Members of the European Parliament are considering setting up a website aimed at presenting children with a “playful” presentation of the EU.
The plan, which would seek to instil in children positive feelings about the EU, was highlighted by the Express today. The paper condemned the project as ‘sinister Soviet-style propaganda.’
EU institutions already spend over £2billion a year on ‘communications’ in a desperate bid to improve their failing public image.
The same paper warned in another article today that “knowing the mindset of the European Union, with its passion for control, for expanding its remit, for trampling on national sensibilities in pursuance of its dream of a superstate, one can guess which way a proposed website for children will lean.”
When asked about these plans to target children, UK Independence Party deputy leader and MEP, Paul Nuttall, said, “Our children need to be protected from this type of political propaganda because they are vulnerable and easily manipulated. Of course, that is the reason they are being cynically targeted by the European Parliament.”
He added “We have seen a profusion of cartoons, comics, schoolbooks and videos from the EU which are aimed at our children and are obvious propaganda.
“People should be aware of this and prevent this stuff coming into their homes and their children’s school. Political propaganda on vulnerable kids is a form of child abuse.”
This is not the first time the EU has targeted children in an attempt to preserve its declining public image.
We warned last year about EU attempts to indoctrinate school children after EU official, Judith Schilling, said, “everybody has now picked up the idea that we will never succeed in convincing people about the value of being a member of the European Union if we do not start early enough with the young people, before they form prejudices and are misinformed by other sources.”
Meanwhile, the issue of EU membership is becoming so contentious that it could split the Tory party. It emerged yesterday that Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister and a Europhile, is saying that giving the people of Britain an ‘In-out’ referendum would be “madness” even though the Lib Dem general election manifesto had promised an in-or-out EU referendum. (See picture below.)
Despite a typical bit of sensationalism in the Mail on Sunday, Her Majesty the Queen will not sign a Commonwealth gay rights charter at Marlborough House tonight.
The new Commonwealth Charter declares: “We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”
The Charter is only ‘designed to stamp out discrimination against homosexual people and promote the “empowerment” of women’ in the minds of a few libertarians in Britain and Australia and an editor at Northcliffe House with an eye on the market.
If the Charter had said explicitly ‘grounds of sexuality’ instead of ‘other grounds’ it would have been a gay rights measure, but the Commonwealth is not Westminster, or Canberra. A majority of nations still retain elements of historical Biblical morality and a charter with a reference to ‘sexuality’ would never have been agreed by all Commonwealth heads of government in December..
As the Mail says: “The ‘other grounds’ is intended to refer to sexuality – but specific reference to ‘gays and lesbians’ was omitted in deference to Commonwealth countries with draconian anti-gay laws.”
Exactly. Except it was only ‘intended’ that way by some of those who stitched the wording together. For others, in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, there is not the slightest thought that ‘gay rights’ is a new Commonwealth ideal.
The Sunday Telegraph observed that ‘forty-one of the Commonwealth’s 54 nations retain legislation against homosexual acts. In parts of Nigeria and Pakistan those found to have taken part in gay sex can receive the death penalty, in Trinidad and Tobago it can incur 25 years in jail and life imprisonment in Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Bangladesh and Guyana.’
Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of the gay and lesbian rights group Stonewall, described the Monarch, for some reason, as a “feminist icon” and said: “This is the first time that the Queen has publicly acknowledged the importance of the six per cent of her subjects who are gay.”
(The actual evidence shows the latter figure to be around 1.5% in the West and nearer to 0% in Africa and Asia.)
‘In her speech the Queen will say: “Our shared values… which are found in our new Commonwealth Charter – mean that we place special emphasis on including everyone in this goal, especially those who are vulnerable.”
‘She may say that, but the charter does not.’
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.
Pro-marriage protestors in Paris in January (Reuters)
A planned witness to support marriage on Palm Sunday from 2pm to 5pm has been initiated by a group of French ex-patriates, Christian Voice has learned.
Christian UK-based campaigning groups have been slow to organise anything, so the French, flushed with the success of the ‘manifestation’ in Paris in January, have decided to organise a demonstration in Trafalgar Square on Palm Sunday, Sunday 24th March, 2013.
What is little known is that this will be their second pro-marriage London witness. Canon Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream explains:
‘You may remember that in January around a million people – including many thousands of students and young people – demonstrated on the streets of Paris against their government’s proposals to redefine traditional marriage to include same sex couples. Hundreds of the demonstrators were UK-based French residents who boarded the Eurostar to Paris to join their compatriots.
‘What is less well known is that on the same day a further 600 French residents refrained from travelling to Paris but demonstrated instead outside the French Embassy in west London.
‘The UK-based protesters have invited other non-French UK residents to join them in Trafalgar Square, and to make this a joint protest against both the UK and the French governments’ plans to redefine marriage.
‘We think this is a great idea and, along with those from other UK organisations, Anglican Mainstream fully supports it and plans to be there.”
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.
“Marriage is the best foundation on which to raise children, with all the evidence proving that time and time again,” Stephen Green was quoted as saying in the Express this morning.
The rise in family breakdown has now reached unprecedented levels, according to a recent study.
The 2011General Lifestyle Survey Overview from the Office for National Statistics shows that by 2011 the number of single parent households reached 22%, as opposed to only 8% in 1971. Two-parent families have fallen from 92% at the beginning of the 1970s to a shocking 78%.
“The popularity of marriage has fallen as the proportion of single women aged 18 to 49 who have never married has doubled, up from just 18 per cent in 1979 to 43 per cent in 2011. The proportion of women of the same age who live with a partner, but are not married, has tripled from just 11 per cent to 34 per cent…
“Britain has become a lonelier place to live over the last 40 years with the number of people living alone almost doubling from nine per cent in 1973 to 16 per cent by 2011.”
“People aged 25-44 were five times more likely to be living alone in 2011 (10 per cent) than they were in 1973 (two per cent).”
The paper went on to quote Stephen Green, the National Director of Christian Voice, who commented on the social effect of family breakdown:
“Marriage is the best foundation on which to raise children, with all the evidence proving that time and time again.
“Successive governments have failed to support marriage as an institution, with the current Conservative-led Coalition ignoring promises of tax breaks while spending the time promoting gay marriage.
“The cost to our society and local communities is high – the children of unmarried parents do not do as well at school, are more likely to have health problems and grow up in poverty.”
Mr Green was not the only person who warned that this trend will be accelerated if Government’s plans to introduce same-sex ‘marriage’ are pushed through. In a paper presented at the Committee Stage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, Dr Patricia Morgan told Parliament that same-sex ‘marriage’ will reinforce the notion that marriage is irrelevant to parenthood.
“From what we know about demographic trends,” she declared in the 22-page paper, “it is preposterous to argue that people suddenly somehow embrace marriage and slow or reverse its decline because homosexuals can have it,” Dr Morgan said.
She continued:
“We can be certain that same sex marriage will do no such thing as encourage stable marriage whether for heterosexuals and/or homosexuals. Marriage in Scandinavia, Spain, Netherlands and elsewhere is in deep decline.”
“Same sex marriage is both an effect and a cause of the evisceration of marriage – especially the separation between this and parenthood.”
“If marriage is only about couple relationships, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why not give the leavings to homosexuals?”
“As marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, this reinforces the irrelevance of marriage to parenthood.”
“Elsewhere, same sex marriage is an instigator for the casualisation of heterosexual unions and separation of marriage and parenthood.”
“Same sex marriage is more a terminus for marriage or ultimate act of dissolution, rather than a force for revival.”
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.
Over past 10 days, a major controversy has erupted in the U.S. involving the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). A few members of their board are attempting to change the scout’s century old policy that excludes openly homosexual men and boys from participating as leaders and members in the scout program. The proposed policy would have allowed each local BSA Council to determine its own policy with regard to homosexuals.
Since BSA is the largest member of the World Organization of Scouting, any major policy change like the one being considered would likely reverberate throughout the scouting world.
Understandably this proposed policy change, initiated under pressure by the LGBT lobby, set off a firestorm of opposition from scout supporters across the U.S. As a result, the board has decided to postpone a final decision until their meeting in May.
We applaud the BSA board for taking this action. In our letter to the board, we urged them to delay the vote so they could have the time needed to thoroughly evaluate the health impacts the proposed policy could have on scouts.
Factions on both sides of the issue have a lot at stake. For the LGBT lobby, overturning the current BSA policy would mean they had conquered one of America’s major protectors of moral values—the Boy Scouts. For religious groups, many were calling for a mass exodus from the Boy Scouts if the new policy was implemented, saying they could not support an organization that has changed its core moral value of helping boys to be “morally straight.”
When an effort is made to base decisions on the facts, it is often easy to identify the best policy.
As we stated in our letter to the BSA board, “The most important fact that should be driving this debate is the science and clinical experience showing that homosexuality is not innate and immutable.” Homosexual individuals are not ‘born that way.’ Rather, we know that homosexuality is the result of a complex interaction of some likely genetic predisposition (often referred to as the “nature” component) and a variety of environmental and experiential factors (often categorized as the “nurture” component). Solid research shows that environmental factors play a major role in the development of same-sex attraction. “
In evaluating this proposed policy change we also urged the board to keep in mind that it is normal for adolescents to question their sexual orientation as a part of the maturation process. For those who may be troubled by developing but unwanted same-sex attraction, or are otherwise vulnerable to developing homosexuality, the “nurture” aspect of scouting can be a significant factor in whether they do in fact become homosexual.
Scouting has been successful for over a century precisely because the nurturing environment it provides has proven effective in molding boys into responsible and successful men. So permitting BSA Councils to allow openly homosexual scout leaders and fellow scouts into the program could be a very significant factor in the personal development of young men who are vulnerable to developing same gender orientation. Such an influence easily could become one of the significant “nurture” factors that contribute to sexually confused youth actually becoming homosexual.
The final key fact is that there are well documented and significant mental and physical health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle. We cited several studies in our letter: “For example, after reviewing more than 125 years of scientific research and clinical experience, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) concluded that as a group homosexuals suffer about three times more physical and mental health problems than the heterosexual population.”
Based on these basic facts, it becomes quite obvious that continuing the current policy is in the best interest of all the young men in the scouting program and particularly those who are vulnerable to developing same-gender sexual orientations.
In recent months we have seen other examples where ideology and political correctness seem to be driving major social policy decisions even in the face of facts and experience that strongly suggest that adopting these policies would be harmful.
In France, for example, the new Socialist government is trying to ram through legalizing same-sex marriage and allowing same-sex individuals to adopt children. It is doing this in the face of clear recommendations against doing that made just eight years ago by a commission created by the French National Assembly. This commission based its recommendations on extensive hearings and a review of all the available scientific research.
A similar situation is also occurring in Britain, where on Tuesday the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to legalize same-sex marriage. Again, the government appears to be pushing this almost exclusively for ideological reasons. There has been virtually no serious consideration of the available science and legal scholarship on this issue. But anyone familiar with relevant data can predict with considerable certainty that if same-sex marriage ultimately becomes law, Britain will find it far more difficult to deal with the burgeoning social problems that country already is facing.
Sharon Slater (right) at the World Congress of Families
We will be continuing our efforts to ensure that these kinds of policy debates are fact based. We will also continue to alert you to the opportunities where you can help achieve this goal and give you the tools to be more effective in your efforts.
Sincerely,
Sharon Slater
President
Family Watch International
In many churches, tolerance has become an idol. I have heard numerous times Christians happily say that they have “gay friends,” as though it were a badge of honor. I have no problem with sharing the Gospel with homosexuals, but why should we make it a major goal for Christians to have gay friends?
Would Christ have gay friends? “Yes, since he spent time with tax collectors and prostitutes,” would be the answer of many modern Christians. But while this is true, this does not prove that Christ would have gay friends. A tax collector and prostitute are not homosexuals.
In Genesis Abraham is visited by three figures, one of whom he refers to as “My Lord” (Genesis 18:3), and who Scripture calls “the LORD” (Genesis 18:17). This person was then God in the flesh, and thus Jesus Christ.
After much feasting, Christ and the other two men leave Abraham to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah:
And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. (Genesis 18:21-22)
The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual deviancy (19:4-10). Christ therefore, destroyed a city for ‘gay’ behavior. Christ believed in the Law which Moses, being divinely inspired, wrote against homosexuality:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
He would also have subscribed to the Mosaic law which forbade men from wearing women’s clothing and vice versa:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)
So would Christ have gay friends? No. But do you know who would? Muhammad. Muhammad, contrary to Scripture, in fact wore the clothes of his child-bride Aisha as a ritual to receive revelation from Allah.
Do not hurt me with Aisha; for by Allah, the inspiration did not descent on me while I was in the coverings (lihaf) of any of you (women) except Aisha.”
while he was with Aisha in (fee) her robe (Mirt) and in the same state that Fatimah found him in.”
As we write in our book, For God or For Tyranny, the Quran itself promises boy loving for jihadists in paradise.
The followers of Muhammad consisted of mukhannathun, or cross dressers. It is the same word as mukhannatah, which in Arabic means homosexual.
Daayiee Abdullah, an openly gay imam, describes the mukhannathun as
sort of a male-female, cross-dressing types. They existed. And they also lived or worked in the household of the Prophet. Aisha, one of the Prophet’s wives, indicated that there were men who worked in the household. They were mukhannathun. That generally meant that they were not necessarily castrated, but not having an interest in women.
Muhammad not only was a cross-dresser, but he had gay friends. So the next time you hear a modern Christian laud himself for having gay friends and criticize the church for prohibiting homosexuality, let him know that Jesus wouldn’t have gay friends, but Muhammad did.
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.
As North Korea has recently been in the headlines because of their brazen and shameless threats to the United States, we want to remind our readers of the resources we made available last year, including resources focusing on the persecution of Christians in this dark and evil nation. To download our collection of resources, click on the following link:
Kim Jong-un, the current leader of North Korea, comes from a family of brutal rulers.
I assembled these resources after speaking first-hand with those who had been involved helping North Koreans to escape.
Also, see the news story published yesterday about photographs of North Korea’s concentration camps that were generated using Google Earth. The report tells how “As many as 250,000 political prisoners and their families toil on starvation rations in the mostly remote mountain camps”, but what it does not mention is that many of these families are Christians who have been taken to these starvation camps as a punishment for believing in Jesus.
To get an idea of what goes on in these camps, read my book review of Kang Chol-Hwan’s chilling exposé of the system after his own imprisonment of ten years. The treatments that Christians and other political prisoners are subjected to at these camps include such things as:
making prisoners watch other prisoners being executed and then forcing them to throw stones at the corpses
working prisoners to death through hard labour
forcing prisoners to live in permanent situations of deliberately contrived semi-starvation
placing prisoners in a 1.5-metre-square (24 square feet) punishment cell for a week or more, where they are unable to sit up or lie down
forcing prisoners to remain for long periods in the cold
raping women with tools until they are dead
routine infanticide and forced abortions, including stamping on the necks of babies until they die
water torture
motionless-kneeling for long periods (detainees who move while they are supposed to be kneeling motionless are handcuffed from the upper bars of their cells with their feet suspended off the floor)
beating prisoners to death
sleep deprivation
cutting off women’s breasts
forcing detainees to beat each other
breaking fingers
At this point, there isn’t much we can do other than pray for God to bring a miracle of deliverance to this country, which is a relic of the Cold War era. The other thing we can do is to educate ourselves. I am constantly meeting Christians who have no idea that their fellow brothers and sisters are suffering in Nazi-style concentration camps because the media, fixated on the Middle East, all but completely ignores the problem.
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. Counting votes, or mis-counting the public sector defecit?
David Cameron has taken a gamble with his EU referendum promise but today stands accused of lying on the extent of the public debt.
The Prime Minister yesterday said he would seek to renegotiate the United Kingdom’s position in the European Union and put the results to the people with an ‘In with revised terms’ or ‘Out’ question by 2017 – assuming he is re-elected.
However, in answer to a question from the BBC’s Nick Robinson, Mr Cameron was somewhat hazy on what would happen if his re-negotiations did not reach his aspirations. Indeed, no-one knows what criteria he has set down by which to measure success.
Christian Voice believes Britain’s membership of the EU to be incompatible with her majesty’s coronation oath and the UK’s consequent constitutional position as a nation under Almighty God in Jesus Christ. We also see the EU as expensive, meddling, bureaucratic, oligarchical, corrupt, inefficient and pretentious. So we shall watch the political debate with interest.
Following Mr Cameron’s speech, the Conservative Party ran a party political broadcast last night in which Mr Cameron said: ‘So though this government has had to make some difficult decisions, we are making progress. We’re paying down Britain’s debts.’
‘David Cameron’s policy is to increase Britain’s debt by 60 per cent, more than any European country. To increase it more over five years than Labour did over 13 years. Just yesterday, we learned the national debt had hit £1,111 billion and it’s heading to £1,400 billion.
‘By no stretch of the English language can this be described as “paying down Britain’s debts.” What Cameron said is not an exaggeration. It’s a straight falsehood, and one that demeans his office. He has previously used different language, saying that he is “dealing with the debt”.’
Mr Nelson says that people interviewed for the broadcast were asked to guess ‘how much the deficit is going down by’. He says: ‘They guess low figures – 2 per cent, etc – and are then told that it’s actually 25 per cent. Then they say how impressed they are with the Tories. Have you spotted the trick? No normal person knows what “deficit” means, nor should they.’
‘Public sector current budget deficit was £15.8 billion in November 2012; this is a £1.0 billion higher deficit than in November 2011, when there was a deficit of £14.8 billion.’
Figures like that do not seem to imply a 25% reduction.
The Public Sector Finances for the end of December 2012 were released by the ONS two days ago (22/01/2012). They reveal that Government borrowing under the Coalition is rising year-on-year by every indicator:
• Public sector net borrowing was £15.4 billion in December 2012; this is £0.6 billion higher net borrowing than in December 2011, when net borrowing was £14.8 billion.
• Public sector current budget deficit was £13.0 billion in December 2012; this is a £0.5 billion higher deficit than in December 2011, when there was a deficit of £12.5 billion.
• For the period April to December 2012, public sector net borrowing (excluding the capital payment recorded as part of the Royal Mail Pension Plan transfer in April 2012) was £106.5 billion; this is £7.2 billion higher net borrowing than in the same period the previous year, when net borrowing was £99.3 billion.
In Tables 1 & 2, the ONS show that Public Sector Net Debt (PSND ex) has not decreased, as Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg appear to be claiming, but has risen in the financial year to date from £1,010 billion at 31st December 2011 to £1,111 billion at 31st December 2012, as Mr Nelson said. That is an increase of 10.1%, up from 66% to 71% of Gross Domestic Product.
Borrowing one’s way out of a recession is Keynsian economics, named after the promiscuous homosexual economist John Maynard Keynes. We know that government debt is paid back by our children and grandchildren. No such considerations bothered Keynes. ‘In the long run we are dead’, he said.
In contrast, financial security is said in Deuteronomy to be a blessing from God to an obedient nation:
Deut 15:5 Only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day.
Deut 15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.
The United Kingdom is both borrowing from other nations and international bankers and allowing other nations to rule over us.
Moses was told to appoint ‘able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness’ as rulers (Exod 18:21). If Her Majesty the Queen followed that principle, the available pool of ministers would, on present evidence, decrease sharply.
Post script. In contrast to Government profligacy, households are making considerable headway clearing their debts, with the amount owed on personal loans dropping to its lowest level in 14 years, according to a report from the Britiah Bankers Association.
The total balance owed by consumers on all personal loans fell to £34.5billion in December, the lowest figure seen since August 1999 and almost half its pre-financial crisis peak. See: thisismoney.
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.
Jessica Cobb – committed suicide because of bullying.
Suicide rates among middle-aged men and young women in Britain increased to their highest level in almost a decade during 2011, according to newly released figures.
There has been a ‘significant’ rise in the overall number of people who have taken their own life in the United Kingdom over the past 12 months, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said yesterday.
A teenager from Abbots Langley is the latest teenager to be driven to suicide by bullying. Jessica Cobb, 15, was bullied ‘for being pretty’. Girls in their teens and twenties are the group with the biggest rise in the suicide rate over the past six years.
BBC3 is set to screen a comedy about assisted suicide this month. For those who have lost loved ones, suicide is anything but funny. Christian Voice is among those pleading with BBC3 controller Zai Bennett, to drop the show. Alarm has also been raised about websites promoting suicide viewed by young people.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:
‘The rise in suicide amongst two groups in particular – middle-aged men and young women – should be of great concern. There is a growing culture of suicide becoming acceptable in Britain today. Websites encouraging young people to take their own lives should be shut down, and as for the BBC3 comedy ‘Way to go’, the word ‘irresponsible’ hardly conveys the enormity of what they are adding to the cultural mix.
‘At a time when every country of the UK has a scheme trying to reduce suicide, for our national broadcaster to make light of it is a total abuse of their privileged position. I am not sure what can be done about the pro-suicide websites, but BBC3’s Controller, Zai Bennett, could and should scrap ‘Way to go’ especially in the light of these newly-released figures.’
* In 2011 there were 6,045 suicides in people aged 15 and over in the UK, an increase of 437 compared with 2010.
* The UK suicide rate increased significantly between 2010 and 2011, from 11.1 to 11.8 deaths per 100,000 population.
* There were 4,552 male suicides in 2011 (a rate of 18.2 suicides per 100,000 population) and 1,493 female suicides (5.6 per 100,000 population).
* The highest suicide rate was in males aged 30 to 44 (23.5 deaths per 100,000 population in 2011).
* The suicide rate in males aged 45 to 59 increased significantly between 2007 and 2011 (22.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2011).
* The overall male suicide rate is the highest since 2002.
* From an all-time low of 5.0 suicides per 100,000 population in 2007, female suicides have tended to increase and the suicide rate of 5.6 deaths per 100,000 population in 2011 was significantly higher.
* Female suicide rates were highest in 45 to 59-year-olds in 2011 (7.3 deaths per 100,000 population).
* Females aged 15 to 29 had the lowest suicide rates of any age group. However, the rate in this age group has increased significantly from a record low of 2.9 deaths per 100,000 in 2007 to 4.2 deaths per 100,000 in 2011.
Suicide prevention programmes accross the United Kingdom
In September 2012 the Department of Health launched ‘Preventing Suicide in England: a cross-government outcomes strategy to save lives’.
Following a public consultation in 2009, the Welsh Assembly Government published ‘Talk to Me: The National Action Plan to Reduce Suicide and Self Harm in Wales, 2009-2014’.
In Scotland, a 10-year ‘Choose Life’ suicide prevention strategy and action plan was launched in 2002 with the overarching aim to reduce suicide in Scotland by 20% by 2013 (Scottish Executive, 2002).
In 2006, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland (DHSSPS) published ‘Protect Life: A Shared Vision – The Northern Ireland Suicide Prevention Strategy and Action Plan, 2006-2011’. The strategy includes two targets:
i. to obtain a 10% reduction in the overall suicide rate by 2008
ii. to reduce the overall suicide rate by a further 5% by 2011
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 RE teacher who recommended her pupils to sleep around instead of getting married has been banned from the profession, reports the Daily Telegraph.
The ban is for at least five years and has been imposed by Education Secretary Michael Gove. A disciplinary panel found her guilty of “unacceptable professional conduct” whilst employed at Saddleworth School, High Street, Uppermill, Oldham.
Catherine Reynolds, 29, also used abusive and profane language to pupils and spoke about her drinking habits.
Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green is due to speak about the matter on the Jeremy Vine show at 12.30 this afternoon, in a three-cornered discussion with someone who is actually prepared to defend her on the grounds that the occasional ‘loose cannon’ of a teacher adds colour to the profession.
Somehow we can’t see that defence being advanced from the sexual libertarian corner to defend someone teaching creationism in a biology class.
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.
We have now finally finished the mammoth job of organizing all the archives that were on our previous website. Below is a complete list of all our articles from when we first started back in 2005.
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.
Normally these stages would be some weeks apart, but the pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge has thrown the Government into a panic.
The Prince of Wales and a key House of Lords Committee have expressed misgivings over the Bill and highlighted the possibility of ‘unintended consequences’.
‘In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).’
That might seem as if anyone can succeed to the throne, which would be rather good news to those of us born outside the royal family.
The only legislation needing consequential amendment is said to be the Treason Act 1351, which is surprising.
The Bill also abolishes the disqualification to succession to one in line to the throne who marries a Roman Catholic, and removes the need for members of the Royal Family – other than the immediate 6 in line- to seek the monarch’s permission to marry.
John Hemming MP has put down an amendment to the Bill to downgrade all wives of a future reigning king to ‘kings’ consort’. This equality measure would prevent the Duchess of Cambridge ever becoming queen.
And just as we predicted in our briefing paper Defending theCrown, an MP, Paul Flynn, is to put down an amendment to allow children from a same-sex royal ‘couple’ to succeed to the throne, even though the public would have no clue as to who was the real father (or mother, if two lesbians) and who out of all the semen or egg donors in the world was the other true parent.
At least, if John Hemming’s amendment goes through, the gay couple wouldn’t be king and king – or a pair of queens.
“The Government appear to want to legislate on royal succession as quickly as possible. This risks shortcutting proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Succession to the Crown Bill is clearly of constitutional significance and as such should not be treated as fast-track legislation.
“Recent commentators have raised possible unintended consequences of the Bill. The Committee is of the opinion that those matters are the kind of issues that Parliament must have suitable time to discuss; that will not be the case if the legislation is fast-tracked.”
Christian Voice continues to oppose the Succession to the Crown Bill and asks for prayer for Members of Parliament as they consider this unnecessary and destablising measure tomorrow.
Our Booklet Defending the Crown available in booklet form for £2.75 incl P&P HERE or online HERE.
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. If you do join, you will get ‘Defending the Crown’ free – specify it in the comments box.)
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.
It’s not just Britain. Elsewhere in the world, libertarian politicians are trampling over popular opinion to legislate ‘gay marriage’.
last Sunday week, half-a-million people marched through Paris in support of real marriage. demanding that President Francois Hollande withdraw the enabling bill and hold a national debate before any change in the definition of marriage.
Government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, who is also women’s affairs minister, said nothing had changed. The plan to submit the reform bill in parliament late this month and pass it by June would go ahead undisturbed, she told Europe 1 radio.
“The government is totally determined to achieve this reform, this historic progress that is not the victory of one camp over another but progress for the whole society,” she said.
Christiane Taubira – changing civilisation
“We take note of the demonstration (but) this will be discussed in parliament and not in the street.”
Interior Minister Manuel Valls told the daily Le Monde: “We always thought the turnout would be strong and it was … All the more reason to stay focused on the goal of passing the law.”
Daniel Liechti of the Conseil National des Évangéliques de France said the protest showed a new role for religion in public life in France, a constitutionally secular country.
In New Zealeand, a select committee of MPs is currently assessing submissions from the public on Labour MP Louisa Wall’s Marriage Amendment Bill, but only after MP’s voted by 80 votes to 40 in favour of it last August (2012). Submissions closed in October with proponents and opponents said to be equally numbered.
The select committee is due to report back to the House by 28 February 2013 recommending whether the bill should be passed, and it may suggest amendments to the bill. No-one expects the select committee to object to the bill.
It will be interesting to see how the French and NZ Governments address the issues of consummation and adultery. If these are changed due to the inability of a homosexual couple to achieve them, they are changed for all marriages.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
If there is anything defenders of gay ‘marriage’ hate, it is ‘slippery slope’ arguments. The notion that gay ‘marriage’ is objectionable because of where it could lead is an argument automatically presumed to be invalid and unworthy of serious consideration.
Not too long ago a friend and I were having a friendly debate about gay ‘marriage’ and I pointed out that as soon as gay ‘marriage’ is legalized, countless other perversions will follow in its wake. My friend looked over at me, and said with a smile, “You do know, don’t you, that it’s a fallacy to make slippery slope arguments?”
Well, I guess I never got the memo.
It is true that when defenders of traditional marriage used to warn about the dire consequences that would follow same-sex ‘marriages’, their arguments were rather speculative, sometimes wildly so. That is why I have never found it very useful to warn that same-sex ‘marriage’ will lead to people wanting to marry their bicycles or dogs.
Over the last few years, however, it has become unnecessary to make speculative slippery-slope arguments because we have already started down the slippery slope.
Gay ‘Marriage’ is Just the Beginning
After legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’, the Netherlands began giving legal recognition to ‘threesomes.’ The women Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) are both bisexual and have a sexual relationship with each other in addition to having a sexual relationship with their joint ‘husband’, the heterosexual Victor de Bruijn (46).
By surveying what has been happening in those nations that have already legalized gay ‘marriage’, we begin to get a picture of the slippery-slope the world has already started descending down. Consider only a few examples which might be easily multiplied:
As more nations jump on the gay ‘marriage’ bandwagon, we should expect to see many other perversions introduced. Gay ‘marriage’ is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards sexual anarchy. (This does not even include the slippery slope towards totalitarianism, as gay ‘marriage’ leads to more and more freedoms being eroded. That is a different topic and one which I have addressed in my article ‘Will the Real Enemies of Liberty Please Stand up’ and ‘Gay Marriage Threatens Civil Liberties.’)
But why is this? Why does same-sex ‘marriage’ lead to these other perversions almost as night follows day? In order to properly answer this question, we must consider the logic behind same-sex ‘marriage.’
The Logic of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
The campaign to change the definition of marriage revolves around certain principles which, once accepted, have wide ramifications in a host of other areas.
This became evident last year when the Coalition Government released its consultation paper on same-sex ‘marriage.’ They continually presented the issue in terms of ‘equal access.’ In their simplistic and philosophically unsophisticated way, the issue was a straightforward question of fairness.
However, if we accept that the principle of equality means that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same rights as married couples (including the right to call their union a ‘marriage’), then in order to be logically consistent we would also have to say that a definition of marriage which includes both heterosexual and same-sex unions, yet excludes unions with animals or multiple partners, is also failing to provide equal protection under the law to someone or other. Indeed, if someone is bisexual, then in order for their sexuality to be fully expressed, their ‘marriage’ must include a minimum of at least one person from each sex. Thus, the argument that we should not discriminate based on sexual orientation, if carried to its logical conclusion, necessitates ‘threesomes’ at least.
The point is that any new definition of marriage Government may wish to impose on the public necessarily opens the door to an endless series of redefinitions in years to come. Unless the term ‘marriage’ is allowed to collapse into complete vacuity, it must include certain types of unions and exclude others. This is a point that most people accept, for most advocates of gay ‘marriage’ are still opposed to broadening the definition of marriage to include perversions such as polygamous unions, threesomes, bestiality or incestuous relationships. Nevertheless, it will become increasingly hard to argue against such exclusions once the logic behind calls for gay ‘marriage’ is accepted.
Remember, the main argument being used by the homosexual lobby is that of equal access. They are asserting that it is wrong in principle to exclude any two people from the institution of marriage if the two people love each other and desire to be married. As Maria Miller MP said in her forward to the Government response to their consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’:
“Marriage is also an institution which has a history of continuous evolution…. So marriage in the 21st century is an inclusive, not exclusive, institution. It is available to all those over 16 who are prepared to make vows of life-long fidelity and commitment. Except, that is, if you happen to love someone of the same sex. This simply cannot be right.”
If Miss Miller’s logic isn’t an invitation to start down the slippery slope, then it’s hard to know what is. If marriage is to be a truly “inclusive” institution, then why choose 16 as an arbitrary age? Or again, if marriage is to be truly inclusive rather than exclusive, then is it really fair to limit marriage to a minimum of two people? If “love has no gender”, then why should it have a number? Or again, if the goal is to make marriage inclusive rather than exclusive, why are we not being consistent and calling for a removal of the ‘ban’ on brothers and sisters getting married?
Such questions, once dismissed as conservative scare-mongering, will soon be as much a part of the public debate as gay ‘marriage’ is now, for once you start down the slippery slope, it is hard to stop.
Doing the Family Thing
Another principle which is fundamental to advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ is that love creates the sufficient conditions for a marriage and a family, irrespective of gender. Essentially, it is the ethic of the Sesame Street song ‘Doing the Family Thing’:
Any group of people
Living together
And loving each other
Are doing the family thing…
It doesn’t really matter
Just who you’re living with
If there’s love you’re a family too…
A family can be
What it wants to be
‘Cause there’s all different leaves
On the family tree
And there’s all different types
Of families
Who are living together
And loving each other
Are doing the family thing
Doing the family thing
Doing the family
Doing the family thing
But why stop at two? In 2007, a state superior court panel in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ruled that a child can have three legal parents. The case involved two lesbians, both legal parents of two children who were conceived using a friend’s sperm. The panel determined that all three were liable for child support. All three were the child’s legal parents. There have been similar rulings in Canada, and this year the California legislature approved a bill allowing judges to declare more than two parents for some children there. While Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, asking for time to consider all of its implications, activists have already promised to try again.
Speaking of more than two, the question of polygamy also looms. As the push for same-sex marriage continues, some legal analysts and other experts see polygamy as the next marriage battlefront. In a 2006 Newsweek article called Polygamists Unite!, one activist called polygamy “the next civil rights battle. . . . If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.”
From a legal point of view, it may be difficult to defend current laws against polygamy, given the success of the gay marriage movement….
Dr. Michelle Cretella, vice president of the American College of Pediatricians…describes yet another variation in the brave new world of family and parenting: the “bothies” movement. Similar to co-parenting, this configuration specifically involves a lesbian mom and a gay dad having a child together. The case of Bevan Dufty, a well-known gay rights activist, and lesbian Rebecca Goldfader made big news in San Francisco a few years ago when they decided to have a child together and share parental responsibilities. According to a story in the Bay Area Reporter, “both envision[ed] that their long-term partners would have parental roles and rights as well.” The piece went on to say that, according to the executive director of Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE), the group “has several member kids known as ‘bothies,’ meaning they have two gay dads and two gay moms. Some of those families began as four-way agreements.”
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.
Members of the European Parliament are considering setting up a website aimed at presenting children with a “playful” presentation of the EU.
