Former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Lord Carey, addressed the event, sponsored by the Coalition for Marriage
On the opening day of the Conservative Party Conference, about 900 people gathered in Birmingham Town Hall to listen to speeches opposing Government plans to introduce same-sex ‘marriage.’
Addresses were given by former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, David Burrowes MP and former Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe, in addition to other high profile members of the party.
In his speech Lord Carey warned that “We can be sure any move away from our traditional understanding of marriage is to put our society on a slippery slope where the unintended consequences could be shocking.”
Former defence secretary Dr Fox was also at the gathering and has warned that
“To ask the majority to change how they define marriage because of what a smaller number want will not be socially acceptable and is likely to undo a great deal of the tolerance that has actually come to the fore in recent decades and that would be a great pity.”
Outside the building, gay activists gathered to protest against the protest and to accuse those inside of being ‘bigots.’
Yesterday, Culture Secretary Maria Miller defended ‘gay marriage’ in her speech to the Conservative Conference itself, arguing that being homosexual is not a good enough reason to stop someone from participating in the institution of marriage – any more than we would stop someone getting married because of their ethnicity or disability. (To learn why this argument is faulty, read this Salvo article ‘Apples, Oranges & Gay Marriage.’)
PRAY: thank the Lord that the Government’s wicked plans are meeting with such opposition. A survey of constituency party chairmen was published earlier this week showed that seven out of 10 are opposed to Mr Cameron’s plans to change the law.
Antony Jenkins, Chief Executive of Barclays, is giving cash to Stonewall as they call their opponents ‘bigots’
Two banks and a leading firm of accountants are sponsoring a homosexual group as it goes about its annual name-calling exercise.
Barclays Bank, Coutts Bank and Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) are named as sponsors of Stonewall, the ‘gay rights’ lobby group, on an advertisement for this year’s awards dinner, which includes an award for ‘Bigot of the Year’.
The homosexual group’s awards dinner takes place at the Victoria and Albert Museum on Thursday 1st November 2012 and is likely to be the focus of a street witness.
The Earl of Home, Chairman of Coutts, which is sponsoring the Stonewall awards
But Stonewall are not satisfied with congratulating those who have advanced their cause. They have to insult their opponents.
So among the awards is an anti-award called ‘Bigot of the Year’ intended to insult and vilify people particularly opposed to the gay rights agenda. Those shortlisted this year are Christian politician Alan Craig, the Ugandan Ethics and Integrity Minister, Simon Lokodo, Lord Maginnis, Cardinal Keith O’Brien and Archbishop Philip Tartaglia.
Previous ‘nominees’ and ‘winners’ have included the Bishop of Hereford, Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, Northern Ireland politician Iris Robinson, journalist Jan Moir, Chris Grayling MP, the Earl of Devon, Lillian Ladele, Frederick Forsyth, A.A. Gill of The Sunday Times, Rt Rev Arthur Roche, hotelier Susanne Wilkinson, Melanie Phillips, Scottish entrepreneur Sir Brian Souter, Bill Walker, MSP and Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice.
In response, Alan Craig said: “The Bigot of the Year Award is a vicious name-calling Stonewall annual event that reflects more on the donor than the recipient.
Philip Powell is Chairman and Senior Partner of Price Waterhouse Coopers, sponsors of the Stonewall awards.
“By attempting to bully, intimidate, humiliate and generate hatred of individuals through the award, Stonewall fully justifies the Gaystapo tag which I gave the organisation and for which apparently I have been nominated.”
Mr Craig continued: “Nonetheless if I win the award over the other candidates and if Stonewall invite me, and permit me without harassment to offer a proper acceptance speech, I plan to attend their awards dinner and ceremony”.
Alan Craig’s gauntlet is unlikely to be taken up. In previous years Stonewall have never found the courtesy or the courage to invite to their dinner any of those shortlisted for ‘Bigot of the Year’.
Stephen Green added: ‘Bullies never like it when someone stands up to them. Or perhaps social intercourse is just not one of Stonewall’s strong points.’
Last year, the Nationwide Building Socety gave £60,000 to Stonewall for the dinner (which did not stop the greedy lobby group from charging £180 a ticket) and they gave £5,000 as a prize to the ‘Community Group of the Year’. Nationwide have pulled out of sponsoring any more Stonewall events following adverse publicity.
In an email, Mark McLane, Barclays Director of Global Diversity and Inclusion, said:
‘As part of what is a positive longstanding relationship with Stonewall we were approached to see if we would be willing to sponsor a category for the 2012 Awards, which we agreed to do – the Sports Personality of the Year – on the understanding that the awards are a celebration of diversity and positive impact in our communities.
‘I have recently been made aware of the inclusion of a ‘Bigot of the Year’ category in the awards. Let me be absolutely clear that Barclays does not support that award category either financially, or in principle and have informed Stonewall that should they decide to continue with this category we will not support this event in the future. To label any individual so subjectively and pejoratively runs contrary to our view on fair treatment, and detracts from what should be a wholly positively focused event.’
To date, Coutts and PWC have refused to condemn the ‘bigot’ award’.
Stephen Green said: ‘Barclays have not yet pulled out of Stonewall’s event this year despite their welcome condemnation of the ‘bigot’ award. They are in our view still associated with Stonewall’s name-calling. But the refusal of Coutts and PWC to condemn the ‘bigot’ award is quite staggering.’
Gigi Chao Sze-tsung (right) and her civil partner Sean Eav (left) – we honestly thought at first that the one on the left was her father!
One of Hong Kong’s richest men has offered a reward of nearly £40 million to the man who can woo his lesbian daughter, reports the Daily Telegraph.
Cecil Chao Sze-tsung, a property magnate, announced the HK$500 million bounty this week after reports that his daughter Gigi Chao, 33, a University of Manchester graduate, entered a civil partnership in France with Sean Yeung, her girlfriend of seven years, who also uses the name Sean Eav, on April 4.
The Facebook profile of Miss Chao, an architecture graduate, reads: “Helicopter pilot. Social entrepreneur. Creator of expressions in colour and emotion.” It also describes her as an executive director at her father’s Hong Kong-based property firm, Cheuk Nang.
Miss Chao has yet to comment on her father’s offer but her Facebook and Twitter accounts have been bombarded by people keen to become her friend. “No longer accepting Facebook friend requests … sorry,” she wrote.
“My father took a hands-off approach in parenting,” Miss Chao said of her father in a 2007 interview for HK Magazine. “I see him as a friend more than a father. My parents never pressure me with high expectations.”
Mr Chao made headlines in 2003 when his Rolls-Royce caught fire while he and his girlfriend were inside. The tycoon has never married and once claimed to have had “intimate relations” with about 10,000 women.
Miss Chao is one of three daughters born to Mr Chao by three different women.
“I don’t mind whether he is rich or poor. The important thing is that he is generous and kind-hearted,” Mr Chao told the South China Morning Post, describing reports about his daughter’s civil partnership as “false”.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice said today:
“An emotionally distant father, having loose relationships with women other than his daughter’s mother, is a classic theme in lesbian lifestories. According to reports, Miss Chao’s father has sadly not been the sort of fatherly male role model who would inspire his daughter’s emotional confidence in men as a group.
“There are many testimonies of people who have walked away from the homosexual lifestyle and been released from same-sex attraction through the power of Jesus Christ. As the Bible says: ‘Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.’ (Psalm 37:4) But that person has to want to change, or if you prefer, the Lord has to place that desire on their heart, and they must fix their hopes in the Saviour of mankind.
“So there is no question that it is do-able, but it is something that even £40,000,000 cannot buy.”
PRAY: For Gigi Chao, and for her father. May he turn from his philandering and she turn from her lesbianism by the grace of God and through the saving, healing power of the Lord Jesus Christ.
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)
Raj Bhachoo, a Christian Voice member, was arrested, kept in a police cell for hours and charged with “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 following a complaint by the manageress during a leafleting exercise outside the Tesco store in Gravesend, Kent in January 2012
The case was due to be heard by Dartford Magistrates this morning. But on reviewing the evidence and recent legal decisions including that involving Sandown Free Presbyterian Church, the prosecuting barrister offered no evidence.
The magistrates duly dismissed the case.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, was asked by the defence to give evidence in the case, but, for the second time in a case involving Mr Bhachoo, his evidence was in the event not required.
Mr Green also prepared expert evidence for a case in March of this year when Raj Bhachoo was acquitted after sending a highly critical email to the Stonewall lobby group. A key Stonewall witness failed to turn up in court and the case collapsed.
Michael Phillips, solicitor, represented Raj Bhachoo on both occasions.
Just a week ago, Mr Phillips represented two Christians from the Abort67 group, seeing all charges against them thrown out by magistrates in Brighton. Last February, Michael Overd faced a trial in Taunton after two homosexuals objected to his preaching. Mr Overd, who subsequently joined Christian Voice, was also acquitted.
In September 2006, Stephen Green was himself arrested, locked in the cells for four hours and charged under the same Section 5 by the South Wales Police Minorities Support Unit for handing out evangelistic leaflets at the homosexual Cardiff Mardi Gras. At the subsequent hearing, an embarrassed prosecutor dropped all charges.
Stephen Green said today: ‘Christians just keep winning these Section 5 freedom of speech cases. It is not against the law to preach against sodomy, to tell the public the facts about homosexual lifestyles, nor to display graphic images of the effects of abortion. These things might upset people, but they are not threatening, they are not abusive, they are not insulting and they are not against the law.
‘We actually need no change in the law, but we do need police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service to provide training to officers and prosecutors on the law and on their duty to protect people exercising their freedom of expression.
‘In the abortion case, the police officer who attended admitted in court that the only training he had ever had on the implications of freedom of speech was ten years ago.’
The rainbow diversity flag has had a welcome setback.
In a landmark vote, Australian MPs have overwhelmingly rejected a bill which would have legalised ‘gay marriage’ reports Agence France Press.
The House of Representatives voted down the bill to legalise marriage between same sex couples by 98 to 42, with Labour Prime Minister Julia Gillard and opposition conservative leader Tony Abbott both voting against it.
During the days of debate on the bill, one senator lost his parliamentary post after referring to sex with animals.
Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi asked what the next step would be if the government redefined marriage so that two people of the same sex could ‘marry’.
“The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society,” he told the Senate.
Cory Bernardi
“There are even some creepy people out there… (who) say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?”
Former Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull described Mr Bernardi’s comments as “hysterical, alarmist, offensive”.
The Liberal leader Tony Abbott said Mr Bernardi offered to resign his position as his parliamentary secretaryand he had accepted.
Mr Abbott is said to be a staunch Catholic and opinion polls suggest he could become prime minister when an election is held next year.
“I’ve known Cory for a long time. He’s a decent bloke with strong opinions,” said Mr Abbott, but he said his comments had been ill-judged.
“They are views that I don’t share,” Abbott told reporters. “They are views which I think many people will find repugnant.”
Australia does not permit gay marriage, though some states allow civil unions.
Gay rights activists called the decision a “slap on the face,” ABC News reported.
Astonishingly, in view of her vote against gay marriage, Aussie premier Julia Gillard is supporting an Australian bid to host the 2014 homosexual rugby world cup – if anyone can believe such an event actually takes place.
Almighty God appears to think there is a link between sodomy and bestiality, as the book of Leviticus states:
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
A red-faced Nick Clegg has had to withdraw remarks he was going to make branding opponents of gay marriage “bigots”.
A draft of his speech, circulated to the press in advance of Mr Clegg’s speech to be given to a gathering of homosexual activists last night, had the atheist Deputy Prime Minister saying:
“Continued trouble in the economy gives the bigots a stick to beat use with, as they demand we ‘postpone’ the equalities agenda in order to deal with ‘the things people really care about’.”
An hour later, aides were scrambling around trying to recall the press release, and releasing a sanitised version in which ‘the bigots’ was replaced by ‘some people’
The row brings to mind Gordon Brown’s ‘Bigotgate’ when he described a lifelong Labour supporter, Mrs Gillian Duffy, who happened to mention Eastern Europeans in an exchange on the economy, as ‘just a bigoted woman’.
At the reception, Nick Clegg said:
Contempt for ordinary people – Gordon Brown was embroiled in his own ‘Bigotgate’ scandal after an exchange on the economy and immigration with Labour supporter Gillian Duffy.
‘I am a little bit surprised to see cameras outside the gates for the slightly obscure reason that they expect me to use a word about opponents of gay marriage that I had no intention of using, would never use. It is not the kind of word that I would use.’
Really? Mr Clegg’s speech writers would not write in a word which they knew he would never use. And homosexual rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, among the guests at last night’s reception in central London, said: ‘Quite clearly, some people who oppose same-sex marriage do so because of personal prejudice and intolerance.’
Lord Carey of Clifton said:
‘There will be many Christians and non-Christians who will be highly offended to be called bigots. People who oppose same-sex marriages are doing so on the basis of deeply-held beliefs and we should not be treated in such a way.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:
‘In a sense, we should be encouraged that Nick Clegg has considered resorting to name-calling, because people normally do that when they realise they have lost the argument. Marriage is God’s holy institution and man may not change its definition. Marriage involves love and committment, but at its heart is its sexual expression, being ‘one flesh’ as the Bible puts it. At the moment, a marriage must be conusmmated to be valid in law, and consummation involves an complete act of ordinary sexual intercourse.
‘Between them, a pair of homosexuals lack the full set of necessary equipment for that act. Mr Clegg has so far failed to offer the necessary redefinition of the key concept of consummation in a homosexual context. And any such redefinition will affect marriage for everyone. The Government have received 228,000 responses to their consultation, the majority of them against it, and they are blindly pushing on regardless.
‘Those in favour of ‘gay marriage’ say that if two people love each other they should be allowed to get married. Does that apply to a brother and a sister, or a uncle and his niece?’ Nick Clegg has failed to address that point as well. He and David Cameron have lost the argument and lost their own consultation.
‘The fact that they are still stubbornly set on pushing ahead with the destruction of marriage and their proposed use of insulting language shows a contempt for ordinary people as deep as that held by their predecessors.
‘The dictionary definition of bigot is ‘One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.’ Without wishing in any way to insult him, that sounds a fair description of Nick Clegg.’
A No 10 source said: “The prime minister is committed to getting gay marriage through by 2015.”
READ: Matt 19:4 And (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
PRAY: That God continues to sow confusion amongst the Government on this issue. Pray also that David Cameron and Nick Clegg repent and pull back from their ungodly position.
Members of "Pussy Riot" staged a foul-mouthed tirade in a Moscow Cathedral. George Soros put up money for it.
Members of “Pussy Riot” in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour
Three members of a so-called ‘punk band’ called ‘Pussy Riot’ have each been jailed for two years by a court in Moscow for hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, over a protest in a cathedral, reports the BBC.
The foul-mouthed rant included a mock prayer on the altar of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow. The BBC have a video here.
Judge Marina Syrova said Maria Alyokhina, 24, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 22, and Yekaterina Samutsevich, 29, had “crudely undermined social order”, offended the feelings of Orthodox believers and shown a “complete lack of respect” during their action in February.
Tolokonnikova, Alyokhina and Samutsevich say their “punk prayer” was a political act in protest against the Russian Orthodox Church leader’s support of President Vladimir Putin.
But Judge Syrova said they “committed hooliganism – in other words, a grave violation of public order,” and quoted prosecution witnesses as saying the act had been one of blasphemy, not politics.
Western liberals have sprung to the women’s defence. ‘Pussy Riot’ have garnered support from Paul McCartney, Madonna, Kate Nash, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Sting, Peter Gabriel, Faith No More, Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys, Patti Smith, The Beastie Boys, Zola Jesus, Jarvis Cocker, Pete Townshend, Peaches, Genesis, Courtney Love, Yoko Ono and Stephen Fry.
Mr Fry and his friends will not be pleased with another court ruling handed down in Moscow today.
Russian homosexual activist Nikolai Alexeyev alongside Britain’s Peter Tatchell, who contributed in the 1980’s to a book edited by a leading paedophile defending paedophilia.
Moscow City Court has upheld a ban on ‘gay pride’ marches in the Russian capital for the next 100 years. Russia’s best-known gay rights campaigner, Nikolay Alexeyev, had gone to court hoping to overturn Moscow City Council’s ban on homosexual parades, asking for the right to stage such parades for the next 100 years. He also opposes St Petersburg’s ban on spreading “homosexual propaganda”.
The Moscow city government argues that the gay parade would risk causing public disorder and that most Muscovites do not support such an event.
Alexeyev now intends to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to argue that Moscow’s ban on gay pride marches – past, present and future – is unjust. The European Court of Human Rights has already told Russia to pay Alexeyev damages, but that does not appear likely to happen any day soon.
Scottish Parliament buildings in Holyrood, Edinburgh
Yesterday morning the Scottish Government announced that they would be presenting legislation to legalize gay ‘marriage’, following news that 74 out of a total of 129 MSP’s are in favour of the plans.
The policies to change the definition of marriage are expected to hit Scotland as early as next year. (Read yesterday’s BBC news report, ‘Gay marriage to be introduced in Scotland.’)
The Scottish National Party (SNP) has been the main party pushing for these changes, although the measure is supported by all of Scotland’s main political organizations.
The Scottish parliament came under pressure to change the definition of marriage from The Faith in Marriage group, a coalition which includes the United Reformed Church, Buddhists and the Pagan Federation. Gay rights groups like Stonewall Scotland, the Equality Network and Amnesty International have also been focusing attention on Scotland, realizing that any act implemented by the Scottish parliament could have ramifications for the UK Parliament, forcing them to fast-track similar plans for England and Wales.
Scotland’s deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, summed up the current mood when she commented: “We are committed to a Scotland that is fair and equal, and that is why we intend to proceed with plans to allow same-sex marriage and religious ceremonies for civil partnerships. We believe this is the right thing to do.”
Not everyone agrees that this will be best for Scotland. The Herald newspapersaid that redefining marriage is fraught with legal difficulties and accused the Government of failing to do “its homework on the legal consequences”.
The paper concluded: “Religious beliefs which are central to the lives of many must be protected, not least by those who support the legalising of marriage between same-sex couples in the name of liberty. We must not replace one form of discrimination with another.”
Unlike the legislation proposed by the UK Parliament for England and Wales, which would only affect civil weddings, Scotland’s legislation would allow same-sex couples be ‘married’ in religious ceremonies provided they have the consent of a religious body. Holyrood has insisted that no church organization would be forced to participate, and MSP are looking to amend the Equality Act 2010 to ensure religious groups opposed to homosexuality have an opt-out.
Not everyone has been reassured by Government’s promises. Cardinal Keith O’Brien, leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said it should be up to the Scottish people since it raises “serious implications for freedom of belief and expression.”
Christian Voice has raised similar concerns, suggesting that promises to protect religious liberty are not to be trusted. In a recent interview with Robin Phillips, Phillips commented “The promises Government has made in this area are worth less than the paper they’re printed on, as MPs with a legal background and Church of England lawyers have understood almost from the outset.”
Muslim Reaction
The proposals have come at a great political cost since it means that the SNP will lose the support of Muslims throughout Scotland.
Bashir Maan, a spokesperson for the Glasgow’s Muslim community, commented: “We have made it clear to Nicola Sturgeon that we have been very pro-nationalist but if they go ahead with this we will not be happy. There are about five or six thousand Muslims living in her constituency and we hope that she will listen to us.”
Mr. Maan’s coments were echoed by Saleem Aslam, chairman of Taleem ul Islam mosque in Pollokshields, South Glasgow, who said: “Another government could get elected and abolish the opt-out or it could be challenged under human rights laws and then we are back to square one.”
“Running Scared”
The public has asked the Scottish government to allow a referendum in order to find out what the people of Scotland actually want. When they refused, a spokesman for the organization Scotland for Marriage commented: “The Equality Network is running scared of a referendum because they know they could lose the argument. Which just shows they couldn’t care less about ordinary people. They want to force their view of marriage on everyone else, whether people like it or not.”
He continued:
If they believe their own hype, if they believe their own polls, they should have the guts to put it to a vote. Their rejection of a referendum shows that, for all their talk, they know most people don’t agree with them… Redefining marriage will have massive knock-on affect in Scotland. Schools will be pressurised to teach gay marriage to kids…. Legal experts say the Scottish Government doesn’t have the power to protect churches from being sued over their support for traditional marriage.
Prayer and Action:
Thank God for the strong resistance on this issue. Pray that the church will stand up and fight for God’s sacred institution of marriage.
If you are in Scotland, Email your MSP – Email address here – to ask him/her to oppose ‘Gay Marriage’.
The Book of Common prayer assumes that marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
Last May, Stephen Green and Robin Phillips co-authored a briefing paper titled The Trivialisation of Matrimony: A Response to the Government Consultation Paper. Since then a number of questions have been raised about Government’s proposals and the effect it could have on the church. Below Robin Phillips fields some of the most common questions.
Q: What is the general climate of opinion about this issue?
A: Most people in England and Wales (the areas to which the changes will apply) are still adamantly against changing the definition of marriage. A ComRes poll found that 70% of the public are against the changes. There is also strong opposition within Government. The Prime Minister could be facing the biggest revolt among Tory members since 1990. We also know that thousands are refusing to renew their subscriptions to the Conservative party while some major donors have withdrawn their financial support. Now that the Church of England has made such a decisive stand, the public opposition can only increase.
Q: Can you tell us a bit about the Church of England’s involvement in this issue?
A: Last month Government’s three month long consultation on this issue was punctuated with a dramatic submission from the Church of England, in which the church warned that Government’s actions could lead to a historic stand-off between church and state. The submission suggested that the proposed reforms for England and Wales “would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history.”
The church’s submission also warned that the proposals could accelerate a schism between the church and the state, culminating in the complete disestablishment of the Church of England and the removal of the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church.
The Church of England is not known for overstatement so these warnings should be taken seriously. They come after church officials spent months consulting with lawyers on the ramifications of Government’s proposals. One of the chief concerns that arose out of this analysis is that Government will almost certainly be powerless to keep its pledge to limit same-sex ‘marriages’ to civil rather than religious ceremonies. The legal advice given to the Church of England has confirmed that once these proposals are put in place, equality legislation from the EU will kick in to make it illegal for the Church to provide wedding services to heterosexual couples and not to homosexual couples. That is why there is such concern.
The stand-off between Government and the church on this issue is unprecedented since the time of the Reformation nearly 500 years ago. Legal scholars and journalists alike have warned that it could involve “snipping the threads” of the delicate balance between Church and state.
Q: So do you have any idea what is driving the Prime Minister to push ahead with these plans in the teeth of public opinion?
A: According to Cameron himself, he is being motivated by his Christian beliefs. He recently commented, “I have come at this issue of equal marriage principally because I’m a Christian.” But this is indeed a strange sort of Christianity that makes him so eager to overhaul thousands of years of Christian practice and to risk the disenfranchisement of our nation’s established church!
A more realistic assessment is that Cameron is being driven by the desire to appear progressive and modern, the same principles he appealed to when arguing that we need to change the rules for the crown’s succession. Initially Cameron seems to have thought this would help the party in the next election be shedding what is perceived to be the Tory’s ‘toxic’ image. I don’t think he anticipated the strong backlash he would receive.
We also have to remember that the Prime Minister is under a lot of pressure from the liberal democrat component of his government, pushing the party further to the left than it has ever gone before.
Q: Presumably Cameron also wants to shoulder up to the homosexual lobby?
A: Well, that’s the funny thing. You see, before the Coalition Government introduced these proposals, very few people in the homosexual community were even lobbying for same-sex ‘marriage.’ A poll conducted by Catholic Voice in February found that out of 550 homosexual men, only 40% identified a change in marriage law as being a priority.
Even the homosexual lobby group, Stonewall, was not calling for it, though they required little persuading to jump on board the bandwagon. Even now, many leading gay rights activists have remained among Government’s fiercest critics. Alan Duncan, the first Conservative MP to come out as openly homosexual, is opposed to any attempt to redefine marriage. So is Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, who was the first Cabinet minister to enter into a civil partnership. Bradshaw commented, ‘This isn’t a priority for the gay community, which has already won equal rights with civil partnerships. This is pure politics.’ Gay journalist Andrew Pierce recently argued similarly, noting:
Mr Cameron seems to have learned nothing from the follies of the Labour government when it comes to imposing an equalities agenda on Britain’s leading faiths….
Ministers have ruled out extending civil partnerships, which became law in December 2005, beyond the gay community. So we gays will enjoy rights denied to heterosexuals. What an absurd state of affairs.
The truth is that no one has been able to explain to me the difference between gay marriage and a civil partnership. I have asked ministers and friends. None has an answer.
But I do. We already have gay marriage — it’s called civil partnership. Why can’t Mr Cameron just leave it there?
Q: Can Government be trusted when it promises to protect religious liberty?
A: The promises Government has made in this area are worth less than the paper they’re printed on, as MPs with a legal background and Church of England lawyers have understood almost from the outset.
The trajectory of what will happen if these proposals pass is pretty clear, and will almost certainly go something like the following.
First, Government will restrict same-sex weddings to civil ceremonies, ostensibly to protect the freedom of the church. In fact, Government will even go so far as it make it illegal for same-sex weddings to occur on religious premises.
The second step is that almost immediately, a same-sex couple will apply to be ‘married’ in the Church of England and, when they are refused, they will claim that their human rights have been violated. With the assistance of a pressure group like Liberty the couple will then appeal to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.
Step three is that the European court will rule that British law breaches equality legislation, since it allows service providers (in this case, the established church) to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Step four is that the European court will then instruct the Church of England to offer its services to all couples who ask, regardless of their gender.
When the fourth step in this process is reached, the Church of England will face a situation comparable to the Catholic adoption agencies that had to either compromise their beliefs or shut down. As Dr Sharon James, spokesperson from the Coalition for Marriage, warned, “once gay marriage is introduced, it won’t be the Government’s remit to say whether it can happen on religious premises or not because it will be the courts who decide any cases brought against individuals and places of religion.” She added: “If this happens we can see people with good conscience being taken to court because of their deeply held beliefs.”
Now in one sense the Home Office is right when it says “We have been clear that no religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages as a result of our proposals.” The Home Office is doing just enough so that the European Court of Human Rights can do the rest, but when that happens they can claim it’s been taken out of their hands. Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone let the cat out of the bag in a BBC Radio 5 Live interview when she said, “it may be that [the issue of same-sex marriage in a place of religious worship] comes back another day.”
Q: But we don’t know for sure that the European Court of Human Rights will rule like that, do we? They may decide to respect religious freedom.
A: Actually we do know. As of last March, it’s no longer even speculation. In the case Gas and Dubois v. France, European judges made a landmark ruling which stated that governments are not required to introduce same-sex ‘marriage.’ However, they also said that if a government chooses to extend the definition of marriage to same-sex couples, then it would be a violation of human rights for homosexual couples seeking ‘marriage’ to be denied rights and privileges offered heterosexual couples.
There is just no way the European Court is going to sit by and allow one of their countries to sustain a two-tier system in which same-sex couples are denied access to a service (i.e., religious weddings) available to heterosexual couples.
Q: If it comes to that, what options does the Church of England have?
A: At that point, the Church of England wouldn’t have very many options outside of simply complying. That is why the Church is working so hard right now to make sure it doesn’t come to that.
One possible solution (although it is uncertain that even this would work) would be for the Church of England to cease acting as an organ of the state and simply offer weddings as a private organization. That option is currently being discussed by senior Anglican officials, although it could open up a chain of unintended consequences leading to the total disestablishment of the Church of England.
Q: Why’s that?
A: Well, because offering wedding and funeral services is central to the Church of England’s existence as an established church. These functions are central to the preservation of the parish system which lies at the heart of the Church’s integration in society. If the Church of England began offering weddings as merely a private organization, it would de facto be a private organization and it would become increasingly difficult to justify subsidizing the church with tax payer’s money. Also, people could begin to ask why the Queen is head of this private organization and not other private organizations.
Q: Christian Voice has written before about the importance of common law. Do the proposals to change the definition of ‘marriage’ relate to that at all?
A: That’s a great question, but before I plunge into the answer, it may be helpful to briefly explain what we mean by common law. I always go back to the legal scholar William Blackstone (1723–1780) who, is magisterial Commentaries on the Laws of England, talked about common law as being the lex non scripta (unwritten laws). The reason he called them unwritten is because “their original institution and authority are not set down in writing, as acts of parliament are, but they receive their binding power, and the force of laws, by long and immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout the kingdom.” These traditions and precedents that make up common law form the backbone of the British constitution and are vital for the preservation of our nation’s legal integrity.
Now to call these laws “unwritten” may be misleading for, as Blackstone reminds his readers, such laws are indeed recorded “in the records of the several courts of justice, in books of reports and judicial decisions, and in the treatises of learned sages of the profession…” What the term ‘unwritten’ connotes (and this is central) is that the binding authority of common law does not depend specifically on Parliamentary statutes, even though much of it has been codified by Parliament or by the courts. Rather, the binding authority of common law derives from the authoritative role played by precedent within the British constitution.
The common law is not something that can be dismissed at a whim for the sake of political expediency. As Blackstone again pointed out, “precedents and rules must be followed, unless flatly absurd or unjust: for though their reason be not obvious at first view, yet we owe such a deference to former times as not to suppose they acted wholly without consideration.”
It seems strange even having to make such an obvious point, but the traditional understanding of marriage is a foundational pillar of common law. The common law understanding of marriage, assumed by the Book of Common Prayer, was expressed in the Church of England’s recent submission when it asserted that marriage is “essentially the voluntary union for life of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”
This understanding of marriage goes beyond merely being part of the common law; in an important sense, marriage is the very foundation of common law. This is because marriage keeps alive the insolvable between family, church and state. Once marriage goes, all of our common law becomes potentially compromised. This is precisely why the Church of England has argued that our entire system could begin unravelling if marriage is redefined. It could precipitate a chain of unintended consequences culminating in the removal of the Queen as the head of the Church of England.
The Anti-Christian Co-op Bank is taking over a large number of Lloyds TSB bank accounts and all Cheltenham & Gloucester customers, forcing Christian customers to look around for some of the alternatives listed in this article.
The branches that will be going over to the Co-op Bank will not be initially be branded as Co-op banks. Such branches will be called TSB Banks as opposed to Lloyds TSB Banks (and will not have the name Co-op included in the title). If the logos and branding and name are similar, the less observant could easily give their trade by mistake to the Co-op and not to Lloyds TSB. The Financial Times reports that the move is not good news for savers.
But the main concern about the Co-op bank itself is the way it discriminates strongly against those Christians who take their faith seriously. See: http://www.repentuk.com/coop.html
Despite their ‘fair trade’ policies, they are clearly not the bank for Christians, nor for that matter the bank for anyone who does not support ‘gay rights.’
Those who will be affected by the Lloyds TSB changes will receive letters through the post advising them if their branch is one of those to be transferred. Customers may then object to the changes and demand that their account is transferred to a Lloyds TSB branch rather than remain with the branch that will automatically become a Co-op owned bank and be called TSB bank. The branches concerned are listed here, (confusingly, in the main list, in order of address not town):
Christians disillusioned with the High Street banks in general have the option of the Reliance Bank for ordinary banking. They are owned by the Salvation Army and 75% of their profits go to the Army’s work among the poor and dispossessed. http://www.reliancebankltd.com/reliancebank.nsf/pghome?openpage
For savings, there is also the Kingdom Bank, owned by the Assemblies of God, Britain’s largest Pentecostal denomination. http://www.kingdombank.co.uk/Funds deposited by savers are lent to Christian projects for the advancement of the Gospel.
2Cor 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Gal 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
Show the Co-op who’s boss! Join Christian Voice today!
The awards were mainly to applaud people who had advanced the homosexual cause in some way.
Among the awards was an anti-award called ‘Bigot of the Year’ intended to insult and vilify a number of people particularly opposed to the gay rights agenda. Those shortlisted were the respected Sir Brian Souter, Bishop Arthur Roche, Bill Walker MSP, journalist Melanie Phillips, who was the eventual ‘winner’, and Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice.
Stonewall did not even have the courtesy to invite any of those shortlisted for this ‘Bigot of the Year’ award to the dinner. Perhaps they were afraid someone might answer back – bullies never like it when someone stands up to them. Or perhaps social intercourse is just not one of their strong points.
Christian Voice members gave out leaflets about Nationwide’s involvement with Stonewall to the society’s members attending the AGM
The Nationwide’s position is that they are ‘not supportive of the vilification of individuals’ and that they ‘have made this clear to Stonewall’. They have pulled out of sponsoring future events of this kind. However, the Society remains as a member of Stonewall’s ‘Diversity Champions’ programme in which they go a lot further than merely treating all of their employees equally, to which no-one could object. Click ‘Sexual Orientation’ on the Nationwide link here.
Stephen Green is a Nationwide member and went along to the AGM in Manchester on 19th July 2012 to ask the Nationwide Board of Directors the following questions:
(1) How much of your members’ money did you vote to the Stonewall awards dinner?
(2) Did you know the nature of the event you were sponsoring, and were the names of all the awards disclosed to you in advance?
(3) Which Nationwide Board members attended the Stonewall awards dinner?
(4) Whether Nationwide support Stonewall’s aim of the redefinition of marriage?
(5) When will you apologise for bank-rolling an event which insulted and humiliated not just a humble Nationwide member like me, but respected public figures? and
(6) When will you be big enough simply to say sorry to the individuals concerned?
Graham Beale, Nationwide Chief Executive, supplied the answers:
(1) They gave £60,000 to Stonewall for the dinner (which did not stop the greedy lobby group from charging £180 a ticket) and they gave £5,000 as a prize to the ‘Community Group of the Year’ which turned out to be ‘UK Black Pride’.
(2) They didn’t find out the names of the awards until afterwards (which seems rather inept – and they must have known the name of the Community Group award in order to provide the prize).
(3) No Nationwide board members attended (very wise).
(4) Nationwide has no corporate position on the redefinition of marriage (unlike Starbucks and Ben & Jerry’s – but more of them at another time).
Gay ‘marriage’ supporter Ellen DeGeneres was made the spokesperson for JCP
J.C. Penney stock has crashed following news of gay ‘marriage’ support.
Since February when the company made homosexual activist Ellen DeGeneres its new spokesperson, their stock has dropped 50%, achieving what is known as ‘junk’ status.
In February stock was at $41.32/share, while this month it is selling at $20.02/share.
The destruction of the company is attributable both to prayer and to the boycott campaign among those who were offended by the company’s pro-homosexual posturing, particularly the American Family Association’s advocacy group OneMillionMoms.com.
In February Monica Cole, director of OneMillionMoms, predicted that Penney’s campaign might backfire since only an estimated 1.7 percent of the population is homosexual. (See ‘Family group challenges retailer’s use of lesbian icon.’)
“Rather than build on the faith-based traditions of founder James Cash Penney,” the AFA commented in a press release yesterday, “Johnson has abandoned family values and taken the company into a financial tailspin by embracing social activism. Families are the backbone of Penney’s existence. As long as it pushes homosexual marriage, families will go elsewhere.”
The AFA press release gave the following snapshot of the company since its same-sex ‘marriage’ crusade:
February 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
JCP announces Ellen DeGeneres as their new spokesperson.
JCP launches catalog ad featuring two “gay” moms.
JCP launches catalog ad featuring two “gay” dads.
JCP stock rated “junk” by S&P. JCP fires marketing exec.
Stock price: $41.32
Stock price falls to $35.67
Stock price falls to $25.83
Stock price falls to $20.02
Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
Christian Voice Press Release – 10.40 hrs 14th July 2012
The Nationwide Building Society is to be challenged over its association with the Stonewall ‘Bigot of the Year’ award at its AGM this coming Thursday.
Stephen Green, who was shortlisted for the award last November along with Sir Brian Souter, Bishop Arthur Roche, Bill Walker MSP and the eventual ‘winner’ journalist Melanie Phillips, plans to put down a question at the AGM, to be held in Manchester at 11am at the Bridgewater Hall in Lower Mosley Street, Manchester, M2 3WS. Doors open at 10am and any Nationwide member with at least £100 in savings or owed on a mortgage can attend.
‘Nationwide sponsored the 2011 Stonewall awards dinner, which did not stop the greedy lobby group charging £180 a ticket (£150 plus VAT). I intend to ask how much money Nationwide gave, whether they knew the nature of the event they were sponsoring, whether they support the redefinition of marriage, one of Stonewall’s key aims, and when they plan to apologise for bank-rolling an event which insulted and humiliated not just a humble Nationwide member like me, but respected public figures.
‘In particular, Sir Brian was awarded a knighthood by Her Majesty in June 2011, just months before he was vilified by Stonewall.
‘Nationwide have said they are “not supportive of the vilification of individuals” and that they “have made this clear to Stonewall”. They have pulled out of sponsoring future events, while remaining ‘members’ of Stonewall. No-one on the Nationwide Board of Directors has yet been man enough to apologise to any of the individuals concerned, and I think they should.
‘Of course, not one of those shortlisted was invited by Stonewall to attend, which was a grave discourtesy. But as “Bigot of the Year” is merely an attempt by Stonewall to bully and humiliate someone in public life, Stonewall won’t ever find the courage to invite those shortlisted for fear that the winner might tell the assembled gays a few home truths.
‘It seems homosexuality can only advance by insulting and browbeating its opponents. But I hope the Nationwide experience will send a message through the world of business that the Stonewall awards dinner is a toxic brand.’
ENDS
For further information, phone Stephen Green on 07931 490050.
Note: You can send an email to the Nationwide Chief Executive, Graham Beale:
The six-colour rainbow ‘diversity’ flag being carried in today’s London ‘Gay Pride’ parade.
A scaled-down version of Gay Pride, without the usual motorised floats, snaked through London earlier today, funded by Tesco and the Mayor of London. BBC Report here.
Homosexual employees of Tesco and KPMG took part in the parade, while bankers were represented by Barclays and Lloyds TSB. The prison service, the police, and the environment agency were among those representing Her Majesty’s Government. Amnesty International also took part.
The parade passes down Whitehall in central London, near to government offices and 10 Downing Street
The Stonewall lobby group is working overtime trying to present homosexuals as normal people whose love should be recognised by allowing them to ‘marry’, but even in today’s scaled-back event, sex and bizarre forms of sexual expression were to the fore as usual.
The parade featured drag queens, people with their backsides on show, men in what we understand is ‘bondage gear’, sexually-charged costumes, the hostility of Stonewall and Queer Resistance, under-age participants and people whose tee-shirts said: ‘I’ll bet you’re thinking about sex’.
It was an in-your-face offensive onslaught of aggression, intolerance, depravity and division designed to intimidate and assault the mind.
It comes as no surprise that people with such a slender hold on morality should also be incapable of financial stability.
Gay-friendly organisations and individuals failed to come up with money they had promised the organisers. Pride London admitted the funding shortfall which led to the scaling-back of the parade had arisen “not because we have a lack of pledged funds, but because we were unable to collect enough funds from those pledged to provide the strict financial assurances”.
Aggressive and intolerant: ‘Queer Resistance’ activists leave London’s Trafalgar Square in today’s ‘pride’ parade.
It was those financial shortages which led to a panic last month culminating in the Greater London Authority, the Metropolitan Police, Westminster Council, London Fire Brigade and Transport for London asking, for the first time, for “concrete assurances” that Pride London had the cash to pay the upfront costs associated with the event.
Despite £100,000 of public money from the Mayor of London’s office and £30,000 from Tesco and an offer of support from Diageo, the makers of Smirnoff vodka, the event in its original form became ‘unsalvageable’.
As a result, the parade was scaled down to a ‘protest’ march in which floats could not be allowed, the start time was brought forward by two hours and street parties were banned.
Participants in this year’s London ‘Gay Pride’. They and the children who saw them need our prayers.
Normal people will be shocked and saddened that fellow human beings, made in the image of God, could fall so low – and that certain of our politicians encourage them. Earlier in the day, our youth worker helped with the giving out of evangelistic leaflets near the start of the parade. Please pray for souls to be saved from hell through that witness.
Please pray also for the many children who took part in the parade and viewed it from the pavement. May the Lord heal and protect them and forgive their parents for assaulting young minds with such images as we have seen.
Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
If the reforms pass, then Sir Elton John’s civil partner, David Furnish, could be given the right to use an honorary title.
A 10- minute rule Bill is being put forward today that would enable the partners of gay peers to receive titles.
Under the current system, the wife of a knight, lord or sir is given a title and becomes a lady, although the reverse does not apply.
The proposed reforms, put forward by Tory MP Oliver Colville, would extend this privilege to the partners of gay knights and lords. For example, Sir Elton John’s civil partner, David Furnish, would be given the right to use an honorary title.
What remains vague is exactly what title the partner in perversion would be eligible for since currently the only title available for the spouse of a male peer is ‘lady.’ Somehow, “Lady David Furnish” doesn’t quite seem right.
Mr Colville hopes his bill, called The Honours (Equality of Titles for Partners) Bill, will bring ‘equality’ to the system. The motion is significant because it comes at a time when Government is already considering Lords reform. It insists “that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for husbands and civil partners of those receiving honours to be allowed to use equivalent honorary titles to those available to women”.
Mr. Colville commented, “If you are made a peer or a knight, your wife automatically gets the title lady, but if you are gay or are a woman and become a dame your partner gets nothing. I just think it’s an anomaly which needs to be put right.”
These proposals will be debated in more detail when the question of gay ‘marriage’ comes before Parliament.
PRAY: We have warned again and again that tampering with the definition of marriage will start a chain reaction of unforeseeable consequences. Even though same-sex ‘marriage’ has not passed Parliament, Mr Colville’s Bill gives us a glimpse of the types of problems our nation will face if same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized. Pray that God’s judgement will fall upon those who are devising these wicked plans. Also ask our heavenly father to allow this 10- minute rule Bill to expose the tangled web of absurdities that arise from abandoning God’s natural order.
WRITE: To your MP and protest against these plans. Ask for your concerns to be forwarded to the relevant minister. Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the topsy-turvy world of homosexual politics, where sea-change shifts in ideology happen almost as a regular occurrence. Once the gay community finally seems to have reached a consensus on some important point, the parameters will shift and they will adopt a new ideology, sometimes the opposite of what they once affirmed.
Once the homosexual community virulently opposed any notion that there is a genetic base to homosexuality; now, anyone who denies the genetic theory is automatically labelled a homophobe.
Once the homosexual community relentlessly championed the notion that sexuality is fluid. Those were the days when anyone who denied that we can choose our sexual identity was classed as a bigot. Now the gay community insists with equal virulence that our sexual identity is something we are born with.
Once more the tables are turning, and this time the issue concerns the role of children.
For years advocates of same-sex marriage have argued that same-sex parenting either makes no material difference to children, or makes a positive difference. Both of these views can be found in the thought of Judith Stacey, professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology at New York University. In an article reflecting on her debate with Judith Stacey, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse recounts how Dr Stacey argued that the gender of a couple makes absolutely no difference to a child.
I crossed swords with Judith Stacey…at a debate at Bowling Green State a few years ago. I asked her point blank if she believed men and women were completely interchangeable as parents. In front of that very friendly audience, she said absolutely: the gender of parents doesn’t matter….
Treating same sex unions like marriage amounts to saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. It is a coin toss from a child’s point of view, whether they have two moms, two dads, or one of each.
Despite Dr Stacey’s remarks at Bowling Green State, the New York University professor has elsewhere suggested that the gender of same-sex couples does actually matter, because having two moms makes a positive difference for the children entrusted to their care. In other words, lesbian parenting is an improvement on traditional households containing a father. Commenting on 81 different studies for an article “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?” that appeared in of Journal of Marriage and Family Volume 72, Issue 1, Stacey and Biblarz leave the reader with the distinct opinion that traditional man-woman parenting just cannot come anywhere near the benefits generally provided by two lesbians. Here are some quotes from their article:
“Two women who choose to parent together provide a ‘double dose of middle-class feminine approach to parenting.’”
“Women parenting without men scored higher on warmth and quality of interactions with their children than not only fathers, but also mothers who coparent with husbands.”
“If contemporary mothering and fathering seem to be converging,… research shows that sizable average differences remain that consistently favor women, inside or outside of marriage.”
“12 year old boys in mother only families (whether lesbian or heterosexual) did not differ from sons raised by a mother and a father on masculinity scales but scored over a standard deviation higher on femininity scales. Thus growing up without a father did not impede masculine development but enabled boys to achieve greater gender flexibility.”
“If, as we expect, future research replicates the finding that fatherless parenting fosters greater gender flexibility in boys, this represents a potential benefit. Research implies that adults with androgynous gender traits may enjoy social psychological advantages over more gender traditional peers.”
“Thus, it may not be fatherlessness that expands gender capacities in sons but heterosexual fatherlessness. When gay men, lesbians or heterosexual women parent apart from the influence of heterosexual masculinity, they all seem to do so in comparatively gender-flexible ways that may enable their sons to break free from gender constraints as well.”
“Parenting by gay men more closely resembles that by mothers than by most married, heterosexual fathers.”
The basic picture is not hard to discern: homosexual parents are superior to heterosexual parents, especially if they are two lesbians.
This was also the point made by an article published in the New Scientist in 2010. Titled, ‘Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers’, the article reported on the results of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study which supposedly discovered that “The children of lesbian parents outscore their peers on academic and social tests…”
“in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don’t…. And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.
All of this reflects what has been common orthodoxy among the defenders of gay rights. Whether they argue that same-sex parenting is equivalent to man-woman parenting, or whether they argue that same-sex parenting is actually superior, no one has been willing to say that it simply doesn’t matter at all. Indeed, up to now it has been taken for granted that the needs of children should be paramount, and that is precisely why the gay community has bent over backwards to try to show that same-sex parenting (and by extension, same-sex ‘marriage’) benefits children.
At least, until this week.
Now that a study has come out which purports to show that children of same-sex parents actually fare worse, pro-homosexual writers are changing their tune and saying that the question of children is now irrelevant.
In an article that appeared in Thursday’s Guardian, journalist Jill Filipovic suggested that the needs of children should actually be bracketed off as immaterial to the debate over same-sex ‘marriage.’ Mind you, Filipovic doesn’t think children will be adversely affected if the Government decides to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’, and she disputes the recent study on methodological grounds. However, she is adamant that even if children did suffer, that shouldn’t make any difference to our policy discussions. She writes
The “gay parents are worse parents” argument shouldn’t just fail because it’s false; it should fail because even if it were true, less-than-ideal child outcomes do not justify the state’s refusal to extend the fundamental right of marriage to consenting adults.
The fact that Filipovic considers same-sex ‘marriage’ to be a ‘fundamental right’ shows that she has already assumed the conclusion she is trying to establish, a fallacy known as circular reasoning. After all, we do not normally consider something to be a right if it systematically hurts other people. If the state can withdraw someone’s right to live a free life when the person starts putting other people in danger, how much more should a highly contested ‘right’ like gay ‘marriage’ be contingent on the effect it might have on other people, especially children.
Guardian, journalist Jill Filipovic argues that even if children suffer, that shouldn’t make any difference to our policy discussions about same-sex 'marriage.'
It follows that in trying to decide whether the state should make same-sex ‘marriage’ into a human right, it is crucial to ask what effect this might have on children.
My question to Filipovic is this: how many children would have to suffer before it becomes is legitimate to acknowledge that the needs of children are relevant to the debate on same-sex ‘marriage’?
Filipovic actually makes an ingenuous argument to prove that the needs of children should be disregarded. After all, she pointed out, we don’t ban deadbeat dads from getting married even though it is probable that they will have a negative effect on children. Neither do we ban prisoners from getting married, even though it is again probable that they won’t make the best parents. So why should we restrict same-sex couples from getting ‘married’ just because we think children flourish best with a mom and a dad?
The answer should be simple. In cases like the deadbeat dad or the prisoner, what we are dealing with is someone exercising a right that is already recognized as existing. However, if we are considering using the law to create a new right, it is only responsible to consider the social ramifications, including the effect any changes might have on children.
Unfortunately, if Filipovic’s article is indicative of the new climate of ideology, the needs of children simply do not matter any more.
A few days ago, people calling in to Premier Radio were challenged to say what was wrong with David Cameron’s plans for ‘gay marriage’. In the main, they knew it was wrong, but they could not articulate why. You may feel the same, but you don’t have to be tongue-tied any longer.
Our pro-marriage briefing The Trivilisation of Matrimony opposes Cameron’s ‘gay marriage’ plans, firstly from a biblical perspective, and then by unpacking all the other arguments (see contents below). We are not ashamed of the Cross in Christian Voice, and the words of Jesus Christ on this issue form the cornerstone of our objections. We are so keen to get this accessible 16-page booklet into your hands, we are giving it away free if you join Christian Voice today.
Join Christian Voice today, and get The Trivilisation of Matrimony and our latest newsletter, leading on the ‘gay marriage’ issue, absolutely free! We’ll also send you Britain in Sin, which lays out the anti-Christian legislation passed in the last sixty years and our information-packed briefings Understanding Islam and Labelling Halal – all by return of post. You won’t want to miss any of those! Join over the weekend and we’ll have everything in the post for you on Monday.
Peter Tatchell, arch-republican that he is, has been moaning in the Guardian that the Queen is not ‘gay-friendly’.
We disagree – and show why below.
The charge sheet compiled by Mr Tatchell includes HMQ having not visited AIDS victims or mentioned LGBT people in her broadcasts. She had to be bullied, he says, into allowing homosexual staff in the royal household to bring their ‘partners’ to the annual Christmas ball at Buckingham Palace. ‘It was only after a protest outside the palace and the ensuing bad publicity that the royals dropped the ban’, he fumes.
Christian Voice can always be relied upon to take up the cause of the monarchy especially in this Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee year, so in Her Majesty’s defence to the Tatchell onslaught, we offer the following:
In 1967 HMQ gave her royal assent to the Sexual Offences Act, which decriminalised sodomy and gross indecency between men in private. The Act, brought in because a few homosexual civil servants had been caught with their shirts lifted, spawned the entire homosexual industry. The first ‘gay rights’ march was held in 1972. Bars, shops and magazines catering to the ‘pink market’ quickly followed. Sex education could now mention and even promote homosexuality. Britain was already slouching towards Gomorrah just fifteen years into the Queen’s reign.
There was a bit of a blip in 1988 when HM allowed Section 28 of the Local Government Act to outlaw teaching that homosexual relationships were normal, but Her Majesty went some distance to making amends in 1994, when her Criminal Justice and Public Order Act reduced the minimum age for sodomy to 18, legalised it upon women as well and redefined enforced sodomy as ‘rape’ to equate sodomy with sexual intercourse.
In the late 1980’s, Her Majesty’s Government spent millions trying to convince everyone that AIDS was not a homosexual disease, and spent further millions on ‘health education’ and free condoms for homosexuals and anyone who wanted one. She may not have visited AIDS victims as often as the late Diana Princess of Wales, but Her Majesty’s Government fund their Highly-Active Anti-Retoviral Treatments to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.
In her armed forces, which are very dear to Her Majesty’s heart, homosexual men and women became able openly to serve from 1999. By 2008, all three services were marching in uniform in the London Gay Pride march. As Peter Tatchell admits, her majesty’s homosexual staff can bring their partners in perversion right into Buckingham Palace for the annual Christmas ball.
Her Majesty gave homosexual men legal access to sodomise 16-year-old boys in 2000 with the Sexual Offences Amendment Act. Two years later, Her Majesty decided that homosexual men and women could legally adopt children.
With the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Her Majesty removed the offences of gross indecency and sodomy altogether. Section 28 (that 1988 blip) was removed in the same year, giving homosexual teachers and their allies full rein to promote homosexuality to both secondary and primary school children. In what was a bit of a boom year, she also gave her gracious assent to the idea that people committing criminal offences should receive heavier sentences if the victim was homosexual.
Then in 2004, Her Majesty hit a new peak by giving Royal Assent to the Gender Recognition Act, which allowed transsexuals to go back and falsify their original birth certificates, and the Civil Partnership Act, which gave pairs of homosexuals the same legal rights as married couples.
Peter Tatchell, who has a thing about queens, in the 2003 London Gay Pride parade
In 2003, the Sexual Orientation Employment Regulations had opened up all jobs, even those working with children and young people, to homosexuals.
Following that, Her Majesty gave her consent to the Equality Act 2006. That empowered the Queen’s ministers to bring in in the Sexual Orientation Regulations to force Christian hoteliers to let rooms to homosexuals in Northern Ireland. Great Britain followed with identical regulations in 2007.
2008 saw the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which brought in a homosexual incitement hate crime law and abolished the ancient offence of blasphemy, to the delight of secularist homosexuals including Peter Tatchell, who tried to read the lewd Gay News poem in public some years before. In the same year, she removed the need for a father or a mother in laws governing assisted reproduction in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, paving the way for lesbians and homosexual men to acquire children using donors and surrogates.
The Equality Act 2010, to which Her Majesty gave her gracious consent, placed a duty on local authorities to promote transsexualism and homosexuality as two of the ‘protected groups’ to be favoured by government and public authorities – including schools – throughout England and Wales.
Her Majesty’s Government is now working out ways to introduce ‘gay marriage’. If that is enacted, which God forbid, Her Majesty will easily give it her royal assent, just as she has given her royal assent to every previous bit of ‘gay rights’ legislation.
Contrary to what Peter Tatchell asserts, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has undoubtedly been the most ‘gay-friendly’ monarch in British history.
Proposals to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’ will provide the perfect mechanism for the homosexual lobby to realize one of its long-term objectives: the criminalization of all opposition to homosexuality.
For years the UK gay community has dreamed of creating a society in which criticisms of homosexuality are punishable by law. However, up to now they have only been able to achieve this on a sporadic basis through a combination of intimidation, vague public order acts, and pro-homosexual members of the police.
If same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized, however, the gay lobby will be given a mechanism to begin targeting defenders of traditional marriage on a systematic basis.
At least, that is what Stephen Green and Robin Phillips have argued in a recent briefing paper published by Christian Voice. The authors show that changing the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would create an atmosphere hostile to freedom.
The briefing paper, titled The Trivialization of Matrimony, suggests that legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ could also have broad implications for Christians across every sector of public life. Green and Phillips pointed out that pension providers, businesses, insurance companies, teachers and private individuals would all be required to accommodate a new and unprecedented definition of ‘marriage’ or fall foul of the law.
When questioned about the guarantees of religious liberty peppered throughout the Governments’ consultation document, Green and Phillips replied that these promises are not to be trusted. “It is a significant fact,” they pointed out, “that throughout the consultation document not once does it guarantee protection to those who may have religious reasons for not recognizing the civil ‘marriages’ of same-sex couples.”
“When civil partnerships were first introduced, Government was adamant that this was not a half-way house to same-sex ‘marriage’, though subsequent events proved otherwise. Similarly, although the current Government is adamant that the new proposals are not preliminary to making churches solemnize same-sex ‘marriages’, what is to stop a future Government, or even the same one, from pursuing the itinerary of ‘equality’ to this final step?”
“Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone stated in a BBC Radio 5 Live interview that ‘it may be that [the issue of same-sex marriage in a place of religious worship] comes back another day.’ This could happen sooner than we think. Equality laws introduced by Labour in 2007 and subsequently enshrined in the 2010 Equality Act could make it difficult, even illegal, for Government to try to maintain this two-tier system of civil marriage and religious marriage.”
“In short, what Government is proposing to do is to change how all of us define marriage. Those who refuse to cooperate with the redefinitions will be found in breach of the law.”
“Governmental Intrusion”
The concerns raised in the Christian Voice briefing paper echo warnings that other defenders of traditional marriage have issued over the past five years. When fighting against same-sex marriage in the state of California in 2008, Dennis Prager wrote a revealing article entitled ‘California Decision Will Radically Change Society.’ Prager pointed to some possible consequences to allowing gay ‘marriage’:
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming—to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman….
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger—if they show only women’s fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians—i.e., those who believe in a divine scripture—will be marginalized.
S. T. Karnick argued similarly in an article for Salvo magazine titled ‘The Tyranny of the Minority.’ Karnick pointed out that far from being the tolerant option, those who champion same-sex ‘marriage’ are actually fiercely coercive and intolerant:
“Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one…. What’s at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what’s in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such ‘marriages.’ Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions.
“Although pro-homosexual radicals continually refer to the forced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ as a civil right, as well as a matter of liberating society from hidebound prejudices, such policies are actually the government-enforced imposition of a small group’s sexual values on a reluctant and indeed strongly resistant population.
Criminalizing Opinion
Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws ‘insulting words or behaviour’. If gay ‘marriage’ is legalized, it is likely that the rubric of what constitutes ‘insulting behaviour’ will be broadened to include any advocacy of traditional marriage.
These concerns are not merely hypothetical. Even though same-sex ‘marriage’ has yet to be legalized in the UK, there is already a significant move to persecute those who dissent from the grinding uniformity demanded by the homosexual lobby. Consider just a few instances as a foretaste of what will occur on a much larger scale if same-sex ‘marriages’ are enshrined in law:
In October 2001, a pensioner held up a sign that said, ‘Stop immorality, stop homosexuality, stop lesbianism, Jesus is Lord’. He faced abuse from a crowd which culminated in the police arresting and then convicting him under the Public Order Act 1986 for being insulting. (Read the report at The Free Speech Debate website
In November 2003, the Bishop of Chester was questioned over his views on homosexuality by Cheshire police after commenting that psychiatrists could help homosexuals to re-orientate themselves. The Crown Prosecution Service eventually dropped the case saying the Bishop had committed no crime. (Read the report in The Chester Chronicle.)
In December 2005, Joe and Heather Roberts were interrogated by Lancashire police after complaining to their local council in Fleetwood (Wyre Borough Council) about council tax money being spent on promoting gay rights. Both the Police and the council at the time refused to admit they were wrong. After the threat of legal action, the Council and the Police apologised to the Roberts and settled out of court.
In December 2005, author Lynette Burrows was interviewed by the police after she expressed disapproval of homosexual adoption on a talk show. The policewoman who talked to Mrs Burrows said that a ‘homophobic incident’ had been reported against her and that it would be kept on record by the police. (Read the Telegraph report.)
In February 2006, Dr N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, mentioned in a speech before the House of Lords about the way people were being censured for moderate comments disapproving of homosexuality. He observed, “People in my diocese have told me that they are now afraid to speak their minds in the pub on some major contemporary issues for fear of being reported, investigated, and perhaps charged. My Lords, I did not think I would see such a thing in this country in my lifetime…. The word for such a state of affairs is ‘tyranny’: sudden moral climate change, enforced by thought police.” (Read his speech, ‘Moral Climate Change and Freedom of Speech.’)
In September 2006, Stephen Green was arrested and detained in police station for handing out evangelistic tracts at a gay pride festival in Cardiff. Police said the arrest was because the tracts Mr Green was distributing contained Bible verses about homosexuality. (Read the BBC report.) He was charged but the prosecutors dropped all charges. South Wales Police paid a sum in compensation.
In June 2008, Iris Robinson, wife of Irish First Minister Peter Robinson, was investigated by the Serious Crimes Branch of the PSNI (Northern Ireland Police Force) for speaking out against homosexuality. (Read the Belfast Telegraph report about it.)
In 2008, Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane was sacked from his job with Relate because he confided that he would not be comfortable counselling homosexual couples about sexual problems. (Read the BBC news report.)
Since 2008 British Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down because of their refusal to place children with homosexual couples. (Read the LifeSiteNews report about it.)
In December 2008, Pilgrim Homes had £13,000 of funding removed by Brighton Council because the home refused to ask its elderly Christian residents every three months if they were homosexual. Funding was only restored when Pilgrim Homes promised to ask the residents about their sexual orientation on admission. (Read the LifeSiteNews report.)
In January 2009, the Earl of Devon (Hugh Courtenay) had his licence to hold wedding ceremonies at Powderham Castle near Exeter revoked by Devon County Council. The justification for removing his licence was that the Earl’s Christian beliefs prevented him from allowing civil partnership ceremonies to be held on his property. (Read about it in the Telegraph report.)
In 2009, Christian Registrar Lilian Ladele faced the sack because she asked if she could be exempt from registering civil partnership. Even though she won the case against Islington Council, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the case and ruled against her. (Read the Guardian report about it.)
In April 20, 2010, street preacher, Dale McAlpine, was arrested for allegedly telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin. The 42-year-old Baptist was put in jail for seven hours causing “harassment, alarm or distress.” (Read the Telegraph report.)
In 2011, housing manager Adrian Smith has had his pay slashed as a punishment for saying on his private Facebook page that allowing gay weddings in churches was ‘an equality too far’. (Read the Daily Mail report about it.)
In May 2011, Oxford student Sam Brown was celebrating the end of his exam. In the course of his celebrations, he said to a policeman, “Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?” He was arrested under the 1986 Public Order Act for making “offensive homophobic comments”. He remained in jail overnight before the police dropped his case. (Read the BBC news report.)
In February 2012, hoteliars Peter and Hazelmary Bull were sued using Government money after refusing to offer a double bed to a homosexual couple in 2011. (Read the Guardian report about it here.)
In May 2012, the author of the Archbishop Cranmer blog was being investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority for posting a petition in support of traditional marriage and displayed an image advertising The Coalition for Marriage’s campaign to protect traditional marriage. The image showed numerous heterosexual couples getting married but no same-sex couples. The Advertising Standards Authority launched the investigation in order to determined whether the advert promotes homophobia. (Read the National Secular Society’s report.)
In May 2012, the Law Society cancelled a planned conference organised by Christian Concern called, “One Man, One Woman. Making the case for marriage for the good of society.” The conference was organised by the World Congress of Families but was cancelled by the Law Society on the grounds that it is “contrary to diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage.” Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, commented, “Since when can debate be against diversity? …This action by the professional body…demonstrates how discussion on traditional views on marriage is being shut down before any change in the law to redefine marriage has come into force. If this kind of censorship is happening before gay ‘marriage’ has even been legalized, what will happen afterwards?” (Read Cristina Odone’s article, ‘Heterosexual marriage? I’m sorry, you can’t discuss that ‘)
In May 2012, Roman Catholic schools in Wales got reprimanded by the Welsh government for circulating a letter written by Archbishop Nichols of Westminster in support of traditional marriage. The Welsh Government alleged that the schools support of traditional marriage failed to give students a “balanced perspective.” (Read the LifeSiteNews report.)
PRAY: With the UK Prime Minister and the United States’ president both publicly advocating the legalization of gay ‘marriage’, it is appropriate to reflect on what this would actually mean in practice.
News breaks that some favoured politicians and bankers from the United Kingdom are shunning our gracious Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations this weekend to cosy up to the movers and shakers of the world’s elite.
The ‘Bilderberg’ group is meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, USA from 31st May to 3rd June under the chairmanship of Henri de Castries, Chairman and CEO of AXA, to plan and plot world events. Whatever these people decide, and their plans do not always work out, it is likely to be designed to benefit them first and the rest of us a long way behind.
On the invitation list from the UK are:
* Bankers Marcus Agius, Chairman of Barclays and Douglas J. Flint, Group Chairman of HSBC Holdings.
* Oilmen Robert Dudley, Group Chief Executive of BP and Peter Voser, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell
* Journalists John Micklethwait, the Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator of The Financial Times and the FT’s Chief Economics Commentator, Martin H. Wolf. Vendeline von Bredow, the Business Correspondent of The Economist and the same publication’s Foreign Correspondent, Adrian D. Wooldridge are denoted ‘Rapporteurs’ for the meeting, but despite that designation, and the presence of such well-connected journo’s, don’t expect to see anything about the meeting in the papers. It’s top secret, you see, with armed guards and a publicity ban.
The UK’s gay mafia is well represented with Peter, Lord Mandelson, who is now Chairman of ‘Global Counsel’, whatever that is, and Nick Boles, MP, a member of David Cameron’s kitchen cabinet and a good friend of modernisers Boris Johnson and Francis Maude. Kenneth Clarke, MP is a long-standing Bilderberg member and part of its inner circle, as are Agius and the remaining UK delegate, retired diplomat John Lord Kerr of Kinlochard.
Only recently, the Bilderberg Group has started a website and now publishes a press release. You can see it at http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting_2012.html and you can click on the other buttons on the site to see the full list of those attending together with the ‘Governance’ of the group.
Apparently, ‘the privacy of the meetings, … has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely’. ‘Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced’. ‘Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued’.
So that’s alright then. Pray that all plans for globalism and world domination are thwarted. Pray this Psalm:
Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
