Same-sex marriages and transgender madness

From: Coalition for Marriage (C4M)

European Court orders all EU countries to recognise same-sex marriages

Dear marriage supporter,

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ordered all EU countries to recognise same-sex marriages, even if they are illegal under national law.

In a ruling last week the Court ordered Romania to grant residency to an American man who married a Romanian man in Belgium. This is despite Romania’s laws only recognising marriage between a man and a woman.

Eight EU member states support real marriage through their laws, including Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia. They now face being forced to recognise extra-territorial same-sex marriages in their immigration and welfare systems despite there being no democratic mandate to do so.

Across the world, same-sex marriage has been brought in through the back door without a popular mandate.

In the United Kingdom (aside from Northern Ireland) it was introduced by David Cameron’s government despite not being in his party’s election manifesto.

In America it was forced on all states by the judiciary of the Supreme Court.

And now across the European Union member states will be forced by this court judgment to recognise marriages in other states which would be illegal under their own national law.

There is cause to take heart in all of this: despite what we are often told, same-sex marriage is not universally accepted or approved. If it were, there would be no need for such underhand tactics the world over in making it legal.

Doctor dropped by DWP for asserting biological reality

A senior doctor who was set for a role as a disability assessor at the Department for Work and Pensions has been dropped due to his belief in the biological basis of gender.

Dr David Mackereth has worked as an NHS doctor for 26 years. He told his instructor that as a Christian his faith would not allow him to use a person’s preferred gender when writing reports if that gender was not their biological one. His contract was subsequently terminated.

It says something for the bullying and bigotry of the transgender zealots in government that a man with a quarter of a century of public service behind him can be treated in such a disgraceful way.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Thomas Pascoe

Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage (C4M)

Donate

Newspeaking of love

George Orwell  statue unveiled outside BBC Broadcasting House                                                                                                                    Source: Telegraph

The First Minister of Scotland sounded utterly convinced that only her views could possibly be correct when offering her "unequivocal" apology to gay men convicted of sexual offences that are no longer illegal.

She said "the simple fact was that parliamentarians in Scotland had, over many decades, supported or at least accepted laws which "we now recognise to have been completely unjust... Hundreds of people in Scotland were liable to be convicted as criminals, simply for loving another adult."

If Ms Sturgeon feels secure enough to condemn previous law makers as in error, why did she twist the facts? She was correct only in that it took law makers in Scotland more than a decade to catch up with reforms to the law in England and Wales in 1976.

My understanding of the legislation to which she objected was that convictions were not for loving another adult but for buggery. The law was changed after the Wolfenden report recommended that "homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence".

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 granted civil partnerships rights and responsibilities in the United Kingdom very similar to civil marriage. A reform welcomed across the political spectrum but not good enough for activists who demand that marriage be redefined in the name of supposed equality.

The LGBT lobby has had considerable success with newspeak. Constant repetition of the words 'love' and 'equality' in relation to same sex marriage has provided a smokescreen to achieve an objective which undermines the basis of family live, the joining together of a man and a woman for the procreation of children without which civilisation as we know it would end.

But what about infertile couples? they claim, before advocating adoption by gay couples, the use of surrogates and more recently, womb transplants allowing men to have babies. There is little if any thought for the effects in later life on the children resulting from such unions.

Gay couples can live together in circumstances similar to civil marriage without fear of prosecution but acceptance has turned into demands. Now the tail wags the dog. Even Anglican bishops are content to demean the sanctity of marriage by agreeing to legitimise that which is contrary to Christian teaching.

The First Minister's misuse of the word love was a precursor to linking same sex marriage with equality, condemning supporters of traditional marriage as lacking integrity, wisdom, compassion and justice using words such as wrong, homophobia, hate, fear, discrimination, prejudice and bigotry, the implication being that opponents of same sex marriage are bigoted, prejudiced people who lack compassion and a sense of justice.

There is no justice in condemning people simply for having an opposing view. In years to come as the Church crumbles and society further disintegrates, another First Minister could be standing in Ms Sturgeon's place condemning others for supporting or at least accepting laws which "we now recognise" to have been completely stupid.

The burden of conscience

"Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ

against sin, the world and the devil,

and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life."

To the non-Anglican the Church of England must appear to be an archaic debating society in which the newly 'enlightened' struggle to drag reluctant members into the 21st Century. In a secular society most people at least have some understanding of conscientious objection but apparently not in a religious context so they employ secular criteria to arrive at the wrong conclusion. I remember men who were not called to fight in WWII being described as 'conscies' without any awareness of the facts. Possibly they were conscientious objectors but they were probably in reserved occupations which barred them from active service.

During WWI in their ignorance many feminists and suffragettes handed out white feathers to men who were not in uniform, including honourably discharged wounded soldiers and those on leave from the front assuming them to be cowards. So earnest were some of these women that the facts became irrelevant to their cause believing only what they wanted to believe.

Little has changed. Maintaining the baptismal promise to "remain faithful to Christ" in one's attitude to the ordination of women attracts the stigma of misogyny. Continuing to believe that Holy Matrimony is an honourable estate between one man and one woman attracts the stigma of homophobia while the charge of bigotry is freely hurled at anyone who fails to toe the shifting revisionist line. Fortunately a significant minority still consider relevant facts so they refused to vote in favour of the ordination of women bishops without the promised safeguards that enabled women to be ordained priests in the Church of England resulting in a defeat of their own making.

I have no idea what to expect from the July 2013 Synod but some have suggested that a two-stage Bill similar to that being presented to the Governing Body (GB) of the Church in Wales in September may be a way forward. According to a Press Release preliminary GB group discussions are to take place on 10 April but given the firm stand already taken by the establishment (here and here) it is difficult to see what could be offered that would be acceptable to traditionalists resulting in the danger that if no agreement were possible the establishment would seek to find a way around the problem in the knowledge that the ordination of women bishops had been agreed. That does not suggest a sensible solution for those who already feel betrayed by actions taken to date.

In looking for a new way forward women who would be bishops and their supporters must accept that for traditionalists, remaining faithful to Christ is not an optional extra but the faith of the Holy Catholic Church as we understand it in common with the majority of catholic and orthodox Christians worldwide. If we were a debating society to be swayed by secular criteria we would not have to bear the burden of conscience but that is not how it is. To say yes to secularism would be saying 'no' to Christ. 

The honourable way forward would be to satisfy first the needs of traditionalists and evangelicals. To do otherwise would perpetuate the legacy of ordaining women to the priesthood by fair means or foul, in that case foul given the already broken promises. In conscience as Christians we can and must do better.

Fretting

In his piece for Pink News the Bishop of Buckingham said that having come out for gay marriage most letters received by him as a Church of England bishop are in favour of gay marriage and non-Christian people in society have moved on from fretting about the subject because 'gay people are just people like them'. Well I have been fretting, not on the subject referred to but on the attitude displayed by the bishop and others with remarks that appear calculated to imply that there is something seriously lacking with people not of their persuasion in this area. 

In evidence to the Commons Committee on the Marriage (Same Sex) Bill there were similar claims that a lack of mail received against the proposal implied acceptance of the Bill, for example, "I have received two e-mails from people in my own diocese asking me if I would “clarify my position”. I received one e-mail from someone who takes a rather more conservative view... The sense I get from that is that the opposition might not be as widespread as some might think it." On the contrary, over 641,000 people have already made their views abundantly clear only to be ignored by the government! It should be obvious to members of the episcopate that unless all views are canvassed their mail will be weighted in favour of the course they advance as the bishop has discovered.

There may be some 'church people' whose attitude to homosexuality is less than charitable but that is no different to society in general. In my experience church people are far more tolerant than + Wilson suggests but his comments appear to be designed to tell his audience what they want to hear. Also some of the MPs on the Commons Committee have been using their membership not as an opportunity to gather evidence but as a platform for their particular lifestyles. Homosexuality is a fact but it does not mean that gay marriage should follow any more than those opposed to gay marriage because it is contrary to an established principle are against equality. What leaves me fretting is political and religious leaders playing to the gallery with outrageous accusations of homophobia and bigotry instead of engaging in reasoned debate.