The title of this post might seem a bit too much for some, but read on after the lengthy Cranmer piece and you’ll see why I have said it.
The ‘equality’ bandwagon keeps rolling on, despite Cameron’s promise to stop it (you mean you believed him?). Lynne Featherstone, the Inequalities Minister, wants us all to reconsider what marriage is so that two women or two blokes can tie the knot. Ms Featherstone says that the church doesn’t own marriage, but as Cranmer writes,
But the state does not ‘own’ marriage, either, Ms Featherstone. It is a union observed in all cultures and, according to Aristotle, exists by nature. The state cannot change nature: it can legislate to call the rain ‘sunshine’, but the rain is still the rain; it’s neither good nor bad; it’s just the rain. And it will still make you wet, whatever you call it.
Marriage is essential for the functioning of society: in Scripture, it is the model used to explain the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:25-32). The Church of England ‘affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman’. This has its basis in the Old Testament, where YHWH says: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Gen 2:18). It continues: ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’ (v24). Although these verses do not purport to define marriage, they do describe its origin, and are therefore crucial for understanding the Bible’s teaching on marriage.
There are three principal purposes for marriage arising out of v24: (i) the procreation of children; (ii) companionship, and (iii) sexual union. Marriage is a covenant before YHWH, which Jesus confirms with the phrase ‘God has joined together’ (Mt 19:26); when a person ‘leaves’ and ‘cleaves’. It is the erosion of this foundation which has contributed to ‘Breakdown Britain’.
The thing is…
If, as Ms Featherstone says, ‘it is the Government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future’, why stop at a redefinition of marriage which includes homosexuals? If marriage is ‘owned by the people’, surely any redefinition must be subject to the democratic will, yet the British people have not been asked about this: proposals for ‘gay marriage’ were not included in any party’s manifesto at the last general election, and there has been no referendum. So is Ms Featherstone saying that a minority group somehow has the right to impose its ‘unnatural’ redfinition on the majority? If so, why not permit Muslim men to marry four or five wives? If the state has the authority to eradicate the heterosexual imperative, who says ‘equality’ must be the new immutable foundation? Surely it is up to ‘the people’? And if marriage may be polygamous, why not incestuous? If ‘the people’ wish to privatise the institution, there is no logical end to the varieties and expressions of ‘family, society and personal freedoms’ which will result. If, a decade hence, they want marriage to embrace consensual polygamy, incest and co-homeowners, who is Lynne Featherstone to stop them?
As the Roman Catholic adoption agencies discovered, and as those who administer school curricula are finding, the inexorable quest for equality does not deviate for any exemption: for equality to triumph, it must eradicate the religious space. There will be no equality until two men can marry in their local parish church, regardless of the theo-political misgivings of the vicar.
But ‘language evolves’, you say: marriage is being redefined to reflect the new societal norm. There was a time when ‘gay’ meant ‘happy’, Abba was cool, Kylie was a c-list soap star and rainbows were a symbol of God’s covenant with every living thing (Gen 9:13). Over the decades, homosexuals have appropriated ‘gay’ and ‘pride’ and the world has not ended. But these meanings have evolved incrementally, even naturally (and are still doing so, for ‘gay’ in teen vernacular has come to mean ‘crap’). But this was not the state decreeing change. The Government is proposing to redefine marriage forever, and it will use the full force of its bureacracy to inculcate the new reality: no longer will paperwork talk of husbands and wives, but of partners. No longer will we be male and female, but simply androgynous individuals. And if you resile from the new order, you exclude yourself from public office and from employment by the state. If you dare to speak out against it, you are criminalised. This is not organic change: it is societal revolution.
If ‘gay marriage’ is the conservative thing to do because, as the Prime Minister avers, it strengthens society, then why are 57% of Christians pepared to abandon the Conservative Party over the issue? Are they all wrong? Are they all homophobic ‘backwoodsmen’ and reactionary ‘Turnip Taliban’? And let us not pretend the alliance against ‘gay marriage’ stops (or starts) at the Church: Lynn Featherstone is uniting the churches, synagogues, gurdwaras and mosques in a faith alliance against the Government. The religious conscience will not be cowed and bullied into submission in the name of ‘equality’, ‘fairness’ or ‘tolerance’.
Coalition For Marriage is uniting people of all faiths and none against ‘gay marriage’. So far, it has collected 39,000 signatures (how many have put their names to a petition in support of ‘gay marriage’?). If the will of the people is sovereign, surely Ms Featherstone must heed it. If it be for ‘the people’ to decide the definition of marriage, and the majority opt for one based on the complementary natures of men and women, who is she to say otherwise?
His Grace saved me a lot of work there, saying largely what I also believe. Two things he wrote seemed particularly chilling:
For equality to triumph, it must eradicate the religious space.
Some people will think this sounds good, but it is a sign of intense authoritarianism which will do nobody any good. Religious persecution is rife in the few (openly) communist countries which remain and this, of course, goes hand-in-hand with restrictions in freedom generally. You cannot kick out Christ and still enjoy the benefits of a Judeo-Christian culture. It clearly doesn’t work that way, so when the former Lib Dem councillor won his court case the other day to have prayers banned, and if pressure groups (this latest story is from Australia – it’s the same agenda everywhere) are successful in making religious education classes “culturally diverse and unbiased” then our very culture will continue to be eaten away. Children will believe that the values on which our society is based are no more important than those of any religious ethos in the whole world.
Some people have a fascinating hatred for all things Christian and for some devilish reason will risk any replacement, even Sharia law.
And if you resile from the new order, you exclude yourself from public office and from employment by the state. If you dare to speak out against it, you are criminalised.
There have been a number of registrars disciplined for not wanting to deal with civil partnerships, but full-blown ‘gay marriage’ will make conscientious objection more difficult. It would probably be impossible for me to get certain jobs because I am not ‘committed to equality’. At least, not the Government’s warped notions of what that word means.
It is not enough to treat people with respect or tolerance – you also have to agree with everything they do (unless they believe in normal British ethics and customs, naturally) and to help them to do it.
I have just read highlights of a recent interview between Elton John and his ‘partner’, and Peter Tatchell in ‘Attitude’ magazine (contains some bad language from Elton, of course).
Education against homophobia and all prejudice should be a compulsory subject in every school, from primary level upwards, with no opt-outs for independent and free schools and no right of parents to withdraw their kids. There should be exams in tolerance. The results should go on pupil’s records and should have to be declared when applying for higher education and jobs.
I have just asked him (under the link to this piece on his Facebook page) is this a new, sinister, objective in collective mind control? Agree with me or you won’t get a job??
And as Cranmer says, what’s to stop marriage being redefined ad infinitum? What happens when Muslim (and Mormon!) fundamentalists demand polygamy? And people ‘marry’ their pets, so why shouldn’t they have marriage rights so that their ‘partner’ is protected when they are dead? Don’t answer that, but it was one of the reasons put forward for civil partnerships.
And of course, what about the paedophiles? Don’t they have rights? People will say that’s different because it’s all about consent. I have read at least two stories about judges who thought that men who had sex with 11 and 12 year-olds had been led on and therefore had an excuse to behave the way they did. There have been suggestions in recent years to lower the age of consent to 13 in Northern Ireland and Scotland – when there is no more than a three year age difference. Homosexual acts were taboo, then made legal for 21 year-olds, then 18 year-olds and then 16 year-olds – to make the behaviour ‘equal’ to heterosexuality, of course. Where will it end?
The terrifying thing is that some people believe this equality stuff so much that they will accept grown men and women legally being allowed to have sex with children.
Eventually, you’ll have to uphold this belief if you want a Council job, even one (or especially one) where the wellbeing of vulnerable children is at stake.
Peter Tatchell wants the age of consent reduced, but I’m not sure if he ever says what to, but you know how successful he has already been in changing society. He also believes that children have ‘sexual rights’. We are made increasingly aware of ‘children’s rights’ generally, including their ‘right’ to seek confidential medical advice from their GP (part of the whole sexual revolution, of course). ‘Children’s rights’ sounds really good, but in practise, it actually means that the parents can lose jurisdiction over their own family and the state is in charge. During my visit to a doctor’s surgery a few weeks ago, I couldn’t help but notice the posters and leaflets about teenage sex and confidentiality. The state is encouraging promiscuity and then helping keep it a secret from the parents, thereby assuming control of their behaviour.
Far too many people in the West are delusional now after decades of intense media mind control. They have lost the plot to such an extent that they cannot even see how bizarre, unnatural and plain wrong it would be for two people of the same gender to get ‘married’. Their minds have been trashed by technology! And this is why many people will believe in future campaigns involving children – if it’s being done for reasons of ‘equality’ or for sexual ‘rights’ then it must be good and anyone who says otherwise is a ranting, hate-filled Bible-thumper who needs to realise that this is 2012 (or whenever it happens) and not the Dark Ages.
And many will doubtless say the same things when objections are made about children sleeping in the beds of pervert adults with full support of the law (or man’s new interpretation of the ‘law’). The schoolchildren might have learned at the new religious education classes that Mohammed married a six year-old, but that this was a good thing (how could it not be; it’s Islam: the Establishment’s favourite religion!) and that it’s okay to be one of several wives to one man.
So you see, the possibilities for redefining marriage are almost limitless and the opportunities for change are already there. If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples then I don’t think it will take as much effort by other groups to have their agendas catered for in the same way. Everyone is ‘equal’, right? Everyone’s sexual behaviour is ‘equal’, right? Children’s rights are starting to trump their parents. All religions are equal. With such a set-up, anything could now happen.
Already, over half of British children are born to unmarried and single mothers. Making such a mockery of marriage may make it even less fashionable to heterosexuals. The end result is easy to see: more people will be bringing up children under temporary living arrangements and the dysfunction in society will continue to worsen.
So instead of approving of everything the Government wants you to approve of and loving everything they say you should love, try making your own decisions on such matters. Realise why these changes are happening, if you don’t already, and if it isn’t too late, help restore the country to a more civilised place to live. Don’t say what’s happening won’t affect you. It will, therefore it is your right to have a say. Not only your right, but a moral obligation.