Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

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.

Advertisements

One Response to Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

  1. m.stewart says:

    At least SOME homosexuals are honest – where they ADMIT that (many more than we realise) want to TRANSFORM the present culture altogether – to suit THEIR own agenda:
    Paula Ettelbrick
    (ex-legal director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund)
    “Being queer is MORE than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process TRANSFORMING THE VERY FABRIC OF SOCIETY.”

    Many homosexuals who want our government to approve and establish same sex marriages appear to want to change the culture — rather than simply assimilate into the culture that already exists:

    Homosexual men consistently report their involvement in a steady partnership while simultaneously reporting that they continue to have multiple sex partners! This kind of accepted unfaithfulness within the context of a reportedly ‘committed’ and ‘steady’ relationship is unique to the homosexual community (particularly the male homosexual community). Why is this so? Studies suggest that homosexual men consider sex outside the relationship to be normative. In fact, many homosexual males simply REFUSE to be monogamous because they see it as an act of OPPRESSION. (McWhirter and Mattison study).
    One study confirmed that only 26% homosexuals believe that commitment is the most important aspect of a marital relationship. (Mary Mendola, “The Mendola Report”, New York, Crown, 1980).
    Researchers and homosexual advocates alike have openly discussed the attitude that many homosexuals have toward ‘monogamy’ in steady relationships:
    Eg: Homosexual Writer and Activist Michelangelo Signorile
    “For these men the term ‘monogamy’ simply does NOT necessarily mean sexual exclusivity….The term ‘open relationship’ has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.” (Michelangelo Signorile, “Life Outside”, New York, HarperCollins, 1997)

    Eg: Former Homosexual William Aaron
    “In the gay life, fidelity is almost IMPOSSIBLE. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to ‘absorb’ masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for (new sex partners). Consequently the most successful homophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the SEMBLANCE of permanence in their living arrangement.” (William Aaron, Straight (New York: Bantam Books, 1972)

    It is clear from the studies, much official data (eg A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978, pp. 308, 309; and A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, “Sexual Preference”, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981; confirmed by additional research.
    The Journal of Sex Research reports that most homosexuals have between 100 and 500 sexual partners in their lifetime. 10.2% reported that they had between 501 and 1,000 sex partners, and 15.7% said they had more than 1000 sex partners in their lifetime. (Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men”, Journal of Sex Research 34, 1997). And studies conducted by homosexual advocate groups agree with these findings, reporting that 24% of those homosexuals who were surveyed reported that they had more than 100 sex partners in their lifetime. Several of those surveyed indicated that they had more than 1000 sex partners. (“Sex Survey Results”, Genre, October 1996, as quoted in “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners”, Lambda Report, January 1998)
    … and the statements of those who are involved in the lifestyle themselves, that homosexual couples are significantly less monogamous and devoted to their mates (at least from the point of view of fidelity) than traditional heterosexual couples.
    Both groups contain some percentage of people who will engage in sexual activity outside the relationship, but homosexuals are far more likely to do this from a statistical and cultural perspective.

    It is quite clear that to “same-sex’ couples the concepts of “monogamy” and “fidelity” are too often either LACKING or completely ABSENT — thereby making their version of “marriage” a complete FARCE.

    It is clear from the many statements by “gays” that their REAL AGENDA is to transform society to THEIR own liking.

    Many already admit that the entire exercise of the push for (so-called) “gay-rights” is actually a trampling – indeed an attack – on the rights of others.

    Many already admit that the “softening-up” process entailed propaganda and media which promoted the idea that homosexuality was “normal/harmless” or “quite acceptable”.

    Many already admit also that the REAL AGENDA is to appropriate (by deception) the TITLE of “Marriage” – precisely in order to DISHONOUR (real) MARRIAGE and bring about a pagan/secular “free-for-all” society where there is no marriage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: