{"id":3207,"date":"2012-06-02T22:14:48","date_gmt":"2012-06-02T21:14:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/?p=3207"},"modified":"2012-06-07T13:53:56","modified_gmt":"2012-06-07T12:53:56","slug":"same-sex-marriage-threatens-freedom-christian-voice-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/same-sex-marriage-threatens-freedom-christian-voice-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Same-Sex \u2018Marriage\u2019 Threatens Freedom"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Proposals to legalize same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 will provide the perfect mechanism for the homosexual lobby to realize one of its long-term objectives: the criminalization of all opposition to homosexuality.<\/p>\n

For years the UK gay community has dreamed of creating a society in which criticisms of homosexuality are punishable by law. However, up to now they have only been able to achieve this on a sporadic basis through a combination of intimidation, vague public order acts, and pro-homosexual members of the police.<\/p>\n

If same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 is legalized, however, the gay lobby will be given a mechanism to begin targeting defenders of traditional marriage on a systematic basis.<\/p>\n

At least, that is what Stephen Green and Robin Phillips have argued in a recent briefing paper<\/a> published by Christian Voice<\/em>. The authors show that changing the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would create an atmosphere hostile to freedom.<\/p>\n

The briefing paper, titled The Trivialization of Matrimony<\/a><\/em>, suggests that legalizing same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 could also have broad implications for Christians across every sector of public life. Green and Phillips pointed out that pension providers, businesses, insurance companies, teachers and private individuals would all be required to accommodate a new and unprecedented definition of \u2018marriage\u2019 or fall foul of the law.<\/p>\n

When questioned about the guarantees of religious liberty peppered throughout the Governments\u2019 consultation document, Green and Phillips replied that these promises are not to be trusted. \u201cIt is a significant fact,\u201d they pointed out, \u201cthat throughout the consultation document not once does it guarantee protection to those who may have religious reasons for not recognizing the civil \u2018marriages\u2019 of same-sex couples.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen civil partnerships were first introduced, Government was adamant that this was not a half-way house to same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019, though subsequent events proved otherwise. Similarly, although the current Government is adamant that the new proposals are not preliminary to making churches solemnize same-sex \u2018marriages\u2019, what is to stop a future Government, or even the same one, from pursuing the itinerary of \u2018equality\u2019 to this final step?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cEqualities Minister Lynne Featherstone stated in a BBC Radio 5 Live interview that \u2018it may be that [the issue of same-sex marriage in a place of religious worship] comes back another day.\u2019 This could happen sooner than we think. Equality laws introduced by Labour in 2007 and subsequently enshrined in the 2010 Equality Act could make it difficult, even illegal, for Government to try to maintain this two-tier system of civil marriage and religious marriage.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn short, what Government is proposing to do is to change how all<\/em> of us define marriage. Those who refuse to cooperate with the redefinitions will be found in breach of the law.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cGovernmental Intrusion\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The concerns raised in the Christian Voice <\/em>briefing paper echo warnings that other defenders of traditional marriage have issued over the past five years. When fighting against same-sex marriage in the state of California in 2008, Dennis Prager wrote a revealing article entitled \u2018California Decision Will Radically Change Society<\/a>.\u2019 Prager pointed to some possible consequences to allowing gay \u2018marriage\u2019:<\/p>\n

Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming\u2014to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman\u2026.<\/p>\n

Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.<\/p>\n

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger\u2014if they show only women’s fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.<\/p>\n

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.<\/p>\n

Traditional Jews and Christians\u2014i.e., those who believe in a divine scripture\u2014will be marginalized.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

S. T. Karnick argued similarly in an article for Salvo <\/em>magazine titled \u2018The Tyranny of the Minority<\/a>.\u2019 Karnick pointed out that far from being the tolerant option, those who champion same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 are actually fiercely coercive and intolerant:<\/p>\n

“Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one\u2026. What\u2019s at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what\u2019s in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such \u2018marriages.\u2019 Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough pro-homosexual radicals continually refer to the forced recognition of same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 as a civil right, as well as a matter of liberating society from hidebound prejudices, such policies are actually the government-enforced imposition of a small group\u2019s sexual values on a reluctant and indeed strongly resistant population.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Criminalizing Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws \u2018insulting words or behaviour\u2019. If gay \u2018marriage\u2019 is legalized, it is likely that the rubric of what constitutes \u2018insulting behaviour\u2019 will be broadened to include any advocacy of traditional marriage.<\/p>\n

These concerns are not merely hypothetical. Even though same-sex \u2018marriage\u2019 has yet to be legalized in the UK, there is already a significant move to persecute those who dissent from the grinding uniformity demanded by the homosexual lobby. Consider just a few instances as a foretaste of what will occur on a much larger scale if same-sex \u2018marriages\u2019 are enshrined in law:<\/p>\n