball: “Hot and sweaty sex . . . meets the best cheesecake in the world . . . meets hairy muscle daddy groove . . . meets rawhide leather.”’ Yuk.
In 2012, Marriott started offering discounts to homosexual guests in the US, according to Blaze, and a similar deal appears to have crossed the pond, with ‘Pride Packages‘ on a special ‘gay-friendly’ Marriott page offering a ‘promotional code’ for the ‘Out and About’ product. Families with children need not apply.
Finally, on 2nd June this year, 2014, Marriott launched their #LoveTravels venture, complete with a pro-gay propaganda video, shamelessly targeting the homosexual traveller. qz.com asks:
Marriott’s flagship hotel in London; on the South Bank, Marriott County Hall Hotel
‘Why is Bill Marriott so careful to separate faith and business when it comes to LGBT consumers? In a nutshell, $202 billion.
‘That’s how big the global LGBT travel market is predicted to be this year (2014 – ed), up from $181 billion in 2013, according to industry analysts Out Now Global—with LGBT spending comprising 13% of all global travel spending. That 11% rise is more than double (pdf) the increase in world travel spending overall, which is expected to rise 4% to 5% this year. The number of US 18- to 34-year-olds self-identifying as LGBT has risen by more than 60% since 2007, and … gay men spend 11% more on “nonessential purchases” than their heterosexual counterparts.’
Whether it’s out of the need not to support the heresy of Mormonism, or of making it clear that ‘gay friendly’ is not good business, or just not enriching a greedy man with no principles, it seems like Marriott Hotels are a venue Christians need to avoid.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
A British former public school teacher has been found guilty of sexually abusing street children in Kenya.
Simon Harris was found guilty of seven charges of indecent and sexual assault on the youngsters in Gilgil in Kenya’s Rift Valley.
He was also convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of four counts of possessing indecent images of children.
The offences were committed while Harris was running a gap year charity he set up in the East African country in the 1990s.
Under Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, British citizens can be tried for sexual offences committed abroad against children under 16 if it is also an offence in that country. This is the first time the relevant section has been applied to a case in Africa.
Prosecuting, Kevin Hegarty QC said Harris lured street boys to his home, known locally as “The Green House”, by offering them food and shelter.
Street children, like these boys in Nakuru, also in Kenya’s Rift Valley, are vulnerable to predators like Simon Harris
He told the jury: “A few years ago there was uproar in Kenya and big displacement of people, and many families were broken up and children abandoned. Many of the children made their way to a town called Gilgil.
“In Gilgil the children were living chaotic and desperate lives.
“It’s upon those children that the defendant preyed to encourage them with food, money to come to his house.
“He would drive to Gilgil in his white Land Rover and pick up boys who lived on the street in appalling conditions.”
They would stay at Simon Harris’s house for a few days, he said and “he might take a fancy to a particular one and they’d end up in his bed.”
Giving evidence via satellite link to Birmingham Crown Court, one boy described being attacked by Mr Harris, from Leominster in Herefordshire.
The victim, who was nine at the time, described to the court Mr Harris “doing bad manners” to him.
Giving evidence through an interpreter, the boy told the jury that he had been told to lie on the bed. He then described how the former public school housemaster had removed his vest and shorts before subjecting him to a painful ordeal that lasted about 10 minutes.
Before the trial, Harris admitted six offences of indecent assault against three boys aged between 13 and 14 when he was a teacher at Shebbear College, Devon, in the 1980s.
This may be the only case which has come to light, because of the extra-territorial nature of our Sexual Offences Act, but it illustrates that predatory homosexuals from Europe and America are a real danger to African children and why African nations need to have strong measures in place to discourage them.
Academic and author, Dr Sophie Coulombeau, suggests that women who adopt their husband’s surname are losing their identity.
In an article for BBC’s news magazine, Dr Sophie Coulombeau, raised the question of why a woman would want to share her husband’s last name.
In a well-researched historical surveyof female name-changing, Coulombeau suggested that a woman’s very identity as a person hinges on not adopting the surname of her husband, as if changing one’s name is tantamount to becoming a different person.
The novelist and Professor of English at Cardiff observed that “For me, to adopt the surname of my partner and relinquish my own would profoundly affect how I think about my own identity.”
Later she added that “To abandon my surname and take that of my partner would mean abandoning Sophie Coulombeau, along with all the errors, achievements and resonances she created over thirty years.”
Dr. Coulombeau is not alone. Writing in the Guardianlast year, Jill Filipovic suggested that adopting a husband’s surname is equivalent to allowing one’s identity to be obliterated, “subsuming your own identity into our husband’s.”
These ideas are achieving resonance with numerous women in the younger generation. In 2009, only 70% of womensaid they thought wives should adopt their husband’s surname.
Meanwhile, some are going to the opposite pole to suggest that a man should take his wife’s surname. Some couples are solving the problem by making up a brand new surname.
It is hard not to have some sympathy for the concerns various women have raised in the debate about name-changing. On the surface at least, there does seem to be something unfair in a tradition that insists a woman must change her name while a man is never expected to change his. Of greater concern to many women is the fact that name-changing might imply that a wife is simply an adjunct of her husband with no identity of her own. Others are concerned that this custom is simply a residual hang-over from our culture’s “patriarchal’ past – a past in which women allegedly had no rights and could be abused without consequences.
In this article I will attempt to interact with these concerns and to put forward some reasons why the custom of name-changing is worth preserving. But before getting into that, it may be helpful to explore some of the ideological origins of behind the current rejection of female name-changing.
Feminism and the Rise of Gender Equality
Despite the pervasive influence of feminism, most women still want to adopt the surname of their husband.
The growing move for women to keep their maiden names is directly tied to the rise of feminism, particularly feminist teaching about sexual equality.
Throughout the last hundred years, feminists have managed to convince the general public that equality of worth runs parallel to equality of role, with the consequence that in order for men and women to enjoy equal value, there must be sameness of function. Accordingly, feminism has left modern society without the categories for distinguishing diversities to be celebrated from inequalities to be lamented. In theory at least, all inequalities are viewed in a pejorative light. Thus, throughout the 20th century, there was pressure from feminists to remove all vestiges of gender differentiation from as many political and social areas as possible.
Despite their gains, feminists find it irksome that most women still choose to adopt their husband’s sunames. For a woman to adopt her husband’s name strikes at the heart of the utopia of gender neutrality towards which modern feminism strives. Consequently, feminists have fixated on this issue as part of their larger ambition to eradicate all gender distinctions from society.
The uneasiness about name-changing is understandable, since it is an emblem of a view of marriage that modern feminism rejects.
Feminism and the Changing Face of Marriage
In the older understanding, marriage had an institutional groundingthat was bigger than the couple, and which implicitly situated each marriage within an entire context of laws, taboos, traditions and expectations. The sense of marriage as an institution larger than the individuals involved was embodied in the practice of having the couple recite marriage vows that were given to them by the society, as well as in the tradition of a wife adopting the name of her husband’s family. Under this scheme of things, it is not up to any individual to define what marriage means; rather, marriage defines us.
In the revisionist understanding of marriage, it is the individual who defines her marriage and what it ultimately means to her.
By contrast, in the modern understanding of marriage championed by feminism, each woman should be able to define for herself what marriage means. This is one of the reasons it is becoming widespread for a couple to invent their own marriage vows. Customs and practices for marriage that are received (even when we do not understand the rationale behind them) are viewed as a limitation to the right we all have to define our own existence for ourselves. As such, whatever makes a woman feel more fulfilled, whether it is keeping her maiden name or adopting the surname of her husband, is legitimate. It is the individual who defines her marriage and what it ultimately means to her.
The causalities in this revisionist understanding of marriage are legion, and affect everything from our willingness to accept same-sex ‘marriage’ to our society’s approach to no-fault divorce. It also means that the custom of a woman accepting her husband’s name is viewed as little more than an anachronistic relic that has survived well beyond its years from our “patriarchal” past. In this regard it is significant that Coulombeau explicitly situated the debate about female name-changing within the larger context of the same revisionism that has rejected gender normativity:
And we might well ask, in the wake of last year’s Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, whether a custom that depends on a gender-normative idea of marriage – a woman automatically sacrificing her name to take that of a man – is starting to look more outdated than ever.
Guardian journalist, Jill Filipovic, has also drawn a connection between wives keeping their maiden name and the revisionist innovations of same-sex “marriage.”
An Attack on Christian Tradition
In her BBC article on the subject, Dr Sophie Coulombeau acknowledges the Christian origin to the tradition of a wife taking the name of her husband’s family, noting how around the turn of the 15th century, the English appropriated the French doctrine of coverture “based on scriptural ideas, which focused not on the husband’s power over his wife but on the unity that marriage gave them.” Coulombeau continued:
The English custom of designating a married woman by her husband’s surname dignified those who had previously occupied the status of vassals.
“In the words of the English jurist Henry de Bracton, they became ‘a single person, because they are one flesh and one blood’. As this idea gained ground, so did the clerical habit of designating a married woman by her husband’s surname.The married woman had formerly been a vassal with no surname at all, but now, in theory, she came to share the surname of her husband as a symbol of their legal and spiritual unity.”
This is significant, because it shows that far from being demeaning, the practice of a wife adopting her husband’s surname was dignifying, lifting her above the status of a vassal and giving her legal and spiritual unity with her husband.
This practice actually goes further back than the 15th century, as the Genesis narrative records Adam naming his wife Eve. The notion is also consistent with Biblical teaching regarding the headship of the husband. Though Christian cultures have not always practiced this custom, the idea itself is consonant with Biblical teaching.
Name-Changing and Female Identity
Even those who do not share our Christian convictions have good reasons to be concerned by the growing practice of married women preserving their maiden names. This is because the assumption behind keeping the maiden name is often rooted in the dangerous idea that a woman’s identity is precariously fragile, hinging only on what she is called. Sophie Coulombeau implies as much when she writesthat “Introducing myself as ‘Sophie Hardiman’ would mean that saying ‘I do’ had fundamentally changed the answer to the question ‘Who am I?’” Coulombeau goes on to quote followers of Lucy Stone, whose slogan in the 1920s was “My name is my identity and must not be lost.”
Does Jill Filipovic really believe a woman’s identity is fragile enough to be undermined by adopting her husband’s surname?
This echoes concerns articulated by Jill Filipovic in her Guardian article ‘Why should married women change their names? Let men change theirs.’ Filipovic wrote that adopting the name of a husband “lessens the belief that our existence is valuable unto itself, and that as individuals we are already whole. It disassociates us from ourselves…Jill Filipovic is my name and my identity. Jill Smith is a different person.”
Do these feminists really want us to think that female identity is so precarious, and that the billions of women throughout history who chose to adopt the name of their husband’s family thereby ceased to be less than themselves, that their personhood was sublimated to that of their husbands?
Having said that, there is a kernel of truth to the fears these feminists are articulating. Marriage makes us whole (if we were “already whole” before marriage, then there would be no reason to get marriage in the first place?), but it also involves change, sacrificing who we were in a dynamic process of becoming, of continual renegotiation of self in relation to the other. This is as true for a husband as it is for a wife. A woman changing her name is a visible sign of this dynamic process, but there are just as many ways (if not more) that marriage requires husbands to negotiate a new understanding of self in the mutual interplay of sacrifice and new life that forms the mystery of marriage. In the past, the feminists who found this loathsome – believing, with Filipovic, that “we are already whole” – attacked marriage itself and urged women to remain single. They recognized, not without warrant, that marriage is antithetical to the principles of individual self-assertion that form the bedrock of so much feminist ideology.
Part of the problem arises from thinking of marriage as a zero-sum game where the sacrifices and adjustments made for the sake of the other are correlative to loss of self. But in reality marriage is governed by the spiritual logic where the more we give the more fully we become ourselves. This applies as much to the sacrifices a husband has to make as it does to a women sacrificing her maiden name for that of her husband.
Name-Changing and Government Intrusion
Although I maintain there are good reasons for a wife taking her husband’s name, I do not believe any woman should be forced to do this against her will. However, a day may come in the not so distant future when women will be deprived of this choice and forced to keep their maiden names.
I have read (but have not verified it for myself) that in parts of Canada it is now actually illegalfor a woman to change her surname to that of her husband; the government forces her to keep her maiden name. Strange as this seems, it is a natural corollary to the notion that requiring women to change their name somehow implies that women are inferior. If the time-honoured practice really does treat women as inferior, then how is it not a species of the type of abuse that is usually forbidden in law? By asking questions like this we see that the arguments feminists are now making could be setting us on a trajectory that can only culminate in women being preventing from taking the name of their husband’s family.
The government may have its own reasons for wanting to abolish the custom I have been defending. Recognizable and traceable family structures (whether in the form of clans, tribes or extended networks of kinship) have historically proved to be one of the main hedges against the aspirations of powerful warlords and kings. Although this is less the case in the modern world, the strength of the family still functions as a significant barrier to the unrestrained power of the state. But it is hard to preserve these family structures when there is irregularity in how names are passed down. With everyone choosing their own surname, with some couples jointly taking on the wife’s surname, with other couples inventing a new surname, and with children having to decide whether to adopt their mother’s surname or their father’s surname (a choice that may be different to that of their siblings), we will increasingly have to lean towards the state to help clarify the boundary markers of each family.
It is significant in this regard that many who are agitating for women to keep their maiden name are appealing to a notion of family based on legal rather than natural bonds. For example, Filipovic writes that an alternative to the traditional family is to “embrace a modern vision of family where individuals form social and legal bonds out of love and loyalty, instead of defining family as a group coalesced under one male figurehead and a singular name.” This continues the trajectory of gay marriage where the boundaries of what constitute a family are becoming purely a legal fiction.
It is tempting to say that the consequence of each woman making her own choice extends no further than her own family. However, if the concerns I have registered are legitimate, then that is an overly naive and simplistic view. Without wanting to over-dramatize things, what is at stake is the future of the family itself.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The case comes on the heals of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals having upheld same-sex “marriage” in the state of Oregon by denying the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) the right to defend Oregon’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
These local battles could culminate in a national show-down this fall when the U.S. Supreme Court is expected in disputes involving a number of different states. Christian Voice will aim to keep our readers informed of these upcoming Supreme Court battles, which build on the ambiguity of last January’s ruling.
Much of the rationale behind same-sex marriage in Oregon and other American states has been the notion that opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’ represents a massive intrusion into family life. As Scott Shackford recently claimed: “Laws forbidding recognition of gay marriage are a government intrusion…”
Earlier in the year I had a chance to engage in a public debate about same-sex ‘marriage’, and I argued that the shoe is actually on the other foot: it is gay marriage that threatens to bring unprecedented government intrusion into family life. Since my opponent quit in the middle of cross-examining me, I never had a chance to publish my statements. In preparation for the Supreme Court battles this fall, I thought it was a fitting time to share some of the arguments I made in that debate.
Gay Marriage Will Affect EVERY Marriage
One of the things I like to do with my children is to throw pebbles into a pond and watch the ripples. When you first throw a pebble into the water the ripples are rather small, but soon they widen and disturb the surface of the entire body of water. Legalizing gay marriage is like dropping a small pebble into a pond because it has ramifications that keep widening and widening. In fact, when a nation legalizes same-sex ‘marriage’, the ramifications are so broad that they affect every marriage in the land, not simply the, so called, ‘marriages’ among those of the same sex.
As marriage and family lose their objective fixity, all of us become de facto wards of the state.
Most people are not aware of how gay marriage will undermine the traditional family because it does so in ways that are subtle and ubiquitous. However, once gay marriage is introduced into a nation, it undermines the integrity of every family and every marriage in the land. It does this by rearranging the family’s relationship to the state. A government that recognizes such a thing as gay marriage is a one that has assumed the god-like power to declare which collections of individuals constitute a ‘family.’ But by this assumption government declares that both marriage and family are little more than legal constructs at best, and gifts from the state at worst. In the former case, marriage and family lose their objective fixity; in the latter case, all of us become wards of the state.
Consider: without the intervention of government, there are no pre-political, existential state of affairs that mark certain types of same-sex relationships out as being marriage within a state of nature. Unlike heterosexual marriage, which exists in nature and is then recognized by the state on the basis of intrinsic goods attached to it (including, but not limited to, the assurance of patrimony), homosexual marriage is an abstract legal entity with no natural or existential existence. Since neither consummation nor biologically-derived intrinsic goods are viable concepts among same-sex couples (a point the UK Parliament had to concede when introducing their same-sex marriage laws), it follows that the only way a consensual relationship between two people of the same sex can be upgraded into marriage is if the state steps in and declares that relationship to be a marriage, in much the same way as the state might declare something to be a corporation or some other legal entity. It is here that we see just how radical gay marriage really is.
The architects of same-sex marriage like to see themselves as being revolutionary, but even they usually fail to appreciate just how revolutionary their proposals actually are. Their project goes beyond the merely petty concerns for “equality” and “marriage freedom” that have become campaigning slogans in this debate. On the contrary, the truly revolutionary aspects of their agenda is that by substituting empirical goods with legal goods, the family’s role in society is not simply undermined, it is completely redrawn. Up to now, human societies have always been able to point to empirical acts that are a necessary condition for a viable marriage, such as consummation. Similarly, human societies have also been able to point to empirical acts which can invalidate a marriage, such as adultery. Human societies have also been able to point to intrinsic goods which marriages normally yield, including but not limited to the assurance of patrimony, the integrity of inheritance, the preservation of extended relationships of kinship and the role that such relationships play as the primary social structure against the aspirations of kings, ambitious overlords and the state. The web of marriage laws that tribes and societies have produced throughout the centuries have always been posterior to these empirical realities, so that what constitutes a viable marriage and family has never been purely a matter of jurisprudence. That is why we can speak meaningfully of a “common law marriage” even in the absence of explicit legal recognition. All of these empirical markers come crashing down under the legal positivism of same-sex marriage.
The architects of “marriage equality” are rearranging the relationship between family and state by making our most vital connections merely the result of positive law. For without the mechanisms of the state to confer the status of marriage upon two members of the same sex, there are no acts that organically mark their union out as being a specifically marital one. One can point neither to empirical acts nor to intrinsic goods that mark a same-sex relationship out as being “marriage” in a state of nature, and that is why the concept of a “common law marriage” can have no meaning when it comes to same-sex marriages. There are simply no non-legal state of affairs that allow us to distinguish a gay marriage from other types of same-sex relationships. The existential reality of the same-sex “marriage” relationship, which is usually explained in terms of a commitment of love between two consenting adults in which the physical elements are downplayed (don’t believe me, see here and hereand hereand here), does not itself distinguish that relationship from numerous other sorts of loving relationships that exist in this world. So what is it that sets this type of relationship apart to make it ‘marital’? Again, the answer is that it can only be the state.
Redefining the Ontology of the Family
Here’s the rub: once we concede that same-sex ‘marriage’ is purely the creation of positive law, then for these ‘marriages’ to be truly equal to heterosexual ones, we would have to acknowledge that EVERY marriage and family is a post-political institution instead of being pre-political. This concedes to the state the power to determine what collections of individuals constitute a marriage or a family, rather than acknowledging that the state merely recognizes a reality that precedes itself and exists within a state of nature on the basis of empirically recognizable markers. This is nothing short of a revolution in the ontology of the family, a challenge to what a family fundamentally is, and an unprecedented rearrangement of the relationship between state and family. The ubiquitous effects of this rearrangement are felt at every level of family life. When a family sits down at the table to eat together, there is a huge practical difference if they think they are only a family because of bonds created by the state, as opposed to thinking they are a family because of bonds that are natural and pre-political. When a son says, “that’s my Dad” or a man says “that’s my wife”, the meaning is completely different if you think these relationships are purely legal constructs instead of natural, pre-political realities. This difference is not always something we can explicitly quantify or even something that we are conscious of, as our deepest convictions are part of the taken-for-granted background by which we map our way in the world. The laws in our society play a formative role in this orienting process, as Aristotle understood. Laws are educational in so far as they train us (on a subliminal level that we are often unaware) in how we see ourselves, our relationships to others, and our relationship to the state.
Marriage As A Legal Fiction
If we attend to the experience of those nations that have legalized same-sex marriage, we see that these seismic shifts I’m concerned about have already begun to take place with a frightening consistency. In short, marriage has been reduced to little more than a legal fiction. In his article ‘Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?’ Canadian Douglas Farrow gave examples of the ubiquitous effects that arose in Canada following the introduction of same-sex ‘marriage.’
“Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, the new legislation quietly acknowledged this [that family is nothing more than a legal construct]. In its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of ‘natural parent,’ ‘blood relationship,’ etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with ‘legal parent,’ ‘legal relationship,’ and so forth. That was strictly necessary. ‘Marriage’ was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state.”
That is ultimately why we should oppose gay marriage, even though almost everyone is ignoring these concerns. In short, the concern is that a nation that legalizes gay marriage is a nation that has intruded itself into the life of every family in the land; it does this by granting itself the god-like power to determine which collections of individuals constitute a family.
John Milbank
As the nations of the world rush to redefine marriage in order to accommodate the shrill demands of homosexuals (and yes, despite much sophistry to the contrary, the gay community does want us to redefine marriage), it might be nice to think that heterosexual marriage can preserve its ontological legitimacy without collapsing into purely a legal fiction in the eyes of the state (let alone in the eyes of ourselves). However, there is no reason to suppose that the push for equality will stop at the inclusion of homosexuals in the category of marriage; the logic of equality, once unloosed, may eventually entail that we conceive heterosexual marriages according to the same terms as homosexuals necessarily understand marriage. John Milbank has warned of this last year, noting that
During the course of recent debates in the British Parliament over the proposed legalisation of gay marriage, it has gradually become apparent that the proposal itself is impossible. For legislators have recognised that it would be intolerable to define gay marriage in terms equivalent to “consummation,” or to permit “adultery” as legitimate ground for gay divorce…. Why, then, should Christians worry, if this is all just a matter of terminology? Can we not live with differing definitions of marriage? … …the graver fear surrounding the new legislation is that secular thought will not so readily let go of the demand for absolutely equal rights based on identical definitions. In that case, we face an altogether more drastic prospect. Not only would “marriage” have been redefined so as to include gay marriage, it would inevitably be redefined even for heterosexual people in homosexual terms. Thus “consummation” and “adultery” would cease to be seen as having any relevance to the binding and loosing of straight unions.
Milbank went on to warn that in severing the natural link between sex and procreation, the natural children of heterosexual couples would belong to them on the same terms as the children of homosexual couples belong to them; that is, they would only legally be their children if the state decided that they might be legally “adopted” by them. Milbank ended on this sobering note, which is also a fitting summary of the concerns I have tried to articulate:
This is not about natural justice, but the desire on the part of biopolitical tyranny to destroy marriage and the family as the most fundamental mediating social institution. Heterosexual exchange and reproduction has always been the very “grammar” of social relating as such. The abandonment of this grammar would thus imply a society no longer primarily constituted by extended kinship, but rather by state control and merely monetary exchange and reproduction. For the individual, the experience of a natural-cultural unity is most fundamentally felt in the sense that her natural birth is from an interpersonal (and so “cultural”) act of loving encounter – even if this be but a one-night stand. This provides a sense that one’s very biological roots are suffused with an interpersonal narrative. Again, to lose this “grammar” would be to compromise our deepest sense of humanity, and risk a further handing over of power to market and state tyrannies supported by myths both of pure human nature and technocratic artifice.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Homosexuals in Scotland may only number around 1% of its population, but Alex Salmond is courting their votes in a final push for the ‘Yes campaign’, according to Pink News.
The First Minister told the ‘Equality Network’, a group of homosexual activists, that an independent Scotland would cement perversion in a new constitution.
Mr Salmond said: “Independence is a once in a lifetime opportunity to embed and enhance LGBTI rights. With Independence we will be able to enshrine LGBTI equality in a written constitution – ensuring our rights cannot be easily reversed by any government”. (‘Our rights’? What can that mean?)
“With a No vote we face the prospect of another Tory government committed to scrapping the Human Rights Act…It’s only with the full powers of an independent country that we can finally secure true equality for LGBTI people and a fairer society for all.”
The First Minister said the equality protections of a Scottish constitution would include: age, disability, gender identity, gender reassignment, intersex status, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
In reality, the gay-friendly Conservatives are not going to repeal ‘gay marriage’ or the Equality Act whether the UK remains signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights or not. Mr Salmond is erecting an Aunt Sally. But it gets worse.
Alex Salmond being ‘gay-friendly’ at ‘Pride House’. The homosexual ‘Rainbow’ flag flew over St Andrew’s House during the Commonwealth Games 2014.
Mr Salmond went on: “With complete control over foreign policy and international development we will be able to make full use of diplomatic relations and actively promote LGBTI equality and human rights around the world.”
So Indy-Scotland will not lift a finger to help Christians in Iraq but will promote sodomy across the globe. The UK has been been bad enough at forcing its view through its aid budget down the throats of Africans, but under Mr Salmond, whips seem about to be replaced by scorpions.
Scotland will also give foreign homosexuals priority in asylum applications: “With independence we can have a new humane approach to asylum seekers and refugees in line with our values and commitment to upholding internationally recognised human rights. Our approach stands in stark contrast to Westminster’s aggressive approach that is best exemplified by their offensive ‘go home’ advertising campaign.
“Scotland has a very clear position on promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and intersex rights both at home and abroad,” Mr Salmond concluded.
Christian Voice has remained neutral during the Scottish Independence debate, but Mr Salmond’s declaration now means that no Bible-believing Christian can vote for him or for independence, if it entails what its chief protagonist says it does.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The highest human rights court in Europe assuaged fears that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.
European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to the judgment last month.
The judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing the hopes of homosexual activists that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality across the continent.
The United Kingdom is one of only fifteen countries in the world to have changed its definition of marriage. Five are outside Europe. The list of shame is: Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, France, UK, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina and Uruguay.
The European Court ruling will help supporters of real marriage in the United States, where the Supreme Court ruled last year that individual states may decide whether or not to allow individuals of the same sex to marry each other. Nineteen States and the District of Columbia have legalised ‘gay marriage’, and there are law suits current in the other thirty-one.
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
Italy, Finland and Australia are among the nations whose parliaments have rejected the redefinition.
The European Court not only said that European human rights law does not contemplate same-sex marriage, it said that civil unions are good enough for same-sex couples.
The court confirmed that the protection of the traditional institution of marriage is a valid state interest, supporting the view that relations between persons of the same sex are not identical to marriage between a man and a woman, and may be treated differently in law.
The judgment says that European human rights law recognizes the “fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family” and “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.” It explains how no European consensus on same-sex marriages exists, as only 10 of the 47 countries bound by the treaty allow such designations.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
U.S. President Barack Obama signed an executive order last week preventing all federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Two chairman from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have denouncedan executive order from President Barack Obama, saying that the order “is unprecedented and should be opposed.”
President Obama’s 21 July executive order prevents federal government contractors from discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This order offers no exemption for religious organizations, despite many religious groups asking Obama to include one in the order.
Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, and Bishop Richard J. Malone of Buffalo, Chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, said the following in an official statement:
“In the name of forbidding discrimination, this order implements discrimination. With the stroke of a pen, it lends the economic power of the federal government to a deeply flawed understanding of human sexuality, to which faithful Catholics and many other people of faith will not assent. As a result, the order will exclude federal contractors precisely on the basis of their religious beliefs.”
The bishops’ concern is that this order “ignores the inclination/conduct distinction in the undefined term ‘sexual orientation.’” Because of this, employers could be turned away from receiving a federal contract if their religious beliefs object to any extra-marital sexual activity.
This order could preventChristian organizations from applying for federal contracts to fund their charity and relief programs.
“If you hold that certain sexual practices are immoral, there is a good chance you probably will be disqualified from contracts,” said Melissa Swearingen, adviser and spokeswoman for the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Swearingen, who said that the President’s lack of religious exemption was “very disappointing and hurtful,” also sees this as evidence of the Obama administration’s lack of regard for the concerns of his religious supporters.
“We definitely think the administration is on the wrong side of history. It seems they are intentionally discriminating against people of religious faith in the name of nondiscrimination.”
This Executive Order, which will go into effect early next year, comes after months of lobbying by homosexual groups.
President Obama called the order “extraordinary progress” for LGBT rights and hailed it as a bringer of fairness to America’s citizens. He told a White House gathering: “Thanks to your passion and advocacy and the irrefutable rightness of your cause, our government – the government of the people, by the people and for the people – will become just a little bit fairer.”
At a White House signing ceremony, Obama told advocates that he believed in the “irrefutable rightness of [their] cause” and declared that “America’s federal contracts should not subsidize discrimination against the American people.”
Vice President Joe Biden essentially said that gay rights override the beliefs of everyone else. In remarks to the Associated Press, Biden declared, “I don’t care what your culture is…Inhumanity is inhumanity. Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice.”
Rev Barry Lynn, Executive Director for American United for Separation of Church and State, said that Obama made the “right call” by not allowing religious exemption to his Executive Order. Lynn said in a statement:
“Faith-based groups that tap the public purse should play by the same rules as everyone else and not expect special treatment…No forms of discrimination should be supported with the taxpayer dime, period.”
Obama might have published this order sooner, but he was waiting to see if Congress would pass the more comprehensive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would have prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for people that work for private businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies.
ENDA cleared the U. S. Senate in November, but could not get past the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. So Obama took matters into his own hands, sayingthat it was “time to address this injustice for every American.”
The ENDA legislation contained a religious exemption, but the USCCB declaredit too limiting. However, a group of 14 faith leaders asked for a similar provision in the executive order. They said in a letter to Obama that an executive order without a religious exemption could “significantly and substantively hamper the work of some religious organizations that are best equipped to serve in common purpose with the federal government.”
Vice President and Senior Counsel of the Thomas More Society, Peter Breen, believes that Obama’s executive order should have been decided by Congress. While directly applying to federal employers and contractors, this order, according to Breen, could become a “slippery slope.”
“This does appear to be laying the foundation for further regulation on the issue of homosexual employees and on transgendered employees,” Breen said.
Eric Kniffin, an attorney with Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP who has litigated religious-liberty cases, believes that the recent Hobby Lobby case ruling instigated Obama’s not providing a religious exemption.
“There is a huge blow-back to Hobby Lobby, and I think this was one way of President Obama being able to show his supporters, ‘I’m going to deliver despite the court’s ruling,’” Kniffin said.
Kniffen also said that the Executive Order “continues the Obama administration’s efforts of narrowing religious liberty to internal ecclesial matters: freedom to worship, but not to practice and express ideas in the public square.”
“Basically, if you employ and you serve people of your own faith, then you can preserve your rights,” Kniffin asserted. “But when you engage in the public square, then you have to play by the same rules that govern everyone else. Wherever the administration thinks it can narrow religious liberty, it does so. Obviously, this is a First Amendment right, and people are accustomed to this right.”
Obama’s Executive Order adds to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 directive that prohibits employers and contractors from discriminating based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” In 2002, George W. Bush made the amendment that allowed religious employers to favor members of their own religion for employment, which Obama’s order retained.
24,000 companies with 28 million workers, or one-fifth of the U.S. workforce, will be affected by this order, despite many federal contractors already having provisions that prohibit anti-gay discrimination.
Approximately 14 million workers will now get protection from employers who currently do not have nondiscrimination policies, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA School.
The fundamental issue in this case is that the Obama administration is equating race, something a person cannot change, to sexual lifestyle choices.
It would appear that the Obama administration wants to tell America’s Christian citizens who they are allowed to hire and how they must run their business. Americans who want to live our lives according to Biblical beliefs now have one more obstacle put in their way.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The terrible Malaysian airline disaster has focused attention on the 20th International AIDS Conference in Melbourne, Australia. After reports that over a hundred activists were on the tragic plane bound for the Conference, it turns out that there were just six.
But what of the conference, which is running as we go to press? Is it merely a symposium for good-hearted people who want to develop medicines to combat HIV and AIDS? Well, no, it isn’t. It is also a grindingly right-on campaigning forum advancing special rights for homosexuals, drug abusers and prostitutes.
Aung San Suu Kyi has allowed her name to be attached to the amoral Melbourne Declaration
The Declaration opens with a pretentious nod to the Animist Australian Aborigines:
‘We gather in Melbourne, the traditional meeting place of the Wurundjeri, Boonerwrung, Taungurong, Djajawurrung and the Wathaurung people, the original and enduring custodians of the lands that make up the Kulin Nation, to assess progress on the global HIV response and its future direction, at the 20th International AIDS Conference, AIDS 2014.’
The Declaration begins by claiming ‘that non-discrimination is fundamental to an evidence-based, rights-based and gender transformative response to HIV and effective public health programmes’. If it going to be ‘rights-based’ and to mess around with gender roles, one supposes that the elimination of discrimination, or of making any moral judgments at all, must be fundamental.
It then states that ‘nobody should be criminalized or discriminated against because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, disability, religious or spiritual beliefs, country of origin, national status, sexual orientation, gender identity, status as a sex worker, prisoner or detainee, because they use or have used illicit drugs or because they are living with HIV.’
So Governments should not pass laws against prostitution or using illicit drugs? ‘Illicit’ means ‘forbidden by law, rules, or custom’. Drugs are ‘illicit’ because they are illegal. If you do something illegal you are criminalised.
Dr Joep Lange died in the Malaysian aircraft disaster.
The Declaration affirms everyone’s right to treatment, but spoils it by clothing it in terms of ‘social justice, equality, human rights’ which can mean anything.
In fact, for the International AIDS Conference, it means a sexual and – taken with the call to decriminalise currently illicit drugs – a drug-crazed free-for-all:
‘In over 80 countries’, it moans, ‘there are unacceptable laws that criminalize people on the basis of sexual orientation. All people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. All people are born free and equal and are equal members of the human family’.
Uganda’s President Museveni recently signed a law to protect young people from homosexual propaganda.
Yes, they are, but if they break the law they need to be brought to justice. Would the Melbourne signatories complain about laws that criminalise people on the basis that they steal, or murder, or bear false witness, or deliberately infect others, or have sexual relations with children? It is hard not to wonder whether they might.
‘Governments must repeal repressive laws and end policies that reinforce discriminatory and stigmatizing practices that increase the vulnerability to HIV, while also passing laws that actively promote equality’, they say. No, they must keep in place and enforce laws which protect children from predatory homosexuals, particularly, in the developing world, from those from rich Western nations on the look-out for exotic children to corrupt for a couple of dollars.
The Melbourne signatories want to shut up politicians like Uganda’s President Museveni and Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan who speak about decency and Biblical morality:
‘Decision makers must not use international health meetings or conferences as a platform to promote discriminatory laws and policies that undermine health and wellbeing.’ Perish the thought that any challenging view should ruffle the feathers of AIDS activists.
Zambia’s Youth Alive programme would lose funding for opposing the distribution of condoms.
And they are very keen to keep as much project funding as they can in the hands of politically- correct people like them:
‘The exclusion of organisations that promote intolerance and discrimination including sexism, homophobia, and transphobia against individuals or groups, from donor funding for HIV programmes.’
Church-based programmes may find it difficult in future to offer their care and expertise to those in need because the Melbourne Declaration, so keen on non-discrimination, wants to discriminate against them:
‘All healthcare providers must demonstrate the implementation of non-discriminatory policies as a prerequisite for future HIV programme funding.
‘Restrictions on funding, such as the anti-prostitution pledge and the ban on purchasing needles and syringes, must be removed as they actively impede the struggle to combat HIV, sexually transmitted infections, and hepatitis C among sex workers and people who inject drugs.’
The Melbourne people refuse to concede that those who would crack down on prostitution, refuse to distribute condoms and ban the sale of needles to drug addicts are doing it out of good-hearted concern for society at large and trying to protect those who might get caught up in destructive practices.
There is only one way of looking at the world in the Melbourne Declaration and it is an amoral, Western liberal godless way, with avarice clothed in a veneer of altruism. The Melbourne Declaration is not just a recipe for moral degeneration, it is an anti-Christian, self-righteous, self-serving and self-absorbed recipe for moral degeneration.
It is a pity that it has taken an air disaster and the loss of so many lives to bring it to light.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
A bakery firm in Northern Ireland is facing a discrimination case after refusing to bake a cake with a slogan supporting ‘gay marriage’
Ashers Baking Company, which is owned and run by the McArthur family, who are Christians, declined an order from a gay rights activist asking for a cake featuring the Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie with a slogan saying ‘Support Gay Marriage’.
Marriage between people of the same sex is illegal in Northern Ireland. In April 2014 the Stormont Assembly rejected a Sinn Fein motion to change the definition of marriage for the third time in eighteen months.
The customer also wanted the cake to feature the logo of a Belfast-based campaign group called “Queerspace”.
The cake was ordered for a civic event in Bangor Castle Town Hall, County Down, to mark the invented ‘International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia’, ‘IDAHOT’ in May.
Homosexual Cllr Andrew Muir campaigns for ‘gay marriage’ by cutting the ‘QueerSpace’ cake.
The event, hosted by Councillor Andrew Muir, the openly-homosexual Mayor of North Down for the divisive Alliance Party, went ahead after another company provided a cake.
But now, six weeks after the event, the County Antrim firm has received a letter from a self-important quango called the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
“We thought that was the end of it, but approximately six weeks later we received a letter from the Equality Commission. The Equality Commission’s letter said that we had discriminated against the customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
“It asked us to propose how we would recompense the customer for this discrimination. It also said it would pursue legal proceedings if we didn’t respond within a seven-day time period,” Mr McArthur said.
The watchdog confirmed it is assisting the customer. In a statement, it said: “The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland provides advice and can provide assistance to people who complain to us that they have suffered unlawful discrimination.
“In this case the commission has granted assistance to the complainant, and has written to the company concerned on his behalf. The commission will consider any response before taking further action.”
Sammy Wilson, MP for East Antrim, left, presents the Newtownabbey Business Person of the Year award to Colin McArthur of Ashers Baking Company.
But the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) said the Equality Commission had overstepped the mark and the complaint highlighted the need for a “conscience clause” to protect Christians and others who have deeply held beliefs.
DUP MP Nigel Dodds said: “The case re-opens the debate about how exactly religious belief is respected within the United Kingdom and the need for someone’s conscience to be protected whilst ensuring that discrimination does not occur.”
Mr Dodds could point out that Ashers have not discriminated against the complainant on the grounds of his sexual orientation, although this should in conscience be their right.
They have instead objected to manufacturing a product carrying a contentious political message.
Ashers could equally have objected to producing icing depicting the Sesame Street’s ‘Bert’ and ‘Ernie’ out of respect for the copyright protection attached to those characters.
The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is now considering its next step.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Elton John may never become any kind of Christian leader, but he still thinks he should be.
On Sunday, according to the Washington Times, the ageing celeb said ‘that Jesus Christ would support the idea of two gay priests tying the knot and that the celibacy vow among clergy is an “old and stupid” rule that should be abolished’.
Mr. John, who hopes to ‘marry’ his sodomite civil partner David Furnish some time next year, said gay clergy should be allowed to ‘marry’ and have sexual relationships.
“These are old and stupid things. If Jesus Christ was alive today, I cannot see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen,” he said.
Apparently, the greater and more ‘Christian’ one is on planet Elton, the more one agrees that the rectum is an appropriate receptacle for the male anatomy.
That only confirms Elton as confused, crass and clueless about the Christian faith.
The Lord Jesus cannot be described as a ‘Christian person’ and he is alive. He was and is the Son of God who ministered on earth as a Jewish Pharisee, upheld and taught the laws of God and died on a cross to bear the sins of as many as would believe in him, sexual sins like sodomy included.
There is little evidence that Elton John understands this and even less that he has repented of his acts of sodomy and/or gross indecency with David Furnish and countless others. His ignorance of the Lord Jesus knows no bounds:
“He was all about love and compassion and forgiveness and trying to bring people together, and that’s what the church should be about.”
Actually, the Jesus we read about in scripture, not the one who is a figment of Elton’s imagination, is ‘all about’ division:
Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
John 7:40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. 41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? 42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? 43 So there was a division among the people because of him.
John 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
As to ‘love and compassion and forgiveness’, Elton, yes, the Lord Jesus will forgive all your sins if you turn to him, but if if you persist in your sin and go around promoting it in your pride and arrogance he will be a consuming fire.
The love of Christ is not some mawkish, sentimental endorsement of whatever goes, but a calling to repentance:
Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
Sir Elton told Sky News that ‘the global fight for gay rights was stalling’ and that he planned to talk with Russian President Vladimir Putin in November.
“Globally, we seem to have gone backwards over the last 18 months,” he said. “I will see Putin and talk to him. I don’t know what good it will do though.”
Let us hope and pray that President Putin will tell Elton John the truth, that sodomy is a act of abuse, that homosexual desires are vile affections and that Jesus Christ can release him from his sinful life. Then their meeting, if it takes place at all, will have done some good.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Baroness Hale, pictured, has called into question whether or not the law makes accommodation for Christians beliefs.
In an unexpected turn of events, Supreme Court Deputy Baroness Hale has said that she “may have been wrong” in her earlier ruling against Christian bed and breakfast owners who refused a double bed to a homosexual couple.
The UK’s senior female judge called for a re-think concerning her decision to condemn Peter and Hazelmary Bull of discrimination against homosexuals. In addition, she said that the law has done little to protect Christian beliefs.
Baroness Hale’s remarks,which have come more than six months after the Bulls’ final appeal was refused, call into question the relationship between gay rights and religious rights
In 2008, the Bulls refused to rent a double bed to a homosexual couple in their Marazion Bed and Breakfast called Chymorvah House. The same-sex couple, Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, took the Bulls to court, where Lady Hale and four other judges eventually ruled that the rights of the gay couple trumped the religious freedom of the Bulls.
Lady Hale declared that the Bulls will not have to pay Preddy and Hall’s legal costs for the case, which was in the original sentence. In addition, she said that laws which ignore the consciences of Christians will not be and may need to be adjusted to include a “conscience clause” for Christian business owners like the Bulls.
Speaking to Irish lawyers, Hale used the Bull case as one example among many recent cases that may have been unfair to Christian beliefs. In this speech she asked: “Should we be developing an explicit requirement upon providers of employment, goods and services to make reasonable accommodation for the manifestation of religious beliefs?”
“It is fascinating that a country with an established church can be less respectful of religious feelings than one without”, Hale was quoted in the Telegraph as saying. “It is not difficult to see why the Christians feel that their religious beliefs are not being sufficiently respected.”
Mrs. Bull was glad to be relieved of the case costs, and hoped that her case would pave the way for other Christians in similar situations.
“It is too late for us, which is a shame, but at the same time I hope her comments will restore some kind of balance back to the issue,” Bull said. “I am glad that something positive looks as though it will come out of this although I would not call it a victory.”
The Bulls nearly closed their B&B because business had declined, and they could no longer keep up their advertising. However, thanks to financial support from different supporters they were able to stay in business.
Mrs. Bull added that she had no hard feelings toward anyone, but thinks that the Supreme Court “missed a big opportunity to put something right.”
“We are certainly not homophobic but hopefully the pendulum is being corrected. I have never been able to understand why two different lifestyles cannot live together harmoniously,” Bull added.
Mrs. Bull’s comments touch on issues of concern in cases like these. Christians have been given the blanket reputation of “homophobe,” while gay people have refused to allow others to disagree with their lifestyle at the expense of their own convictions.
Christians do not call non-Christians “Jesus-phobes” or some other nonsensical term. Contrary to popular belief, it is indeed possible for Christians to have different views and to still treat other people as humans created in the image of God.
While gay rights activists are very fond of calling Christians “homophobes,” in reality they are usually even more intolerant of Christians than Christians are intolerant of homosexuals.
It is hoped that the courage shown by Peter and Hazelmary Bull, together with Lady Hale’s recent remarks, will pave the way for rulings in the favor of Christians to practice their beliefs.
‘A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight.
‘A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men’s sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.
‘Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear.’
Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, is behind the research, and said, ‘The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation.’
Homosexuality genetic? It’s not that simple …
Professor Bailey apologised a couple of years ago after allowing a live sex toy demonstration in his ‘human sexuality’ class, so he has something of a campaigning interest in this subject. But when we read on:
‘The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact. Not all of the gay men in Bailey’s study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.
‘The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother’s DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin.’
A ‘gay gene’ would be convenient for mothers who would wish to selectively abort such a baby, but it just does not exist. Bailey himself says there are ‘certainly other environmental factors involved.‘ The same external factors which would be like water off a duck’s back to someone can affect another individual deeply.
Peter Tatchell – rightly opposes ‘gay determinism’
Peter Tatchell is also opposed to the ‘gay gene’ theory on the grounds that it enables an apologetic ‘but I was born this way so you should have pity on me’ line of argument. Peter argues that the line trotted out by homosexual activists that it is ‘impossible to make someone gay’ by classroom propaganda is false. He writes:
‘Removing the social opprobrium and penalties from queer relationships, and celebrating gay love and lust, would allow more people to come to terms with presently inhibited homoerotic desires. In this sense, it is perfectly feasible to ‘promote’ lesbian and gay sexuality and ‘make’ someone queer. Individuals who have a homosexual component in their character, but are inhibited by repression or guilt, definitely can be encouraged to acknowledge their same-sex attraction and act upon it.‘
If homosexuality is presented as normal, vulnerable adolescents may be persuaded to try it. And despite homosexuallity becoming flavour-of-the-month amongst politicians, the media, and in recent public attitude surveys, homosexuals still report mental health problems at a greater level that the rest of the population, and still blame them on everyone else.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
“Three-Parent IVF,” or oocyte modification, could be legalized in the UK.
Scientists in the UK have asked the government to approve three-parent babies after experts ruled the practice “not unsafe” and “potentially useful,” according to a Telegraph report.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) made this ruling after examining “voluminous” amounts of data.
To be certain of the HFEA claims it will be necessary to conduct further experiments on human embryos.
Oocyte modification, commonly called “three-parent in vitro fertilization (IVF),” is the process by which damaged mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the woman’s egg are replaced with healthy mtDNA of a female donor, thus allowing a child to be born with healthy mitochondria.
Experts who want to introduce this procedure say that it prevents “deadly mitochondrial diseases” that arise from damaged mitochondria in the mothers.
These diseases affect one in 6,500 babies and are responsible for 50 genetic diseases, including muscle weakness, blindness, heart failure, and possibly death. Damaged mitochondria can also cause women to miscarry multiple times.
Children only inherit mitochondria from the mother.
Because scientists are not certain what the effects will be in humans, the HFEA called for more tests before mitochondrial IVF could be conducted on human embryos. Even if this procedure is approved, it will mostly likely be two years before experiments are finished.
Chairman of the scientific review panel, Prof Andy Greenfield, stated:
Are these techniques safe in humans? We won’t know that until it’s actually done in humans. Until a healthy baby is born we cannot say 100% that these techniques are safe. If you think back to when IVF was a new technology all of these questions were asked before IVF.”
The practice is currently banned in Britain. However, advocates of the procedure say that it would prevent genetic diseases from being transferred to a child while still allowing the mother to have biological children.
In the UK, 100 babies a year are affected by mitochondrial disease. According to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, 1,000 to 4,000 babies in the US are born with mitochondrial diseases each year. Although this seems like a lot, it is a fraction of all the babies born and is recieving disproportionate attention in the medical field. Why is there such a push to get this procedure legalized when there are so many more deadly diseases that could be addressed?
Part of the answer to this question has to do with medical prestige. The medical professionals in the UK have stated that they want to be the first to begin experimenting with this technique. As a Department of Health spokesperson acknowledged, mIVF will “keep the UK at the forefront of scientific development in this area.”
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, three-parent children is the perfect way to allow same-sex couples, particularly lesbians, to have biological children. Because this procedure allows two eggs to be used in conception, both “mothers” could have their DNA used with a sperm from a male donor.
Unfortunately, the ethical aspect of this issue is being overlooked by advocates of of the procedure. Three parent children would possess DNA from three people, which could potentially lead to the creation of “designer children.”
A small set of DNA resides in the mitochondria of every human, so any person born from this procedure would possess DNA from three people.
Proponents of the procedure justifyit by saying that a human being’s characteristics come from nuclear DNA, not mitochondrial DNA. But if this is the case, why do the damaged mitochondria affect a person’s health? How is this any less important than the person’s physical characteristics?
In addition, scientists have suggested that if the procedure turns out successfully, the children must be monitored for the rest of their lives to make sure there are no adverse effects. These children would essentially be living scientific experiments.
The three parent children practice is unethical and unsafe, but we won’t know the full extent of it until the Government allows scientists to start practicing on human embryos.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Archbishop Justin Welby still advocates heterosexual marriage in principle.
Archbishop Welby is still opposed to same-sex “marriage” in principle, despite saying that the new gay marriage law is “great”
His comments were made last week in an interview with PinkNews, where he said that the Church of England must “accept…that the same-sex marriage act is law, and that it’s right and proper, it’s the law of the land, and that’s great.”
Given the ambiguous nature of Welby’s statements, the Church of England was forced to re-affirm its official position. The Archbishop’s spokesperson declaredthat Welby was only referring to Parliament’s right to change the law when he said that it was “great.” The spokesperson affirmed that Welby accepts Parliament’s powers and the Church should demonstrate Christ’s love for everyone.
Welby’s office explainedthat the Archbishop “remains opposed both to gay marriage and homophobia.”
Welby voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Act last year on the grounds that it could potentially weaken the family and society. He apparently still holds true to these beliefs, the Telegraph reported, even though his recent statements have lent themselves to a variety of interpretations.
Archbishop Welby’s statements come just two days after he “offered an olive branch to the gay community” by publishing rules that say Church of England schools must teach students to “revere” and “honor” homosexuals in an effort to combat homophobic bullying.
These new rules describe the gay lifestyle as “less than God’s ideal,” which one Telegraph reporter called a “euphemism for sin.” Despite being opposed to homosexuality, Welby says those beliefs do not justify bullying or discrimination against gay individuals.
According to these rules, all CofE primary schools must teach children that homosexuality is a “basic fact of people’s lives.” These schools must also implement policies to recognize the needs of transgender students. Secondary school children that come out must be given “unequivocal support” from chaplains and instructors, as well as information regarding their new-found “identity.” The Church of England rules also state that children must be taught to accept that homosexuality is a reality and a normal part of society.
The Archbishop has added that “the love of Christ is universal for all people irrespective of who they are and the Church has to find a way to express that.”
While not disputing God’s love for all people, the church has a responsibility to tell its members what is right and wrong according to the Bible, not to follow social norms. While it is clearly wrong to bully homosexuals, the way to solve the problem is not to become more tolerant of sin (i.e., telling CofE school children that it’s OK to be gay).
As the Church of England leads increasingly towards tolerance instead of confrontation, many are wondering how long the church can maintain its official stance on homosexuality. As one reporter put it: “How can you tell 11-year-olds that it is OK to be gay…but at the same time, theologically, to say that being gay is wrong?”
The solution is to differentiate between sin and the sinner, and teach children how to love their neighbor while still holding true to the Bible. Let us pray that non-Christians will know us by our fruits (Matt. 7:20). We must learn to love our neighbors while not simultaneously condoning sin. Homosexuality is a reality in society but it does not have to become a reality within the Church of England.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
They say his testimony in the case brought by one Caleb Orozco in an attempt to overturn Belize’s anti-sodomy law has ‘destroyed their trust in him’. The sub-text is that they all want Jamaica, Belize and other Caribbean Commonwealth members to legalise sodomy.
In his testimony, Professor Bain said that the risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among men who have sex with men (MSM). He said this was true for Belize, as well as other countries, including those that have repealed the law that criminalises ‘anal sex’.
Responsibility to assess behaviours
According to Bain, some public health practitioners and agencies “have hypothesised that decriminalising the practice of anal intercourse among consenting adults would lead to a reduction in the incidence rate of HIV infections among MSM”. However, he said that to date, published data have not substantiated that hypothesis.
“As a physician and public health practitioner, one of my responsibilities is to assess behaviours for their impact on health and well-being,” Professor Bain said in his written testimony.
“When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and unsafe sexual behaviour, it is my duty to discourage it. Together with promoting individual responsibility, it is clear that environments that enable individuals to make and practice safe and healthy choices must be provided at family, community and governmental levels,” he said.
Bain added that another of his responsibilities as a public health practitioner is to assess the cost of behaviour, not just to the individual ‘actor’ but also to the community. “There are some private behaviours, either carried out by individuals or between consenting adults, that may either be helpful or of little adverse consequence to other persons in the community,” he said.
“Behaviours that are helpful to individuals and to the community are to be encouraged. On the other hand, there are instances in which private behaviours result in considerable public cost due to illness, with accompanying loss of productivity and social disruption and the prospect of premature death. The public cost of these private behaviours must be acknowledged and actively reckoned with,” Bain argued.
“The risk to MSM and their intimate sexual partners is not just to their physical health. The adverse physical and physiological consequences of STIs (including HIV) in MSM create significant and avoidable financial costs to individuals, households and governments. These important considerations must be included when considering whether to give public approval to risky behaviours such as are often practised by MSM,” Bain stated.
HAART AIDS Treatment costs UK NHS £1.5bn / year
Such a view is so obviously true as to seem uncontroversial in normal times. Since Highly-Active Anti-Retroviral Treatment (HAART) became available for those with HIV in the UK, ‘gay’ men have thrown responsible behaviour, caution (and their condoms) to the wind. The number of people living with HIV and having HAART treatment was almost 78,000 in 2012 and is likely to be over 85,000 today in 2014. Each one costs the Health Service £18,000 per year, according to AVERT. The total cost of HAART treatment is therefore £1,500,000,000 (£1.5 billion) per year and rising.
But Professor Bain’s opinion prompted the lobby groups to write to UWI Vice-Chancellor Professor Nigel Harris expressing displeasure with Bain’s testimony and asking for his dismissal. They did not claim that what he said was untrue, only that they had ‘lost confidence’ in him. Prof Harris is now considering the matter. The churches in Jamaica have rallied behind Professor Bain, but we can be sure that American universities with educational and financial links to UWI will be lobbying Professor Harris incessantly to try to force him to sack the honest Professor.
The condemnation of Professor Bain is being led by the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition, a well-funded grant-giving outfit with a huge board of directors seeking to advance the cause of street-children, drug-users, prostitutes and, of course, homosexuals. The CVC has wide international connections to groups advancing the gay cause, including to UNAIDS. We have so far been unable to discover who funds CVC, but wealthy US groups like the Ford Foundation and Arcus are likely culprits.
Government and University figures attend Caribbean pro-homosexual meetings
Astonishingly, in a region where only the Bahamas has decriminalised sodomy, pro-homosexual advocacy meetings are regularly held across the Caribbean, and are routinely attended by government ministers or representatives of UWI.
An estimated 600 Belizeans turned out in San Ignacio on July 10, 2013 to oppose the inclusion of ‘sexual orientation’ in the country’s gender policy.
The Rt Hon. Dr. Denzil Douglas, St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister and Chair of the Pan Caribbean Partnership against HIV and AIDS, opened the ‘Caribbean Consultation on Justice for All and Human Rights Agenda’, in Kingston, Jamaica, in April 2014. Naturally, Dr. Carolyn Gomes, Executive Director of the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition, attended. Prof. Archibald McDonald, Vice Principal of the Mona campus of the University of the West Indies called for ‘social inclusion’ of homosexuals and an ‘end to stigma’. The notorious campaigning Australian homosexual activist, Justice Michael Kirby, delivered the keynote address. The Consultation was coordinated by UNAIDS, which one might expect, but also, astoundingly, by the Government of Jamaica and the University of the West Indies.
By the grace of God, Caribbean churches are beginning to respond. Church leaders in Jamaica rallied to defend their island’s anti-sodomy law last year and have also given strong support to Professor Bain, a committed Christian. In Central America Belize Action, led by the courageous Pastor Scott Stirm, is fighting a superb campaign against pro-sodomy initiatives from the Belize government which seems to have given up all hope that the country’s courts will uphold the law in the Orozco case.
Section 53 of Belize’s criminal code states that “every person who has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person or animal shall be liable to imprisonment for 10 years”.
Please pray for Professor Brendan Bain to know the peace and strength of Christ at this time and for the Church across the Caribbean to stand firm holding their governments to account as ministers of God.
Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
Psalm 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Jeremy Pemberton, left, and his long-time partner Laurence Cunnington, right, were married on Saturday.
Canon Jeremy Pemberton became the first gay priest to defy the Church of England’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Mr. Pemberton was aware of the Church of England’s disapproval, but proceeded to “marry” his long-time partner Laurence Cunnington earlier this month in front of friends and family.
Pemberton told The Mail on Sunday: “I love this man and I want to be married to him. That’s what I want. It is the same as anyone who wants to get married.”
Pemberton could face disciplinary action from the church.
Last month same-sex “marriages” were legalized in England and Wales, but the Church of England banned gay marriage for its clergy members because it goes against the church’s teaching that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Clergymen are not able to officiate at gay wedding ceremonies or to bless same-sex unions in church.
Pemberton told the church of his plans to marry before he carried out his wedding. The bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Rev Christopher Lowson, was informed by Pemberton himself that Pemberton planned to marry Cunnington. Lowson said that he and Pemberton had a meeting before the “marriage” took place, in which Lowson “explained the guidelines of the House of Bishops.”
In addition, Lowson explained that the Church of England will shortly begin discussing how it will respond to same-sex “marriage”.
This “marriage” does not only affect people in the UK. Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby suggested that by tolerating same-sex “marriage” within the church, Christians could be endangering the lives of other Christians in Africa.
Welby has personally seen a mass grave full of African Christians in Nigeria who were murdered because the citizens of Nigeria were afraid that Christians will force them to become homosexuals. In a country where homosexual acts are punishable with up to a 15-year prison sentence, the impact of a gay marriage within the church affects African Christians more severely than it does Christians in the UK.
Justin Welby, archbishop of Canterbury, has warned about the worldwide effect of the church accepting gay ‘marriage’
Pemberton, a divorced father of five and former parish priest, tweetedafter the wedding ceremony: “Thank you to all well-wishers. Nay-Sayers: we can talk another time maybe? Signing off for now—my husband gets my time.”
One author called this “marriage” a “test of strength” between liberals and conservatives in the Church of England.
All eyes are now on the church to see how it will respond. If the Church of England holds true to its traditional teaching on homosexual marriage, it will be holding true to the God’s teaching in the Bible but could face persecution through employment laws (Matthew 5:11-12).
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Sarah Mbuyi said she made the comments only after being pressed on her beliefs by a colleague who initiated the conversation at Newpark Childcare in Highbury, north London, in January.
But the colleague gave her employers an different story and Sarah Mbuyi was called to an internal disciplinary hearing. The nursery directors instantly dismissed her for gross misconduct.
Mbuyi, who is claiming unfair dismissal on grounds of religious discrimination, said: “When I said ‘No, God does not condone the practice of homosexuality, but does love you and says you should come to Him as you are’, [her colleague] became emotional and went off to report me to my manager.”
She is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre. The story broke just days after the Prime Minister had urged Christians to ‘more evangelism’ and ‘to improve both the spiritual, physical and moral state of our country.’
Andrea Williams, the Christian Legal Centre’s director, said the government had “seriously let down” Christians and criticised David Cameron for attempting to “mould Christianity to his political agenda”. Mrs Williams said if the prime minister was “serious in his support for Christianity”, he would intervene in the case.
She went on: “Sharing Biblical truths out of genuine love and concern for colleagues is being outlawed in the workplace by a dominating cultural correctness.”
The story illustrates that the ‘acceptance’ and ‘tolerance’ demanded by homosexuals is not extended to their opponents.
They said they just wanted to be left alone to get on with their lives in private – unitl they achieved that.
Then they said they just wanted to be tolerated as a minority – unitl they achieved that.
They said they just wanted to be accepted as who they were by psychiatrists – unitl they achieved that.
Then they said they just wanted to be treated the same as everyone else in employment – unitl they achieved that.
Then they said they just wanted equal access to goods and services – unitl they achieved that.
They said they just wanted their disordered relationships to be recognised by the state – unitl they achieved that.
Then they said they just wanted to be married – unitl they achieved that.
Now we have the spectacle of Christians being hounded out of their jobs for expressing the Gospel upon which this nation is founded, or forced to act against their conscience. A ‘hate-crime’ law is operating clandestinely, clamping down on freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
And alongside the revelation that sharing a Biblical view in response to a question is ‘gross misconduct’, is not one of the most disturbing aspects of this case that a lesbian is working in a children’s nursery and no-one bats an eyelid?
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
A Scottish health board has said sex education needs protection from parents.
