The proposals to allow same-sex marriage clearly get some people excited. When I did a post on my blog about it, it attracted the most comments I have ever received. One of my points was about the insularity of those opposing the proposals. I was therefore very interested in the findings of a study just published by Policy Exchange, and written, I see, by one of my graduates.
It found that countries that had introduced same-sex marriage have experienced no changes in the stability of heterosexual marriage. (To listen to some opponents, one would think that the UK is the first to even consider the idea.) The number of divorces have decreased in Holland, Belgium, Canada and South Africa, and an increase in Spain may be attributable to the enactment of an ‘express divorce’ Bill. Perhaps even more relevant for the purposes of the current debate, no country that has introduced same-sex marriage has forced churches to perform such marriages.
Surveys some years ago tapped a change in popular attitudes, with public opinion swinging behind supporting gay marriage in the opening years of the century. However, what is noteworthy is the finding in this study that the highest levels of support for same-sex marriage are to be found in the North-East of England (81% in support of change) and Yorkshire (70%). Support in London and the West Midlands stands at 69%. I suspect people have recognised that society has not collapsed following the introduction of civil partnerships and that the nation will probably remain calm in the event of the introduction of same-sex marriages.
Why should the state be involved in any marriage business? Bar wanting to take money / not spend it on married people?
If the state was out of the marriage business, then all the problems disappear.
If the state wasn’t “involved” in marriage (by which I assume you mean deciding who can marry whom) other than deciding whether to give/take money from married couples, don’t you think that would open quite a few tax and benefit loopholes?
So.
But bigger ‘balls’ lie concealed
such as the hordes of middle and upper governance class careerists in homosexual partnerships
seeking to increase their ‘hold’ on their already disgustingly overfat multiple-livings that they are being unsustainworthily given, and are very wilfully drawing, from the Common Purse
innit so, too ?
All marriages are ‘gay’ aren’t they ?
People laugh and sing and dance
and throw best-rainforest-paper-confetti
and best GM-rice grains by the handful
and thousands of flowers and flower-petals
and wank-up champagne bottle after champagne bottle to blatantly expose the grandiose super-ejaculation of ‘white-froth’
and waste £billions on
“wedding-breakfasts”
“food gorging”
“alcohol guzzling”
“private cars parades” …
sickening.
==================
Few heterosexual marriages satisfy the natural-cum-civilised requirement for
1) the best two biological parents
2) the best upbringing (social) parents
for the children
who are the raison d’etre of Marriage in the first place
(I disagree with God, that sexual-intercourse is primarily for the pleasure of the man and woman engaging therein*).
The other, and thereto linked, essential to a marriage-relationship is not Contract
but Familial Covenant.
So how then can a homosexual partnership ever fill these essentials of a Marriage ?
———
OK, let their be mixed-doubles-cohabitation-contracts
but don’t falsify them as “marriages”.
Marriages they are most definitely not.
“Gay” they even more definitely are not.
Call them what they are:
Civil Cohabitation Contracts.
CCC Ceremonies if need be, too.
(we could then all be more happily dancing to a sort of “si si si” tune).
———–
Give up constitutionally, legislatively, religiously, socially, psychologically and personally, pushing homosexuality down our throats
as being in the same class as
or equal to
a child-procreating and rearing covenant and contract.
————
* = “Unlocking The Bible” (Pawson) [re the Adam and Eve timeframe in Genesis**]
** = But – if Genesis is not absolutely True
then neither can any of the rest of The Bible’s other 65 Books be true***.
*** = so give us good spiritual AND formal-argumentational & moral-reasoning
leadership here
please.
(JSDM).
These posts are from Lord Norton’s personal blog. I wrote them this morning and did not want to have to re-write them again.
http://nortonview.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/gay-marriage-again/#comments
However, the full responses on this matter, debated on Lord Norton’s blog, attracted more posters than any other.
It can be read here.
http://nortonview.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/gay-marriage/
PS: And the politicians claim little interest by the public. Which is clearly not true. Is it?
maude elwes: There is the public and there are people who express themselves loudly and often seek to claim to speak for the public.
Here is my reply to Lord Norton this morning on his blog
maudie33 says:
July 18, 2012 at 7:20 am
Lord Norton, if nothing written in opposition to this matter is relevent, why are we having a debate? It is not possible to have a fruitful debate on any issue if only one side of the equation is considered material. In other words, you are telling us we are wasting our time responding to your call to our views on this matter.
Now, you tell us you have seen studies advising you that this move will have no effect on society as a whole. And you say it has been proven to be so in countries that introduced it eleven years ago. Which countries ae you referring to who tell you they have seen no effective change? Where are these studies held for public view? Can you put a link up to enable us to view them so we can aslo judge and find we concur with their advice? And if not, why not?
You write that religions will not be affected by this move in the law. That cannot be an accurate statement as the link I put up shows. Court actions will be brought against any releigious leader who refuses to indulge in such a ceremony, Just as the elederly Devon couple were persecuted for not wanting to introduce it into their little bed and breakfast home. They were forced to give a bedroom to peope who wanted to prove their cause was superior to the owners. And that is what it was, dressed up as a suitable law suit.
However, the main aim of the law suit, from a political point of view, was to instill fear in the Christian and religious people of this country by warning them they could no longer call on their right to ‘freedom of association.’ This same law suit told them that their rights were second class to the rights of homosexuals who wish to carry out their sexual act within earshot of those who find it uncomfortable. And that in future the public must indulge this act within their environment regardless of their deepest feelings.
And I have no doubt whatsoever that this same pressure will be brought on those clergy who will refuse to marry same sex partners, even though the same sex couple will be able to find a compliant man or woman of the cloth to perform the blessing for them. And if you say this will not be so, what are the safeguards you intend to put into law to protect them from this?
The issue is not so much gay women, as gay men.
Civil Partnerships are as far as the law should go in recognising gay relationships because to do otherwise is dangerous to the dignity that women should expect in a heterosexual marriage.
If gay marriage was legalised it would also legalise the act of sodomy within marriage regardless of the sexuality of those that are married?
This would seriously undermine both trust in marriage and public morality.
Let’s take the case of the Afghanistan region, the pashtun people and the pre-Islamic culture of the ‘Bacha Bazi’ boys, a culture banned by both Sharia Law and the Afghan Civil Code.
It is not however unknown for adult men to punish boys by sodomising them in order to gain their cooperation, the fear of this commands loyalty extended to adulthood especially within the Taliban. Given this culture one could reasonably expect women to be sodomised in marriage as those marriages are arranged and not always with heterosexual men. We have here a motive for women not being able to communicate their experiences in writing and to be hidden away.
So ladies is “b***er me” a phrase to be given a new dimension in marriage?
Ref: American Contractors’ Involvement in Afghan Paedophile Ring
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wikileaks-reveals-american-contractors-involvement-in-afghan-pedophile-ring/
Motion Picture: The Kite Runner, Part III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kite_Runner
I’ve given up the Church of England entirely.
Two reasons: One; constant discussion about gays. Two; women clergy.
I’m now Catholic and reading about the Borgias.
Lorenza had a hard time bearing either her brother’s, or her father’s child.
At least nobody wanted to legalize it.
One of the great joys of Catholicism is monasticism of which there is so little in
the reformed churches.
In the Catholic faith if you live alone, you are a “solitary” or an idiorhythmic monk or something like that, but in the CofE, and further left, you are a paedophile.
In the Catholic faith if you want to live with a crowd of blokes, or even just one other, you are a monk of one sort or another.
If you are CofE, or reform churches, you are a gay, or a pervert, or both!
If you have several wives, then you are a Mormon or Muslim, and a member of the CofE, but that is another story.
Dear Lord Norton,
Love is beautiful, divine and fruitful, blessed by two people of different sex just like God wants us to be since his first creation. From my strictly point of view, being so closed to my Beloved God, I would have opposed the mariage of two persons of the same sex.
However , the evolution of the world has made love between two men or women and has turned the blessed generation into a cursed passion between people of the same sex.
So far as men are born free to love, to cherish and to be loved and the most important root of our temporary travel on earth would be happiness, because life is for once only.So these men and women who choose to love and to be loved by the partners of the same sex are free to do what they think is good for them, as every one is free to live his or her passion the way he or she thought would be the best for him or her.There is no barrier in love .
Unfortunately children are the ones to bear sometimes the consequences. It might be upsetting and morally damaging for them to understand who is the man or woman in the couple. Who would be called “dad” or “mum” since both parents have the same sex?No one has thought about the trauma that such passion could be for children.I think that a campaign regarding children of homosexual parents should be worked out before any acceptance for child adoption in such couples. Children should not pay for cursed passion.
God save the Queen. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
Nazma Fourre: Gay couples have been having or adopting children for some time and the children appear as well adjusted as children of heterosexual couples.
@Lord Norton:
I, and many millions of other people across the planet, do not agree that children have not suffered and will not suffer dreadfully from the legalisation of gay marriage for adoption purposes, and or by whatever scientific means, used for the conception of children who cannot be produced in such a partnership without intervention.
And who will these children ‘sue’ when they find they were an experiment in social engineering as a ‘purchased’ test tube entity that forced them into a life of difficulty? Will anyone pushing this forward as desirable for legality, be ready to stand in the dock and plead ‘mea culpa?’
Here we read in this recent US study that what you have taken as not showing any major difference between same sex and heterosexual couples raising children, is quite devastating in the reading. It tells us clearly that ‘2%’ of children, in this study, being raised by hetorosexual couples were sexually abused within that relationship. Whilst ‘23%’ in same sex relationships suffered sexual abuse withn that same sex household. The study covers far more than that, underachievement is another realisation claimed to not be so by those who are desparately pushing for this legislation, but, lets kicks off with sexual abuse.
http://astheworldsleeps.org/node/6739
And here is another confirming that same analysis.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-children-from-same-sex-homes-have-lower-income-poorer-mental-physical-health/
Here is a comment by the, Los Angeles Times. And that city in that State has had far more experience than the UK. So far.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,6057126.story
So, unless the people who are fighting so hard for this change want to hide these studies in the closet, it quite clearly shows not enough time or deiberations have gone into the true welfare of the offspring from these new ideologies we are supposed to take on board as healthy.
And as a last little reminder, these studies have only just begun. Now, a lot more of these children are growing into adulthood and their mouths will not be kept shut. So expect more of the same.
And then, the law suits.
maude elwes: I am not sure if you have read closely the stories to which you link. The first two cover one study, which itself is heavily qualified, and as is mentioned is the exception among the studies that have been undertaken. The pieces are far more nuanced than your comments. The LA piece is a comment piece.
Lord Norton,
Though children seem to be well adjusted with their homosexual parents, as statistical records seem to prove, I shall tend to agree that somewhere , there is not a child who is shedding bitter tears out of shame, anger for not growing in a normal family.
Consequently, since data in that case has been apparently selectful and no words have been given to children, it is high time that a campaign is launched to make the children speak before the adoption of the gay mariage bill, if the United Kingdom does not want to add sufferings to their sufferings.
Since children never lie, they might tell to the world, the bitter shame they encounter at school where they are feeling rejected because of their homosexual parents. The poor little angels are suffering and it is time they speak and let their pain be washed.
What a shame would there be for them to show to their school mates, the pictures of their two mums or dads kissing on the day of their wedding.Some may not want to invite their friends for fear to be ridiculised as sexual education in colleges has always linked reproduction to people of diffrent sex.
By such laws, children in homosexual family would tend the follow the same trend by having a partner of the same sex one day. So the circle would go on and the cursed mariages of people of the same sex can be for generations to generations.It would be a pity that this sort of cursed wedding passion sweep the moral and spiritual values of the entire United kingdom, forgetting the murmurs of the desperated cries of children who like any human being needs a father and a mother to grow up well.
In the name of the “hidden tears” and “bitter sufferings and shame” of the wounded destiny of children having homosexual parents, I shall recommend the blessed United kingdom not to adopt such a bill and I trust you as well as all the devoted Lords not to approve this law.
Let the children be children and live the joy of their innocent world with the laughter of a baby and not with the bliss of the trauma of having identical sex parents.
God save the Queen and the Lords. God bless the united kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
@Lord Norton:
I wrote at the beginning of the post you cite that these links were simply a confirmation of the same study.
I also wrote the, Los angeles Times, piece was a comment. It does not mean either of the links were not informative reading on the matter in question and showed an opposing viewpoint. And they should be taken seriously. All studies have subtle shades of meaning in one way or another, It would be absurd to believe otherwise. Nothing is clear cut. However the weight of this one is in the size of group studied. Which makes it far more likely to be weighted correctly in its summing up.
However, this matter affects the lives of children and every government globally has a responsibility toward the welfare of the young. And as I write so often, they are not fodder for experiment within the game of social engineering by politics and dealism.
The last government we had used us all as lab animals to prove their deranged ideas of a future utopia. The result is a calamity. This government is supposed to play to a different tune, isn’t it? Isn’t that the purpose of elections and alternative parties? Because if it isn’t, then we are wasting a great deal of time and money pretending it is.
There are plenty of heterosexual couples who shouldn’t have children. I’d personally like to see both an IQ test and a means test before any couple is able to have children. But somehow I can’t see that happening. In fact, people would no doubt strongly criticise me for even suggesting it. Yet I would say that someone of low intellect, living on benefits, is likely to be a poor parent, and there would be a much stronger correlation between that and the successful upbringing of a child than there would be regarding the genders of the parents. So why pick on that one aspect and discriminate against one group of prospective parents, while allowing so many causes of social problems continue?
@Jonathan:
It isn’t simply those with low intellect that make questionable parents. Quite the reverse is often true.
Those, for example, who the minute a child is born, abandon it to some half wit they call a Nanny. Often barely literate. And then stay in the office from 7am to 8pm and at weekends leave same child or children with grandma as they want to race their car on the circuit with Daddy. Or, some other such idiotic selfishness. They simply, and strangely, do not enjoy the company of their children. Whereas, often, poor and less than genius people do make excellent parents.
I see it all the time, children longing for recognition by higly intelligent, well paid individuls as parents, suffering the same malaise you would find on a council estate. Introverted, insecure, constantly whining for attention and not getting any, low achievers. Nanny, usually foreign, giving junk food as they do the daily rounds with dubious friends, who all have an incredible effect on the child of the employer in tow.
Hence, the heavy public school druggers who manage to hide it so well. Similar to the Conan Doyle character Sherlock Holmes. And, yes, I do know he was a single childless man.
Neverthelss, he was an intellect who had a moral deficiency just like so many of the parents we see in our daily lives. It isn’t simply the poor, that is a very bourgeois attitude. And totally unfounded.
A footnote to what was said earlier. The issue of consummating a marriage is part of Common Law. The fact that today most women move into marriage without being virgins raises the question of how the courts would establish whether a gay man was also a virgin. Just how the law would deal with gay women consummating their marriage would be subjective to say the least.
The sexual act of consummation is different between heterosexual and homosexual couples and to protect the dignity of women the law would have to detail this and legalise sodomy at the expense of the dignity of heterosexual couples. Indeed one can imagine a scenario where women are so offended by a change in the law that they would incite by whatever means violence toward homosexual men.
I would sincerely hope that women generally oppose gay marriage.
The Afghan issue of complicit male homosexuality within village communities and the ‘Bacha Bazi’ presents problems that are no different to what happened here with politicians that were compromised by the Soviet KGB. The Afghan security force is being established with many of its members ‘Bacha Bazi’ grown to adulthood and overtly homosexual. They can be manipulated by the Taliban and present a security risk that cannot be resolved because of the culture established and one can understand why this region has been left behind by history as wild and unlawful.
Senex
That kind of discussion is perverse in the extreme, and would not be discussed by a court except in extreme jest, which is not the style of courts.
Fourrés remarks above, whichever religion he/she supports, are to be taken at good value.
The problem of identifying with one’s own gender as one grows up, is a question for the children of divorced people at the best of times, and worst, and can not be helped by
having two male parents, one pretending to be a woman…. or two female parents, one pretending to be a man.
Lord Norton’s sound (not common) sense seems to fail him, when he gets to the constitution of the family, and its ramifications.
To HELL with the Church of England!
To HELL with the Church of England!
But their cathedral song is the music of angels.
I mistakenly placed a comment which Maude elwes has linked to on the Norton View on this blog and am pleased to see it has not appeared after my request that it not appear. However Maude has diminished my risk of seeming entirely bizarre so although I hope that comment will not appear with this one I am taking a risk in posting here.
I havr stated in the comment stream elsewhere that this is an issue which according to my sincerely held political philosophy should be domestic and not international but is very international. It is inevitably linked with many questions of domestic and sexual politics and yet is significant in itself as well. I will leave this there for now until it becomes clear how my comment stream will resolve itself.
@Frank:
Didn’t mean to do that, you have my apologies. It simply took the entire thread rather than my two posts, as I had intended.
Lord Norton’s blog is not easy to work with at times, I have endless difficulties. However, I understand your distress and wish it could be rectified.
And, you are not at all alone in your deliberations. It is due to many folks being very reluctant to respond to this debate, as people with an alternative stance are often harassed greatly for their viewpoint. So, they stay quiet. A result of many years of political correctness not allowing freedom of expression here without persecution in the real sense.
Hopefully that is changing.
Maude,
when it reains it pours. This just crashed. I will say in briefer form. My words in context on the Norton View are fine with me and I am happy with them. I am not unhappy you linked to them. It is odd that Iposted them here by mistake but they have not yet appeared so I am happy there as well.
No apologies needed…
Dear Lord Norton,
I am so glad you launched this debate and I find no perversity in this interesting discussion in contrast of what Twin said.I totally disagree with his position of stating that this debate has neither moral nor judicial issues. Any law changes the moral structure of a given society which it regulates .
I appreciate this debate,profusely dear Lord Norton as it is rich and full of sense and I thank you profusely for giving us the chance to express our points of views on such a important matter . Hope that other participants join in as well as other lords to continue this debate.
I am sure dear Lord Norton that you would take into account the hidden tears and trauma of children in homosexual parents, the loss of moral values and spiritual values by the creation of a new generation of gays and lesbians.
God has always wanted love between a man and a woman ever since he created Adam and Eve. I shall be so sad to see God and the angels crying because of this law.
Being so much amused to note the shaken emotion of Twin who is so confused about my gender when he replies back, I shall like you to remind him that I am a woman and a strong beleiver of God.
This interesting debate should go on Lord Norton.
God bless the Queen and the Lords. God save the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
MSLD,
So nice to note that you are participating and not afraid to do so. Keep it up. Don’t be shy to comment.
God save the Queen and the Lords. God save the United kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
Twm O’r Nant: You feel strongly that there is no legal basis to what was said so I invite you to give here your legal arguments that demolish the case presented. It would be most undignified for barristers and judges to be rolling about in the aisles their sides about to split with laughter. You have a duty to prevent this.
As you know there is a difference between council and the bench.
Council may make a legal point but the bench in hearing this can choose to ignore it and instead apply common sense. And by common sense, deliver a judgement that is both practical and safe. Judge made law will stand until Parliament chooses by Act of Parliament to add, subtract or replace the judgement. Any judgement can be appealed to the Supreme Court if it merits it.
As to the CoE: Christianity would not exist at all today if women had not embraced it with enthusiasm right from day one. The basis for this enthusiasm was their improved dignity.
@Senex:
It is indeed correct that under law a marriage must be consummated or it is not deemed marriage. Marriages are annulled on grounds of non consummation.
http://www.lawteacher.net/family-law-resources/Non-Consummation-Marriage.php
So, as you point out, how will the law establish consummation has taken place within same sex marriage? Will anal sex be judged as fulfilment in respect of consummation of homosexual union? If that is to be the criteria pushed by the State, will the State be responsible for possible illness or death resulting from such acts required? Likewise, in lesbian relationships. What will constitute consummation there, use of male prosthesis perhaps?
And as the law already deals with all manner of hilarity in human situations, you are right to assume, lawyers and barristers will overcome their leaning toward exposed humour, once in court. Or, be thrown out.
On another matter, with reference to this proposed unnateral marriage practice, is any issue of the union, by being arranged or purchased, via outside means, to fulfil the pretence of family life, going to insist those same children be forced to pretend, from birth, that their acting parents are indeed their biolgical makers? And if we regard relationships of this nature already taking place, are those children to be denied the right to know who is their true biological family. The woman or man who donated the seed of life to them, washed from any knowledge or access as if they didn’t exist? Isn’t that unfair to the child in the extreme and the prospective basis for human distress in later years? I can predict law suits coming out of the ears here.
I agree with you Maude.
One can foresee what would happen in Parliament. The bill in both houses would be highly contentious even going to a third reading. Added to the difficulty would be that a programmed bill would set time at a premium. If the bill managed to get through to committee, Parliament would resort to form. Clauses that were contentious would be stated in highly subjective terms as a cop out leaving clarification to the courts.
This is assuming the bill ever receives royal assent.
On Jan 1, 2009 the Vatican decided that it would no longer automatically adopt laws passed by the Italian parliament. All Italian laws would be examined one by one before they were adopted.
“Vatican legal experts say there are too many laws in Italian civil and criminal codes, and that they frequently conflict with Church principles…If Italy were to legalise same sex marriages or euthanasia, for example, the Vatican would now be able to refuse to recognise that.”
The head of the Church of England and the Head of State are combined in the office of regent. The regent does not have the luxury of the Holy See in being able to divorce British civil and criminal code.
The Coronation Oath requires the regent to:
“maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law […] and […] preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm and to the churches committed to their charge all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them” 1689 Act.
This is a restatement of Magna Carta: “…our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.” Does the head of the English Church have the right to refuse royal assent if the nature of the bill offends spiritually the royal conscience?
The regent is also bound to preserve the Presbyterian Church in Scotland and its values as though it were the English Church?
The monarchy is prospectively under attack by both the Scottish and English Parliaments and a constitutional crisis is brewing. What is being attempted is the separation of state from church by the immorality of modernity.
Ref: Vatican divorces from Italian law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7807501.stm
Commons: The Coronation Oath
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00435.pdf
British Library: Translation of Magna Carta
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html
And here is a comment by the openly gay journalist, Andrew Pierce, telling us that indeed the backlash to these policy proposals is far heavier than pretended.
And that Cameron is willing, along with his supporters, to throw the connservative party to the wolves in the name of ‘equality.’ Which is far away from mainstream politics in the UK altogether. It tells us, he feels this is a must for modernity as the party he leads is too old to understand the need we have as a nation for this swing to the left.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2179040/How-Mr-Camerons-obsession-gay-marriage-killing-Tory-party.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
The only reason both main paries can do this snow job on the public is because they feel they have nothing to lose. We must, they reason, vote for one of them. So, that means, it is really a one party state.
The electorate has only one route out from these politically correct, tyranical leaders, which is to vote them all out of office as soon as possible. Choose any candidate as long as they are not belching out the same neurotic, quick firing words they flounder along with, as they try to convince you this is the will of the majority.
If you listened to the Friday evening programme on Radio 4, Question Time, you will have heard the women rush to get their words out, and when realising it was going down like a lead balloon began to panic. There they were with machine gun trail speak of how she was so very sure same sex marriage was the best thing to prove ‘Scottish men’ were not masculine in their aggressive nature, that this policy would be the saviour of that image they have. The people of Scotland were the ones to put this right, she said, so that she could thrill to a dance in praise of them. As the audience became more rigid in silence her discomfort became palpable. And she was left to chatter wildly for too long time, much longer than most. It was embarrassing but there she plugged relentlessly as she exposed her intense dislike of the Scottish male, unless he became more effemintate. There she went sailing happily with one of those, now so familiar, self satisfied female odd speaking timbre, they believe popular with us women, who really see it as further from their sphere of reference and want to remove themselves from that profile at once. Why do these women believe that looking, sounding and behaving as a true woman, is not the way to stardom?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b01l1gg8
Funny how such people who find themsleves chosen as the voice of feminine Britian, are identical to police women, social workers, council officials and busy bodies. All adapt to this odd behaviour as proof of their ability to rule?
I wonder why that is? Must be down to the men around them having a particular fetish for Hinge and Bracket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqNQ5cXCTTM&feature=related
Dear Lord Norton,
I wish that the lords would stand against this bill for the sake of the hidden tears of children to have to bear homosexual parents and for the moral and spiritual issues of the United Kingdom which has always been under the blessings of the Church of England, stems of the Monarchy.
Please in the Name of the blessed Monarchy and the United kingdom, and by taking into consideration both moral and spiritual values, I invite lords to say “No” to this law and leave this decision to the population of the United Kingdom.
A set of referendum should be created to allow hetero couples and children to express themselves. Let united Kingdom have the final say before any bill which would go against their spiritual and moral values.
God save the Queen and the Lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
Nazma, you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned blessings.
The difference between say France and the UK is the separation of state from religion and prohibitions that deny the take up or sponsorship of any given state religion. The same is true of the US.
As a consequence these republics do not provide under their constitutions any provision for the protection of legal church rites as such. Our constitution does? For instance the executive cannot interfere with Holy Communion as this is one of the pillars of a church that is free under Magna Carta. So a written part of our constitution protects church rites but so does precedent in that countless marriages have been blessed by the church.
One of the time immemorial liberties of deity based religions has been their ability to bless a marriage in the hope of it bearing fruit as children. Even now civil ceremonies allow the church to later bless the marriage should the couple so desire it.
The introduction of gay marriage would deny the church its ability to bless ALL marriages something that never happened even in pagan times. The state would have therefore have interfered with one of its essential rites and freedoms.
The republics may be able to introduce same sex marriage because church rites do not have any strong protection under their constitutions. But consider any marriage that cannot be blessed. A religious demagogue or even society itself could raise hostility toward the married gay community by saying that the Anti-Christ has blessed the same sex marriage because God cannot. The gay marriage might then be viewed as an infringement of human rights on the part of the state because society as a whole does not approve of such marriages.
Then, Senex, surely this would give opening to sue in a court of law? Unless, the government of the day changes the fundamental principle of church and state and declares us, or, the UK a Republic and thereby, ridding us at the same time of monarchy, otherwise they cannot proclaim same sex relationship as bona fide marriage.
What I mean is, changing our status from a Constitutional Monarchy into a Republic and in one calamitous swoop to the hereditaries, set us free to be citizens rather than subjects by this act. In other words, doing away with a monarch.
If this is so, what a price to have to pay. As you so cleverly put it, ‘the devil made me do it.’
Dear seenex,
There is a seperation between religion and the state even in other countries and any religious mariage could only be celebrated after the civil one.
It is time that you learn that the constitution of France is based on republican values and is the country of human rights.
God save the Queen and the Lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE