Sunday, 9 December 2012


Despite all the assurances to the contrary given by the Prime Minister David Cameron, that no church would be compelled or forced to marry gay men or women, already various “gay” organisations have stated that they will challenge this exemption through the courts. In the same way that boarding house keepers have been found guilty of discrimination when refusing accommodation to gay couples, I think the Church will be found guilty if it refuses to “marry” gays. One has to bear in mind, that ultimately this could be tested in the European Courts where so much of our legislation seems to be made these days.

It is my belief, and the belief of thousands of Christians, that marriage is a sacrament between two people, a man and a woman. A so-called union between two men or two women can never be a marriage recognised in the Christian context of a sacrament. This is neither a sexist or homophobic prejudice but a statement of Christian Doctrine. To ensure that gay people had the same rights in law as heterosexuals civil partnerships were introduced  and have proved to be successful but it is interesting that civil partnerships are not available to heterosexuals.


  1. My contacts in the gay community tell me they find little enthusiasm for "gay marriage" among their fellows being content with the availability of civil partnerships.

    Could it be - as I suspect it is - that the pressure for "gay marriage" comes from activists who got what they wanted and are now out of a cause to shout about, and a bunch of non-gays seeking to suck up to the gay community for electoral and popularity reasons?

    "'Nuff said" except that nowadays no-one gives any credence to minority views or so it seems.

    1. As someone who has been active in the musical and acting spheres (as an amateur!) since university (I'm now 63), I have made many close and lasting friends with men and women who happen to be gay. Many of them are now in civil partnerships, and several of those civil partnerships merely act as a legal "stamp" on an already long-term relationship. Quite a lot of them would also identify as Christian.

      The topic of "gay marriage" has been brought up at several barbecues/dinner parties/beer-and-skittles evenings over the last couple of years. Almost all of them are indifferent to the concept. The ones who are not indifferent range from finding the whole thing bizarre, through to being firmly opposed. None of them (I've just counted: 25) can be described as being in favour.

      As a scientist I know the danger of taking a single datum and extrapolating a general rule, but there seem to be an awful lot of single data which do not agree with the government's proposed legislation. To be fair, there are also a lot of ordinary gay people who ARE in favour - and probably they are the majority. However, I think we are seeing that the minority group which the legislation is intended to benefit is significantly divided on whether said legislation is a good or a bad thing.

  2. Cameron's stance comes about for two reasons.

    First, he is a puppet of the LibDem coalition partners.

    Second, it has nothing to do with "equality", but everything to do with political opportunism. He may be trying to get back the votes lost by the former Section 28, Local Government Act 1988.

    He seems oblivious to the probability that, come 2015, he will lose far more votes from the people who are outraged by what he is doing - including this 76 years old previously life-long Conservative voter.

  3. The greater worry is the real threat of litigation against churches who will not marry (sic) people of the same sex. It will happen despite the so called promises of Cameroon. Just look to see what has happened in Canada - it's truly awful.

    If the >600,000 who have signed up would write to the PM and their local MP it would surely be a wake up call. Let's do it!

    1. Clamerclown has a shameful record of promises not carried out - EU referendum, no A&E closures, maintaining our defence force, tough on immigration. I have no trust in his "assurances" about sham "marriages". And my own MP won't want to upset him - he now has his hands placed firmly at the base of the greasy pole.

  4. Despite all the assurances to the contrary given by Brian Leveson & Hacked Off that politicians would be unable to use statutory underpinning to hinder publication of criticism of gay marriage and womens' ordination ...

    I'm afraid you will find that political interference in civic life is all of a piece, Fr.