The Girl Guides are to drop references to ‘God’ and ‘country’ from their traditional pledge but are to retain a public expression of allegiance to the Queen, reports the Daily Telegraph.
In the new Promise, which will take effect from 1st September, the words ‘to love my God’, which already had an individualistic feel, is to be replaced with ‘to be true to myself and develop my beliefs’, sounding like something out of a New Age self-help manual.
The Guides have retained their pledge to the Queen, who just happens to be Patron of the UK Girl Guides, but the words ‘to serve the Queen and my community’, begging the question ‘who or what is “my community”?’ will replace ‘to serve the Queen and my country’. A vow to “help other people” and to “do my best” will remain part of the new promise.
Stephen Evans, campaigns manager of the National Secular Society, applauded the Guides by getting out his secularist politically-correct phrase-book: “By omitting any explicit mention of God or religion the Guide Association has grasped the opportunity to make itself truly inclusive and relevant to the reality of 21st century Britain.
“The new secular promise can now be meaningful and relevant to all guides and potential leaders, whatever their beliefs – and sends a clear signal that Girlguiding is equally welcoming to all girls.”
The Guides website claims that the new promise will lead to them ‘welcoming more members’, but David Landrum, advocacy director at the Evangelical Alliance said: “No doubt, the Girls Brigade will be the main beneficiaries from this erroneous decision, because as the growing popularity of faith schools attests, parents will always seek to provide religious rather than secular humanist values for their children.”
In 2007 the Girl Guides started a programme called ‘Get Wise’ to teach about ‘sexual health’. The programme sank into embarrassed obscurity, but the organisation’s website had a page called ‘fit for life’ which promoted new age treatments such as aromatherapy, colour therapy (whatever that might be) and yoga. The guiding website forum urges girls to ‘indulge your inner gossip queen‘.
We understand there is still a weblink to the fpa in the GirlGuiding members area but another, to a Government url astonishingly called ‘www.playingsafely.co.uk’, as if sex is just an adolescent recreational activity, appears to have been dropped. The link was redirected straight to a suggestive NHS website called condomessentialwear.co.uk.
The Girl Guides were founded in 1909 by Agnes Baden-Powell, sister of Robert Baden-Powell, the architect of the Scouting movement.
New UK Immigration rules are denying spouse visas to legitimate wives of UK nationals.
Immigration rules for people from outside the European Union are “tearing British families apart”, a group of MPs and peers have claimed in a report, says the BBC.
In July 2012, minimum earnings requirements were introduced. Any British citizen who wants to sponsor their non-European spouse’s visa must be able to show they earn at least £18,600 a year, rising to £22,400 to sponsor a child, and a further £2,400 for each further child.
The inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, which is calling for an independent review of the minimum income requirement, looked at more than 175 cases from families affected by the new rules.
Forty-five claimed their inability to meet the income threshold had led to the separation of children, including British children, from a non-EU parent.
In one case, a woman from outside Europe was separated from her British husband and two sons, including a five-month-old baby she had been breastfeeding.
The committee also heard from a number of UK sponsors in full-time employment at or above the national minimum wage who reported that they were unable to meet the income requirement.
Wider evidence suggested that 47% of the UK working population last year would fail to meet the income level to sponsor a non-European Economic Area partner, the committee said.
By the government’s own estimate, almost 18,000 British people will be prevented from being reunited with their spouse or partner in the UK every year as a result of the new rules, it added.
Baroness Hamwee, chairwoman of the inquiry and Liberal Democrat home affairs lead in the House of Lords, said the committee was “struck by the evidence showing just how many British people have been kept apart from partners, children and elderly relatives”.
“These rules are causing anguish for families and, counter to their original objectives, may actually be costing the public purse,” she said.
Liberal Democrat APPG member Sarah Teather MP said that “whatever the objective of the policy, children shouldn’t suffer as a result”.
A Home Office spokesperson said the rules had been designed to make sure those coming to the UK to join their spouse or partner would not become a burden on the taxpayer and will be well enough supported to integrate effectively.
“High-value migrants would not be refused because their British spouse or partner was not employed,” he said.
“They can meet the income threshold by having cash savings of £62,500 or through their own private income, for example from investments. We have also introduced greater flexibility for those holding investments to liquidate them into cash in order to meet the rules.”
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today: “It is a fundamental principle that the state should honour the family and marriage. If almost half the population would be excluded by the rules, then the rules are wrong and anti-marriage. It is not just that children shouldn’t suffer, as Sarah Teather says, but that genuine marriages should not be put under strain.
“All that is needed is a requirement that incoming spouses will not be a burden on the tax-payer and will be prohibited from claiming social security benefits. If that were introduced, the Home Office might well find that the bogus cases disappeared. ”
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)
Ted Cantle, who wants an end to government funding for both faith schools and church-run soup kitchens, speaking at a conference organised by the National Secular Society.
A group of humanists are demanding that faith schools should be open to all children, regardless of their parents’ religion.
The Fair Admissions Campaign wants all state-funded schools in England and Wales to be open equally to all children, without regard to religion or belief.
Latest available statistics indicate one in four primary schools and one in 16 secondary schools in England are Church of England schools. Approaching one million pupils are educated in more than 4,700 Church of England schools.’
The Fair Admissions Campaign claims that it is ‘widely supported’, by those at its meetings perhaps. In the real world, according the Church of England:
‘Seven in ten (72%) of the population agree that Church of England schools help young people to grow into responsible members of society and 8 in 10 (80%) agree that they promote good behaviour and positive attitudes.’
‘I think that it is quite clear that faith schools tend to have a strong ethos emphasising respect for authority, the virtues of hard work, discipline and a sense of duty rather than just rights, a commitment to high ideals, a willingness to learn and a sense of social responsibility. Their ethos also gives a preference for earned self-respect rather than unearned self-esteem and the idea of an objective moral order transcending subjective personal preferences.’
In a glimpse into the arcane and incestuous nature of secularism, the Accord Coaltion is itself an amalgamation of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the British Humanist Association, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, the Campaign for State Education, Ekklesia, the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, the Hindu Academy, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, Liberal Youth, the National Union of Teachers, the Socialist Education Association, the Runnymede Trust and Women Against Fundamentalism
Professor Ted Cantle, named as a leading figure behind the campaign, is anti-multicultural to the extent that he would ban the Government from giving any funding to church-run soup kitchens, on the grounds that ‘they fuel separation in communities’.
There is no evidence whatsoever that faith-based schools, by which we mean mainly Church of England schools, are divisive or that they are turning out suicide bombers or young men eager to knife soldiers on the streets of Greenwich. There is no evidence that church-run soup kitchens, homeless shelters, drop-ins and other Christian contributions to the ‘big society’ fuel separation in any way at all.
But that will not stop the relentless assault on our Christian Heritage from those who hate 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)
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.
‘London’s Country Estate’ is how the 5-Star Grove Hotel describes itself
The world’s top politicians, industrialists and bankers will decide this weekend how the world will be run.
The ‘Bilderberg’ group is meeting at the Grove Hotel in Watford from 6th to 9th June 2013 under the chairmanship of Henri de Castries, Chairman and CEO of AXA, to plan and plot world events. Whatever these wealthy people decide, and their plans do not always work out, it will be designed to benefit them first and the rest of us a long way behind.
There is an especially large contingent from the UK this year:
Marcus Agius, Former Chairman, Barclays plc
Helen Alexander, Chairman, UBM plc
Ed Balls MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
John Bell, Regius Professor of Medicine, University of Oxford
Peter, Lord Carrington, Former Honorary Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings
Kenneth Clarke MP, top Bilderberg insider
Sherard Cowper-Coles,Business Development Director, International, BAE Systems plc
Ian Davis, Senior Partner Emeritus, McKinsey & Company
Robert Dudley, Group Chief Executive, BP plc
Douglas J. Flint, Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc
Stuart Gulliver, Group Chief Executive, HSBC Holdings plc
Simon Henry, CFO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
John, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Former Diplomat
Peter, Lord Mandelson, Chairman, Global Counsel; Chairman, Lazard International
John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
David Omand, Visiting Professor, King’s College London
George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Simon Robertson, Partner, Robertson Robey Associates LLP; Deputy Chairman, HSBC Holdings
Martin Taylor, Former Chairman, Syngenta AG
Peter R. Voser, CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shirley, Baroness Williams of Crosby
Martin H. Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times
Wright, DavidVice Chairman, Barclays plc
There is apparently a new spirit of openess in Bilderberg, after years of utmost (and widely breached) secrecy, but do not expect to see too much of what is decided and how in the press, despite the presence of journalists among the delegates. Everything is under ‘Chatham House Rules’ and no comment is attibuted to anyone. Bilderberg say: ‘There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.’
The Bilderberg Group has had a website for a couple of years now. How open they are may be judged from the fact that they put up this year’s delegates list then took it down in a panic. That was not before it was picked up and circulated all around the world. You can see the full list here. They say: ‘About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields.’ (More delegates, and historical lists.)
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’.
According to Bilderberg, despite having no agenda, they will be discussing (my comments in brackets):
• Can the US and Europe grow faster and create jobs? (and make money for the bankers)
• Jobs, entitlement and debt (and making money for the bankers)
• How big data is changing almost everything (you just can’t keep Bilderberg secret anymore)
• Nationalism and populism (they don’t like those two for sure!)
• US foreign policy (what new wars should we expect?)
• Africa’s challenges (how best to exploit the continent and promote abortion and sodomy)
• Cyber warfare and the proliferation of asymmetric threats (protecting themselves)
• Major trends in medical research (don’t expect too much Christian morality to intrude)
• Online education: promise and impacts (not sure how they will exploit that)
• Politics of the European Union (Help! The Euro dream is falling apart)
• Developments in the Middle East (they love ‘democracy’ and wars make money)
• Current affairs (preparing the way for the Antichrist? Just a guess!)
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. 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)
In Hadley Arkes’ book Natural Rights and the Right to Choose, he makes some penetrating observations about American society which apply with equal force to some of the issues Britain is now facing. He writes,
In the name of ‘privacy’ and ‘autonomy’, [Americans] have unfolded, since 1965, vast new claims of liberty, all of them bound up in some way with the notion of sexual freedom. In the first steps, there was a liberty, for married couples, but then soon for unmarried persons, to have unregulated access to contraceptives. Next, the claim of privacy was extended into a private right to end a pregnancy, or destroy a child in the womb, at any time in a pregnancy, for virtually any reason. That same claim of privacy was soon extended to the freedom to end the lives of newborns afflicted with Down’s syndrome or spina bifda. After the briefest interval, that same doctrine of personal autonomy was applied to the other end of the scale of age and converted into a claim to assisted suicide.
Ironically, this unfolding scheme of liberation has advanced even while privacy, in other domains, has been progressively crimped and disrespected by the law. Private corporations, private clubs, private households, have found themselves under thicker regulation, and the overhanging threat of lawsuits. The combined effect has been to remove the attribute most prized about privacy: the freedom to arrange one’s own association, or private enclave, according to one’s own, private criteria. But this recession of privacy and freedom seems to count for very little when set against the expansion of rights associated with sexual freedom. The dismantling of restraints on sexuality has evidently been taken as far more liberating, even exhilirating, perhaps because it has been taken as a matter of the most irreducible ‘personal’ freedom. And yet these freedoms, celebrated as pre-eminently ‘personal,’ have required the assistance or intervention of surgeons and counselors, and they have quickly annexed to their cause the demand to have the support of public monies, drawn from tax-payers with the coercions of the law. It must surely count, too, as one of the paradoxes of this new phase in our law that people seem to identify their well-being, not with an obligation to preserve life or go to its rescue, but with the creation of vast new franchises to destroy human life, for wholly private reasons, without the need to offer a justification.
Each step in liberation has been marked, then, by a further detachment of people from the traditional restraints of the law. The corollary, of course, is that, as restraints have been removed, persons once protected by those restraints have been removed from that protection. Vast new liberties come along with vast new injuries – unless, of course, the victims no longer count. In any event, there is little doubt that these alterations in our law over the past thirty years have been taken as the hallmarks of a new regime of personal freedom; a freedom so vital to those who savor it, that any threat of having it qualified or diminished in any degree is taken as nothing less than an assault on the constitutional order 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 Swedish arm of Toys R Us is suggesting girls play with guns. Zero Tolerance think this will reduce violence. But only against women. Violence against men doesn’t matter.
Nursery children in Scotland are the target of a new campaign that aims to end sexism in pre-schools and prevent future domestic violence by encouraging boys to swap their cars for dolls and little girls to dress up as pirates, says The Times.
The ‘Just Like a Child’ initiative being launched this week by ‘Zero Tolerance’, a charity that claims to ‘fight violence against women’, aims to ‘end gender stereotyping in nurseries’ by giving boys dolls to play with and encouraging girls to play with guns and be ‘strong and tough’.
Jenny Kemp, Zero Tolerance coordinator, writes: “We believe that it is never too early to question what is seen as ‘normal’ or what is traditionally expected of boys and girls in our society. In fact, we believe that doing so from a very young age helps to protect children from the negative consequences of inequality and discrimination as they grow into adults.”
Liz Ely, a ‘development officer’ at Zero Tolerance, said: “From the moment children are born they are told that boys must be strong and tough, and girls are delicate and pretty. These stereotypes have real and lasting consequences. The fact that as a society we tell boys not to express their emotions, and girls that they are not suited to science and maths, sets children on a path to inequality; this inequality lays the foundations for abuse and violence in later life.”
Dr Sarah Morton, a ‘family expert’ and psychologist at the University of Edinburgh, said ‘our research has found a clear link between gender stereotypes and violence against women and children.’
It would be interesting to see that research, and how ‘gender stereotypes’ were quantified, because common sense might lean to the view that it is insecurity rather than some supposed ‘inequality’ which lies at the heart of a desire to lash out, and that by encouraging insecurity in their gender identity this programme will increase the likelihood that these boys and girls will grow up unbalanced and abusive.
The website www.zerotolerance.org.uk says the organisation ‘is a charity working to tackle the causes of men’s violence against women. Too many women in Scotland, and around the world, experience violence from men – most often men they are close to and/or who are in a position of power over them. Men’s violence against women is caused by gender inequality, and it helps this inequality to continue.’
There is so much wrong in that unbalanced statement it is hard to know where to begin. For a start, women’s violence and abuse against men apparently either does not happen or does not matter to ‘Zero Tolerance’. The idea that men are always ‘in a position of power’ over women is laughable. Lastly, where does the idea come from that violence is simply and exclusively ’caused by gender inequality?’ Abuse of any sort is caused by sin, and the roots of it can lie in insecurity, irritation, drunkenness, provocation, mental problems or plain old wickedness. And the fair sex are not immune from any of those.
One strongly gets the impression that there is either an anti-Christian, feminist political agenda behind the approach of ‘Zero Tolerance’ or there are some personal issues becoming rather too public. Either way, it is not just sad but frankly mendacious to involve children in a social experiment which could leave them trying to work out problems with gender identity later in life.
It would be better and more effective to teach boys that they have a responsibility to protect and care for girls, but of course that would reinforce the very ‘gender stereotype’ that the feministas at Zero Tolerance so detest.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
1Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered
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.
David Cameron is facing a groundswell of opposition that could culminate in him being ousted as leader of the Tory Party.
The Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill cleared its final Commons hurdle today in a vote of 366 to 161, although the victory for Government comes at a costly political price.
More than half of the Tory party voted for one or more amendments that would have protected liberty of conscience, but these amendments were cut down by David Cameron.
The Prime Minister is now facing a rebellion of 130 Tory MPs in a groundswell of opposition that could culminate in him being ousted as the Conservative leader prior to the 2015 general election.
The bill, which seeks to redefine the meaning of marriage, will now move to the House of Lords, which is expected to hold its first debate in July.
‘SOVIET-STYLE PERSECUTION’
The cat was out of the bag that the marriage bill is not about freedom at all after Government rejected three amendments that would have protected liberty of conscience, including one that would have allowed registrars to opt out of conducting gay marriages where another registrar was available and willing.
Former Tory Minister Ann Widdecombe declared that “this Bill is not about liberty and equality but about oppression and state orthodoxy, about Soviet-style persecution in the work place for an opinion given in a private context, about compelling conformity even where conformity is not necessary.”
Many senior Tories are beginning to worry that David Cameron’s pro-Europe and pro-homosexual policies have come at the expense of being able to hold the party together. Secretary of State for Defence, Philip Hammond, echoed the concerns of many senior Tories when he stressed last week that voters are angry.
The infighting was punctuated by a YouGov poll that showed the Conservative Party is at their lowest rating since 2000.
Meanwhile, David Cameron not only faces opposition from his own ranks but also from hundreds of Islamic leaders. Church leaders as well have warned that the Bill could have the effect of isolating young Christians who believe in the traditional definition of marriage.
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.
Speaking on BBC’s Question Time, he said there was no great demand in the country for change and criticised the amount of parliamentary time devoted to the issue. “I have just never felt that this is what we should be focusing on,” he told the audience.
“This change does redefine marriage. For millions of people who are married, the meaning of marriage changes.
“There is a real sense of anger among many people who are married that any government thinks it can change the definition of an institution like marriage.
“There was no huge demand for this and we didn’t need to spend a lot of parliamentary time and upset vast numbers of people to do it,” he added.
The comments from such a senior Cabinet colleague will embarrass David Cameron, and encourage Parliamentary opposition to the measure.
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)
France’s president has signed into law a controversial bill making the country the ninth in Europe, and 14th globally, to legalise gay marriage, reports the BBC.
On Friday, the Constitutional Council rejected a challenge by the opposition, clearing the way for Francois Hollande to sign the bill.
The deeply unpopular Hollande said: “I have taken [the decision]; now it is time to respect the law of the Republic.”
The first ‘gay wedding’ could be held 10 days after the bill’s signing.
The Constitutional Council ruled that same-sex marriage “did not run contrary to any constitutional principles,” and that it did not infringe on “basic rights or liberties or national sovereignty”.
It said the interest of the child would be paramount in adoption cases, cautioning that legalising same-sex adoption would not automatically mean the “right to a child”.
50% of the French electorate oppose adoption of children by homosexuals and the opposition group Manif Pour Tous say that a majority of the electorate oppose Hollande’s flagship measure.
New Zealand legalised ‘gay marriage’ last month. France is now the 14th country to overturn God’s institution of marriage in which a man joins a woman in a one-flesh union. Commentators have pointed out that basic anatomy denies the ability to be ‘one flesh’ to two homosexuals, mandating a redefinition of marriage.
France is also the ninth country in Europe to allow same-sex marriage. The others are Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.
South Africa, Canada, Uruguay and Argentina have also changed the definition of marriage.
In January, a protest in Paris against the bill by Manif Pour Tous attracted some 340,000 people according to police – one of the biggest public demonstrations in France in decades. Organisers put the figure at 800,000.
Last month, a youth organiser for Manif Pour Tous, Samuel Lafont, was attacked at Odeon métro station by a homosexual gang. He was stabbed in the back six times, as well as sustaining other injuries. Two persons accompanying him were also hurt.
The following morning there were tweets on Twitter that celebrated what happened. One stated that having no news from Lafont for hours, s/he hoped that Lafont was dead but “not from worry”. 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)
The following morning there were tweets on Twitter that celebrated what happened and wished Lafont dead. He and his friends are now recovering.
Now who would force schoolgirls into lesbian role-play? Would it be some sadistic sex-maniac? The correct answer is the Principal of Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, New York.
As part of an ‘anti-bullying presentation on gender identity and sexual orientation’ given to a class of 8th-graders (that’s 13-14 for us Brits), at least one of the girls was instructed to ask another girl for a kiss.
The story was reported by Todd Starnes of Fox News, who was immediately castigated by the liberal press. Alternet accused him and Fox news of having got the story about a ‘forced lesbian kiss’ wrong. But Starnes never said there was a forced kiss, only that the girls were forced to ask for one. Another blogger said, amid bad language, that Starnes was wrong to call it ‘lesbian role play’, but it is difficult to know what else to call it.
But the line Starnes took was defended in eloquent terms by another blogger, Mr Conservative whose post is worth a read. (In the US, we should point out, a ‘conservative’ is someone concerned to defend the status quo, including the Christian faith, the institution of the family and basic morality.)
According to the local paper, the PoughKeepsie Journal, parents were especially angry that no notice was given about the class, which included the now mandatory sex education propaganda about it being OK to have sex ‘when you are ready’.
‘”I am furious,” said Mandy Coon, whose daughter was in the class. “I am her parent. Where does anyone get the right to tell her that it’s okay for her to have sex?”’
Comments like that, of course, betray the 20th-century thinking that so many parents have. Times have moved on. The State is now your child’s parent, Mandy. You are just her birth mother. Or so it seems.
Mandy Coon told reporters that her daughter said, ‘Mom we all get teased and picked on enough. Now I’m going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her.’
The case illustrates that anti-bullying classes run by homosexuals, or designed to further the gay cause, are not about reducing bullying, they are about desensitising and indoctrinating with the ruling State philosophy that homosexuality is not just acceptable but good and to be promoted.
Tolerance towards homosexuals will hardly be increased by such lessons, but maybe just one child will start to think ‘maybe I’m gay’ and be recruited to the lifestyle.
This side of the pond, we have Sir Ian McKellen, Stonewall and organisations such as School’s Out driving the push to normalise homosexuality.
As the US National Organisation for Marriage points out, such lessons will become the norm in schools the moment ‘gay marriage’ is legalised, as it was in New York in July 2011.
The story has implications for the United Kingdom. We should never think things can’t get worse.
Homosexuality is against the law in the central American nation of Belize
Western nations are attempting to strong-arm the central American nation of Belize into accepting the LBTG agenda in a landmark court case that could have ramifications for the entire region.
The case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Judicature next Tuesday and centres on the constitutionality of Section 53 of the Belize Criminal Code, which outlaws “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person or animal.”
This law, which has been in place since 2003, imposes up to 10 years imprisonment on those who violate it. The nation’s Immigration Act also prohibits prostitutes and homosexuals from immigrating to the nation.
Belize is part of the Commonwealth realm and a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. It is a constitutionally Christian nation and the only country in Central America that prohibits homosexual activity. Belize also has the distinction of being the only nation in the region that did not sign the United Nations 2011 document on gay rights.
The government of Belize has come under increasing fire from the Obama administration in general and from former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in particular. In 2011, the White House issued a presidential memorandum condemning “discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct,” and said that US agencies in countries such as Belize should “vigorously advance” the promotion of gay rights. Belizean Prime Minister Dean Barrow reiterated that Belize would not change its anti-homosexuality stance, saying that if President Obama wishes to punish states by removing foreign aid for continuing such practice then “they will have to cut off their aid”.
As Belize has stood firm in the midst of foreign pressure, the LGBT lobby changed their tactic and turned to the courts. A case was filed before the country’s Supreme Court in September 2010 by the United Belize Advocacy Movement (UNIBAM). It is being supported by the International Commission of Jurists, the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, and the Human Dignity Trust. It is being opposed by Belize Council of Churches and Evangelical Association of Churches, along with the Belizean Government, on the grounds that overturning the law will be a slippery slope for introducing ‘gay marriage’ and other practices.
A spokesman for the churches, Pastor Scott Stirm, claimed
They are trying to push this issue as a human rights issue. And there is an international, global agenda that is pushing homosexuality and abortion.
UNIBAM receives support from the U.S. in the name of human rights. But we will not allow them to legalize this lifestyle so that they have free course to go into the schools and teach our kids their lifestyle.’
If UNIBAM is unsuccessful in the case which begins next week, they plan to take the fight all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
When asked about the case, Robin Phillips, spokesman for Christian Voice, commented, “From our perspective in the West, Section 53 of the Belize Criminal Code seems unnecessary and even harsh, and I certainly do not advocate putting homosexuals in jail. However, the government of Belize believes that laws criminalizing unnatural acts function as effective “gatekeepers” by keeping at bay measures such as gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. Given the trajectory of how things have gone in Britain after the laws prohibiting sodomy were removed from the statute books, it’s hard not to have some sympathy with this position. The collateral effects of the gay rights agenda, in terms of the erosion of liberty and the public threats, were only possible once homosexuality became legalized in Britain. The rulers in Belize are not stupid and are aware of this dangerous trajectory.”
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.
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.
Despite painstaking research, none of Tesco’s ‘Fresh and Easy’ stores in the USA made a profit, resulting in a £1.2bn write-down.
The Financial Times reports: ‘The charges cut Tesco’s statutory pre-tax profit from £4bn to £1.96bn in the year to February.
Even before the charges, Tesco’s underlying profit fell 14.5 per cent to £3.55bn – the first annual profit fall in 20 years – as it counted the cost of the problems in the UK, which prompted its first profit warning in decades in January 2012.’
Alone of the ‘big four’ it recorded a disastrous Christmas 2011, with its share price down 20% at one point, as decent people boycotted the store and its ‘Big Price Drop’ failed to woo shoppers.
They sacked their UK operations CEO, and then had to contend with an infestation of mice in their flagship Tesco Metro in Bedford Street in London’s Covent Garden.
A Tesco manageress in Gravesend thought it would be a good idea to report a solitary Christian protestor handing out leaflets outside her store to the police. Tesco were humiliated when Raj Bhachoo was completely exonerated by Dartford Magistrates in March 2012.
What else could go wrong for Tesco and its investors? Watching the company had already become for many of them like watching a slow-motion car crash. Talking of which, Tesco’s online second-hand car sales venture promptly ran out of petrol and closed in April 2012.
Tesco now has a whole section in its online book store headed Financial Crises and Disasters. At the last look-up it was headed by ‘A Colossal Failure of Common Sense’ by Larry S. McDonald and Patrick Robinson.
A colossal failure of common sense might be what drove Tesco bosses to give in to the demands of their in-store homosexual lobby group headed by Nick Lansley, Head of Research and Development at Tesco.com, a militant homosexual atheist activist who once videoed himself reading James Kirkup’s blasphemous poem ‘The Love That Dares to Speak its Name’.
But all the ill-fated decisions Tesco bosses have made over the last few years are now coming home to roost.
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.
New proposals could give drug users in Brighton a safe haven in which to indulge their addiction.
The idea was proposed by an independent commission following practice in four European countries, and is being discussed by city leaders next week. In June it will be put before the health and well-being board of Brighton, currently the drug and homosexual capital of Britain.
If passed, the new “drug consumption rooms” could cater to more than 2,000 drug-users, including heroin addicts.
The commission was instigated by MP Caroline Lucas, and is being defended on the grounds that tax-payer funded drug rooms could help reduce overdose death rates.
Christian Voice believes that this proposal is itself a symptom of the moral degeneracy of our culture, which we regularly chronicle on our Brutal Britain website. Christian Voice spokesman, Robin Phillips, commented, “This ludicrous proposal is based on the idea that drug-use is inevitable, that since it is going to happen anyway it might as well happen in a safe environment. That seems like dangerous reasoning to us, and I’m sure our leaders would never think to apply the same principle to other areas of criminality. More worrying is the fact that Mr Trace, vice chairman of the commission, is now saying that eradication of illegal drug use is no longer a realistic aim. With so much at stake, do we really want to engage in public acts of surrender?”
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.
Top losers, according to the political commentators, are David Cameron and Ed Milliband and their parties. Labour came fourth, whereas the Conservatives came third.
Top winners are the Liberal Democrats, whose candidate was returned to Westminster despite the circumstances of previous incumbent Chris Huhne’s resignation and the sexual harassment allegations concerning Lord Rennard.
The achievement of UKIP in coming a close second is an achievement in itself, making their leader Nigel Farage the second winner.
The third winner is the Christian candidate in the Eastleigh by-election, Danny Stupple, who polled 768 votes and came fifth. His website expressed a forthright position on marriage, castigating the Conservatives and indeed the whole political class for pressing ahead with its redefinition.
The success of UKIP and Danny Stupple came about despite the Conservatives fielding a candidate who was Euro-sceptic and pro-marriage.
The Italian election threw up a strong result for an anti-establishment candidate. Danny Stupple played the same card and did well. Mr Farage’s challenge is to tap into the same rich political seam.
Mr Stupple had no pretensions of winning but his presence and the arguments he made influenced events and helped change the debate. UKIP might have seen themselves as doing the same thing, but the BBC’s Nick Robinson said they might even have won if they had actually thought they could.
Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps said dismissively: “UKIP are the obvious protest vote in this election.”
No doubt there will be future occasions in which we shall be able to judge whether the Eastleigh by-election was just a protest or a new dawn.
Christians will have to keep following the Biblical injunction to pray for those in authority and if their prayer leads them, to keep witnessing to our leaders about their responsibilities to govern subject to the power and empire of Christ our Redeemer.
Turnout was 52.7%, down from 69.3% at the 2010 general election.
Results in full:
Mike Thornton (Liberal Democrat) 13,342 (32.06%, -14.48%)
Diane James (UKIP) 11,571 (27.80%, +24.20%)
Maria Hutchings (Conservative) 10,559 (25.37%, -13.96%)
John O’Farrell (Labour) 4,088 (9.82%, +0.22%)
Danny Stupple (Independent) 768 (1.85%, +1.56%)
Dr Iain Maclennan (National Health Action Party) 392 (0.94%)
Ray Hall (Beer, Baccy and Crumpet Party) 235 (0.56%)
Kevin Milburn (Christian Party) 163 (0.39%)
Howling Laud Hope (Monster Raving Loony Party) 136 (0.33%)
Jim Duggan (Peace Party) 128 (0.31%)
David Bishop (Elvis Loves Pets) 72 (0.17%)
Michael Walters (English Democrats) 70 (0.17%, -0.30%)
Daz Procter (Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts) 62 (0.15%)
Colin Bex (Wessex Regionalist) 30 (0.07%)
The Government has handed atheists a Darwin Day present by promising to indoctrinate primary school children with evolutionism.
Education Secretary of State Rt Hon Michael Gove MP has decided to force primary schools in England to teach evolutionary theory. The announcement was made as part of last week’s English Baccalaureate climb-down statement.
However, the decision raises questions about issues of conscience for primary school teachers, who cover more subjects than their secondary colleagues and cannot simply keep out of the biology department.
Richard Dawkins – not as nice as he looks.
Shortly after being appointed two-and-a-half years ago Michael Gove bowed to pressure from evolutionary biologists including Richard Dawkins and banned from Secondary School biology classes any talk of a possibility that organisms show signs of having been designed. If last week’s statement is followed through, it will be the first time evolution has been taught as a subject in primary schools.
The decision can be seen as an act of desperation by secularists, who are worried that the holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution are becoming increasingly visible and talked-about, not least in the scientific community.
Charles Darwin, 1809 – 1882. Published ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ on 24th November 1859.
Sadly, a link on the BHA website to ‘answers to 21 anti-evolutionary questions and arguments’ sends the visitor to the schools campaigning page instead and a google search reveals no such document.
Interestingly, there are webpages elsewhere claiming to answer creationist’s questions, but they fail to do so. Here is one attempt; I love the admission that evolution needs time – lots and lots of time.
Yeast reproduces every 15 minutes. Over the course of a day that is almost 100 generations, 35,000 generations in a year. In human terms that amounts to 876,000 years, taking 25 years for a generation, or over a million years if you ascribe 30 years for a generation.
The Carlsberg Brewery have been using the same yeast for 130 years, during which time it has gone through over 4-and-a-half million generations.
The yeast Saccharomyces carlsbergensis is named after the Carlsberg Brewery in Copenhagen, where it was first isolated in 1883, 130 years ago. Carlsbergensis has gone through 4,550,000 generations and it is still the exact same strain of yeast as in 1883. It hasn’t mutated into anything else for 4-and-a-half million generations. One might say it hasn’t needed to, but where is the evidence that it could even try? In human terms those generations amount to 130 million (130,000,000) years.
New Scientist, a bastion of evolutionism, claims our ‘evolution from apes’ began ‘6 million years’ ago. But the evidence from the yeast is that 130 million years would not be enough time even to start the process. 6 million years of human ancestry is like expecting yeast after 6 years of brewing to jump out of the vat and become a mushroom. No doubt it shares just as much of its DNA with something else as we do with monkeys. But that genetic information relentlessly reproduces it as yeast.
I don’t have a lot of questions for evolutionists, I just have one. Well, actually, I do have a lot, but one will do, and it is this:
Who put the tuft on the head of the Tufted Duck?
What is the evolutionary purpose, or what advantage is conveyed to the species, as a species, by the tuft on the head of the tufted duck? And if I am allowed a supplementary or two: If there is no advantage to the species, what is the tuft on the head of the tufted duck actually for and how and why did it evolve?
You see, I know the answer, from a creationist point of view, at least.
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.
An EU report due to be voted through the EU Parliament later this year, they say, would see all marriages and civil contracts conducted in any EU country become legally binding in all other member states. Under the Berlinguer Report, a couple who are not permitted to marry in their home country could travel to another member state in order to wed, knowing that on their return home they would have to be regarded as married.
Paragraph 40 of the Report would mean that any member state would have to grant ‘all social benefits and other legal effects’ such as legal recognition, tax breaks and benefit entitlements to a married couple, even if such a marriage did not exist in their own legal system.
Mr Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, said: “Now we know why David Cameron has launched this highly contentious and disruptive legislation, apparently out of the blue.
“If a couple were to marry in Belgium, Spain, Portugal or Sweden where same-sex marriage is possible, the EU will say that they have to be given the same legal rights in whichever member state they then chose to live – even if that state itself opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage. In essence the Berlinguer Report seeks to establish an EU-wide right to same-sex marriage.
“It’s no surprise that the Prime Minister has kept quiet about this, even at the expense of cohesion in his own party. He has a hard enough time trying to force his own backbenchers to swallow both his dedication to keeping Britain in the EU and his wish for the state to interfere in the definition of marriage. To suggest that the two issues are in fact interconnected would have caused complete uproar.”
However, according to one website, the Berlinguer Report has already been voted on by the European Parliament, in November 2010, and has no legislative status. It is still part of the continuing libertarian process, of course. However, another document, a two-and-a-half-page ‘roadmap,’ will be adopted in November 2013. In dry language it speaks of ‘the importance of facilitating mutual recognition of civil status’ across the EU. It is this document, itself building on the Berlinguer Report, which will lead to a legislative initiative from the EU Commission, the seat of power. If David Cameron has already redefined marriage by that time, he will no doubt be all for other states recognising Britain’s sham ‘gay marriages’.
Christian Voice views the European Union as a godless, corrupt, pretentious, expensive, bureaucratic, oligarchic expression of Antichrist. But it has tried to end the misery of bent cucumber phobia, a dibillatating disorder which affects dozens of people every year…
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.
Participants in the Tesco-funded 2012 London ‘Gay Pride’ parade.
Vote in the United Kingdom House of Commons on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Second Reading 5th February 2013
Key to voting:
Aye=In Favour, No=Against, Abs=Absent or Abstained, A/N=Active abstention, Spe=Speaker (does not vote)
(Note that David Cameron, the Prime Minister, who has so actively promoted this measure, did not turn up to listen to the debate even though he voted for the Bill. Note also that more Conservative MPs voted against the Bill than voted for it.)
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.
Allowing homosexuals to claim to be ‘married’ will devalue the currency of marriage.
MPs have shown contempt for God, the scriptures, our Christian heritage and six thousand years of human understanding by voting for ‘gay marriage’ in England and Wales.
The Commons voted in favour of the The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a day’s debate on the bill. More on the Bill here.
About 140 Conservative MPs are thought to have voted against the plans.
Former children’s minister and Conservative MP Tim Loughton told the BBC “Apparently there’s 132 Conservative MPs that voted in favour, so I think what we’re going to see is that more Conservative MPs voted against this legislation than for it.” The Bill will now move to its Committee Stage.
Sir Tony Baldry (Con): Although the failure to consummate a marriage will still be a ground on which a heterosexual marriage can be voidable, the Bill provides that consummation is not to be a ground on which a marriage of a same-sex couple will be voidable. It also provides that adultery is to have its existing definition—namely, sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. It therefore follows that divorce law for heterosexual couples will be fundamentally different from divorce law for same-sex couples, because for heterosexual couples the matrimonial offence of adultery will persist while there will be no similar matrimonial offence in relation to same-sex marriage. The fact that officials have been unable to apply these long-standing concepts to same-sex marriage is a further demonstration of just how problematic is the concept of same-sex marriage.
Such a move will alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as enshrined in human institutions throughout history. Moreover, changing the nature of marriage for everyone will deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab):
The irony of the Bill is that it takes the current situation of equality of marriage and civil partnership and creates inequality. Under the terms of the Bill, there will be marriage in two forms—traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, which are neither the same nor equal. The Bill creates further inequality, with traditional marriages being allowed within some Churches and same-sex marriages not allowed. Same-sex couples will have the choice of civil partnership or marriage, whereas opposite-sex couples can have only traditional marriages—yet more inequality. The Bill is trying to engineer a cultural equivalence to tackle a perceived lack of equality in wider society. That does not sound to me like the basis of marriage.
The Government say that the Bill protects religious organisations, but there are conflicting legal opinions that robustly challenge that view. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to stop a future Government legislating to allow, or indeed require, Churches to celebrate same-sex marriages. In fact, some commentators have said that they cannot wait until the Church of England and other faiths have to conduct same-sex marriages. Given that the Bill creates inequality, a legal challenge would surely be successful.
I am amazed that the Government should bring forward this Bill at a time when there are other pressing issues. Despite having gay friends and relatives, the issue of same-sex marriage has never once been brought to my attention; I have never had a constituent write to me asking me to raise it. I recall that many MPs were quick to praise the civil partnerships legislation as being everything that the gay community wanted—that it created the equality for which they had fought for so long. As we have heard, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—I hope he is still my hon. Friend—has previously said that in his view the idea that the gay community would want marriage is nonsense.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman that is open to the creation and care of children—not in all cases, but fundamentally that is its intrinsic value. This Bill will fundamentally change that. Despite all the issues that have been raised and the insults hurled by those on both sides of the argument, I will oppose the Bill. I believe that it creates inequality and that it does not tackle an existing inequality on the basis that the current legislation has been tested in the European Court and it has been shown that there is no inequality. I will oppose the Bill, and I urge any right hon. and hon. Members who are thinking of abstaining to vote against it.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con):
It is a pleasure to follow such a wise speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), and I will follow on from his main point.
This Bill does not create equality. It highlights the inequalities that will always exist, because the definition of marriage is based on the definition of sex. It is absolutely impossible to shoehorn same-sex marriage into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to provide equality. The gay lobby have said themselves in their campaigning that they have been looking for a Bill that will give them the same rights as heterosexual couples and enable them to enjoy faithful and committed relationships. This Bill in no way makes a requirement of faithfulness from same-sex couples; in fact, it does the opposite. In a heterosexual marriage, a couple can divorce on the grounds of adultery, and the legal requirement for adultery to have taken place is that someone has had sex with a member of the opposite sex.
In a heterosexual marriage, a couple vow to forsake all others. They are basically saying, in accordance with liturgy and the 1973 Act, “I will forsake all others because to you I will be faithful in honour of our vows and my faithfulness to us and our marriage.” A gay couple have no obligation to make that vow. They do not have to forsake all others because they cannot divorce on the grounds of adultery; there is no requirement of faithfulness. If there is no requirement of faithfulness, what is a marriage?
The Minister says that there is no requirement for consummation in a marriage. No, there is not, but a marriage is voidable without consummation. There is no requirement for consummation in the Bill because the definition of marriage and the definition of sex is for ordinary and complete sex to have taken place. Same-sex couples cannot meet this requirement.
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op):
I will give my personal view, which I know differs from the views of the vast majority of members of my party. I respect that difference.
For the first time in history, a Government have proposed a Bill that will change the very nature of marriage in law. Until now, society and the Church have had a shared view of the essential purpose of marriage. It is primarily an institution that supports the bearing and raising of children in a committed and constant relationship. The traditional understanding of marriage has three basic elements: it is between a man and a woman, it is for life, and it is to the exclusion of all others.
Article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights describes the family as
“the natural and fundamental group unit of society”
and defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. It states that the family is
“entitled to protection by society and the State.”
Those elements are designed not to exclude people or create inequality, but to promote the unique benefit of marriage in our society: it secures family environments and provides the essential qualities of safety and reliability for children.
Worryingly, the Bill rarely mentions children or parenthood. It emphasises the decision to take part in a ceremony more than the commitment to a lifelong relationship or having children. It is as if those elements are of no consequence.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con):
I had the privilege of chairing Committee proceedings on the Civil Partnership Bill. As has been said, very clear undertakings were given by the then Government and Opposition that that Bill was not the thin end of the wedge nor a paving Bill for same-sex marriage, but an end in itself to right considerable wrongs in the law. That it did, as the European Court of Human Rights has determined. In those respects, civil partnerships are indistinguishable from what we know as marriage.
When I put that point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, she said that no Government could bind another. Of course, she is correct. That kicks the bottom out of every undertaking that she has given. It is abundantly plain to most Conservative Members that the product of this Bill will end up before the courts and before the European Court of Human Rights, and that people of faith will find that faith trampled upon. That, to us, is intolerable.
I understand—I will give way to my right hon. Friend if she wishes to correct me—that the Cabinet paper on this matter was entitled “Redefining Marriage”. It is not possible to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It has been that historically and it remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory—Orwellian almost—for any Government of any political persuasion to try to rewrite the lexicon. It will not do.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con):
I am very disappointed to have to rise to oppose the Bill. I never imagined that I would be put in a position where I have, by virtue of standing up for marriage, been characterised variously as a “homophobic bigot”, a “religious nutter”, a product of the dark ages, or, as I see in this weekend’s press, on the brink of making “a tragic mistake” that I will have many years to regret. This was not in our main manifesto. To cite that it was on page 14 of the equalities contract, a sub-manifesto that had little or no public scrutiny, is disingenuous at best.
The assumption of the Bill is that marriage is just about love and commitment. Of course marriage is about love and commitment, but it is also about the complementarity, both biologically and as a mother and father, of a man and a woman who have an inherent probability of procreation and of raising children within that institution.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP):
Most people, even to this day, regard the United Kingdom as a Christian country. To some that is an embarrassment, while others thank God that our nation still has some gospel light and enjoys freedom of thought and speech. Each day, hon. Members gather in this Chamber to hear the Scriptures read and prayer offered to God, humbly asking for God’s blessing upon our Queen, her Government and our deliberations. We as leaders among our people still acknowledge God’s sovereign throne, the authority of His revered word and our need for wisdom far greater than our own. Sadly, after doing so today, we are turning from the teachings of that same book, and placing our wisdom and knowledge above divine wisdom.
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.
Christians are calling for prayer this Sunday, 3rd February, to strengthen the resolve of the Bill’s opponents and for a sizeable rebellion against the Bill from MP’s of all parties in the 2nd Reading Division.
There is no doubt that in a free vote in our House of Commons the Bill will pass, but a healthy rebellion will encourage the House of Lords to oppose this ill-thought-out measure which was not in any party manifesto.
But Mr Hammond is right. Homosexual activity is exactly on a par with incest. Homosexuals even talk about their ‘gay brothers’ and ‘gay sisters’.
Jesus Christ said this:
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
And of course two men or two women lack between them the full set of complementary equipment to be ‘one flesh’ in the physical expression of marriage. You can’t build a car with just bolts or just nuts.
Christian Voice asked the Government repeatedly how two homosexuals will consummate their ‘marriage’.
Initially, in their consultation they said it would be up to the courts to decide. We said that was not good enough. The Bill had to spell it out. But now, on the face of the Bill, the Government say those in a ‘gay marriage’ will not have to consummate it at all. Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (grounds on which a marriage is voidable) will ‘not apply to the marriage of a same sex couple.’
We also asked what will constitute adultery as a ground for divorce of a ‘gay marriage’. Again, in their consultation the Government said it would be up to the courts to define ‘adultery’ in a homosexual context. Now they say, in the Bill: ‘Only conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of ‘ the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (divorce on breakdown of marriage)’.
The Government have failed to deliver, because they never could. The homosexual lobby wanted equality in marriage. What they have been delivered is second-class marriage, a two-tier system, a Joke Marriage Bill. That will not stop them claiming to be ‘married’ and in the words of the Bill being ‘husband and husband’ or ‘wife and wife’ or usurping the time-honoured expressions ‘widow’ and ‘widower’.
And how long will it be before the concepts of consummation and adultery vanish from our statue book because of the inability of homosexuals to become ‘one flesh’ in the complete emotional and sexual sense? The currency of marriage itself – of every marriage in the land – will be degraded by these counterfeit marriages.
Clause 1 of the 1297 Magna Carta is still in force. It says this:
1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. …
The front page of Magna Carta – The ‘Great Charter’ – of which Clause 1 is still in force.
Legal advice is that despite David Cameron’s ‘Quadruple Lock’ the Bill will open the door to a legal challenge on the freedom of the Church of England not to conduct false marriages. But if the C of E needs a ‘Quadruple Lock’ what is the legal position of every other church without it? They are being thrown to the homosexual equality wolves.
At the very best, a church or denomination will be bogged down in court cases and lawyers’ fees for years defending itself against a gay activist law suit, brought with the financial muscle of the Government-funded Stonewall group and the rest of the homosexual industry.
Christian Voice members and friends may feel free to print out this article and take it to church for prayer tomorrow.
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.
