Lord Dear is to lead a vote against this Bill at Second Reading in the House of Lords next week. We commend his action and would like him to know that he has our support and that of hundreds of thousands of like minded people who signed the Coalition for Marriage petition against this proposal. It is shameful that this massive petition was arrogantly dismissed and disregarded by the Government. This then allowed them to claim that there was a majority of responses in favour of the proposal.
As Catholics we are strongly opposed to same sex marriage and wish to retain traditional marriage between a man and a woman for the procreation of children instead of some artificial and sterile mockery of a union.
This proposal was not set down in the manifesto of any party at the last general election. It was not set down in the coalition agreement made between David Cameron and Nicholas Clegg. It was not set down in this or the previous Queen’s speech to Parliament. As such there was no mandate for forcing it through the Commons.
The public consultation was a sham with the Government announcing at the outset they were consulting about how to implement the Bill and not about whether it should go ahead. There was no proper and detailed scrutiny of the Bill in the House of Commons, with debate being severely curtailed.
The Lords can, for the above reasons, legitimately reject it. We hope they do this as the Bill will undermine the institution of marriage which is a fundamental building block of society. There is also a serious constitutional issue arising from the way this Bill has been foisted on us.
The sponsors of this Bill state that the Lords must accept the wishes of the Commons but, given the manner in which it has been rammed through the Commons, this must be refuted. They also state that the proposal was part of the Equality Contract referred to in the Conservative Party manifesto. If so, it was a devious and dishonest ploy which should be punished by the Lords.
David Cameron parrots Peter Tatchell with his preposterous assertion that the Bill strengthens traditional marriage. But he never explains how and why. In fact he has been duped by gay rights activists who want to destroy marriage as an institution. In the video of a 2012 speech by lesbian activist Masha Gessen, she admits that “Gay marriage is a lie”. Further states “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there”, and “It is a no brainer – the institution of marriage should not exist”. www.youtube.com/watch?V=n9M0xcs2Vw4
The push for gay marriage in the UK is not an isolated initiative. Same sex marriage has broken out like a rash across the developed countries [14 at the latest count] with EU states at the forefront. This is not an unconnected development; there is a conspiracy to achieve the objective and then impose this new reality on the developing and third-world countries. There is great resistance, with Islamic countries in particular seeing it as a cultural attack. All it does is stoke the fires of militant Islamic extremism.
If heterosexual and gay marriages are to be equal, then the same rules should apply. They are not and the rules for gay marriages are being altered. Adultery and non-consummation of marriage cannot be grounds for the dissolution of a gay marriage – so the rules are changed. These changed rules will then be the default position and human rights lawyers will argue that they must apply to heterosexual marriages. This is nonsense.
Lord Tebbit has warned about this divisive threat to our own Christian culture and the undermining of society. The gay rights activist’s motto is ‘united in diversity’, but that is a contradiction which leads to disunity and anarchy. Lord Tebbit has also raised an important constitutional matter. If this Bill is all about achieving equality, then as with the changes to the right of succession it must apply to the Royal Family. What if the heir apparent decides to enter in to a same sex marriage? Will we have two kings or two queens? Will the line of succession be maintained through third party artificial insemination or the use of a surrogate? The gay rights activists are also republicans who want to destroy the monarchy.
I hate to think what Her Majesty the Queen makes of this. That is probably why it has not been included in her speech to Parliament. It would cause a constitutional crisis if she withheld her assent.
Canon Andrew Pearson, in a letter published in the Daily Mail, sets out the situation very clearly;
“What has happened on gay marriage is the greatest abuse of parliamentary power since Charles I marched into the Commons to arrest the five members. There was no mention of it in the manifesto and no green or white paper, only a fraudulent consultation opposed by half the parliamentary Tory Party.
With absolutely no mandate, David Cameron got his way through a sordid stitch-up with the Labour Party. This Orwellian absurdity will lead, in time, to the destruction of marriage. It has nothing to do with equality, already enshrined in civil partnerships.
It’s part of an aggressive secular agenda to divorce Britain from the Christian roots, which are the true source of our freedom and tolerance, and it will create an increasingly intolerant climate of fear and division.
When you acknowledge no higher authority than the state, not even conscience, you create a totalitarian society. In such a society, after they’ve come for the Christians, they’ll come for the gays.”
No further comment necessary.