In which I discover that trying to get an answer from a politician can seem a bit like trying to get blood from a stone

As I mentioned here I was planning on writing to my Member of Parliament (again) on the subject of same-sex marriage.

I wrote:

 

Thank you for replying to my email. I've attached a copy of your reply to this email.

I was disappointed to hear that you voted against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill and also that you didn't actually answer the question that I asked in my email.

Please could you let me know if you will now support the Bill as it progresses through Parliament providing that "the Church and other religious organisations are not coerced to hold such ceremonies through the threat of litigation, and that those who wish to form same sex civil partnerships are treated equally under the law"?

Alternatively I would appreciate it if you could let me know if it is the case that you are fundamentally opposed to the concept of same sex marriages?

And the reply:

Thank you for your email regarding the changes proposed to marriage by the Government.

I certainly understand your concern over this issue and appreciate you taking the time to share your views.

As I mentioned in our previous correspondence, I will be taking a final view on this legislation once it has been scrutinised and amended in Committee and returns to the House of Commons. Legislation often changes during its course through parliament, and is sometimes withdrawn or significantly amended in the House of Lords.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am very much in favour of a long term commitment between same sex couples and I would like to see the same legislation underpinning every long term relationship so that there is no further inequality in the eyes of the law.

Thank you again for contacting me. You have my commitment that I give the legislation the scrutiny it requires.

Maybe it’s just me … but I can’t help but feel a real reticence to make any commitment at all to supporting the bill – only potential reasons for not doing so. And yet also, a reticence to say anything very strongly against it. Maybe it’s just the way politicians tend to be.

At the end of the day I’m left two thoughts:

• If the bill were to return to the House of Commons unchanged, then my MP would vote against it – having voted against it already
• My MP is either unwilling or unable to say what changes to the bill would result in him voting in favour of it

I’ll see what happens with it next and write back to him when things begin to move again.

Marriage, gender and my Member of Parliament

Way back on 19th December last year I got round to sending an email to my Member of Parliament (Adam Afriyie) to ask about his feelings on Same Sex Marriage.

I wrote:

I’m writing concerning the  recent resurgence of news in the press and on television regarding the proposed legislation on “Gay Marriage”.

I myself am heterosexual and am married, but I am in favour of legislation that would allow same sex marriages. I’m also in favour of allowing (though not forcing) religious organisations to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

My understanding is that the Prime Minister intends to allow a free vote on this issue at some point in the near future.

I am, therefore writing to ask you to let me know if you are able to let me know which way you would expect to vote on this?

I received a written reply through the post dated January 17th 2013.

Thank you for your email regarding equal civil marriage.

You are quite right to highlight an issue of importance to many people in Windsor, and across the United Kingdom. Judging from my postbag, this is clearly a contentious issue, with passionate arguments on both sides.

By way of background, it is the Prime Minister's view that marriage should be for everyone. He believes that society is stronger when people enter into a stable relationship, commit to each other and make binding vows to love and honour one another. In the light of this, the Government has published proposals to remove the ban on same-sex couples entering into a civil marriage.

Religious organisations play an important role in our society; and my biggest concern is that they will not be forced to conduct ceremonies but be able to do so if they choose. I will not support any changes that jeopardise religious organisations' power to choose whether they conduct same sex ceremonies.

It is important that the proposals strike the right balance and I suspect the devil will be in the detail of the legislation which arrives before parliament.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me on this important issue. You have my commitment that I will give the legislation the careful consideration it deserves when it arrives in the House of Commons.

I was a little underwhelmed in that there was no direct answer to my question. I replied by email as follows on January 23rd:

Thank you for your letter in reply to my email. I’ve attached a copy of your reply to this email.

My understanding of the law as it stands at the moment, is that religious organisations (as well as other organisations) currently have no choice in the matter since same sex marriages cannot take place at all.

Based on the content of your letter, am I correct in assuming that you will vote in favour of removing the ban on same-sex couples entering into a civil marriage providing religious organisations are given the power to choose whether or not they conduct same sex ceremonies?

If this is not the case please could you clarify what other issues would affect the way in which you will vote?

The BBC reported on the result if the Parliamentary vote on February 6th. They mentioned:

David Cameron says he is proud the love of a same-sex couple will now "count the same" as that of a heterosexual couple, despite almost half his MPs voting against gay marriage.

MPs voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill by 400 to 175, a majority of 225.

But 136 Tory MPs opposed the bill.

For many people the voting raises some awkward questions about Conservative MPs and gender equality.

The reply to my email was by post and dated February 7th:

Thank you for contacting me about the changes proposed to marriage by the Government.

Judging from my postbag in recent weeks, the issue is a contentious one, and one which has divided opinion up and down the country. I appreciate the many arguments that have been raised and I am encouraged that so many people have taken the opportunity to share their views.

You should know that I voted against the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Given that MPs decided to give the Bill a second reading, my main concerns now are to ensure that the Church and other religious organisations are not coerced to hold such ceremonies through the threat of litigation, and that those who wish to form same sex civil partnerships are treated equally under the law.

Thank you once again for taking the time to write to me on this crucial matter. Please rest assured that I will take a final view on the legislation once it has been closely scrutinised and amended in Committee and returns to the House of Commons shortly.

Again I was disappointed, though not surprised, that my question was unanswered.

I’m still left not knowing what Adam’s real feelings on the matter are and if there are any circumstances in which he would really vote in favour of the Bill.

So I guess I’ll write again again and see what comes back.

Gay Marriage and Making a Difference

The issue of “Gay Marriage” is back in the news in the UK.

It saddens me the way that people seem to misrepresent the facts and each other when they argue about this.

But, it seems that it is possible to change some little things at least.

A few days ago I noticed an article in the Daily Mail. The article itself is here.

On December 7th, the headline for the article was:

Churches to hold gay weddings as 'arrogant' David Cameron vows to defy Tory MPs to force changes through Parliament

I left a comment on 7th December at 17:37 that reads as follows:

The headline for this article says: “Churches to hold gay weddings as 'arrogant' David Cameron vows to defy Tory MPs to force changes through Parliament.”

Within the article, David Cameron is quoted as saying: “But let me be absolutely 100% clear, if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn't want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it. 'That is absolutely clear in the legislation. Also let me make clear, this is a free vote for Members of Parliament but personally I will be supporting it.”

To me, the headline isn't a fair reflection of what David Cameron is suggesting at all.

Today, December 9th, the headline reads:

Gay marriage to be allowed in church: Religious groups can choose whether to host same-sex weddings

I have no way of knowing if my comment influenced the decision to change the headline. But perhaps it did. Either way, it’s good that it was changed, but not so good that the first version of it ever existed in the first place.

Sally, my wife, says that I am a cynic. I prefer to think of myself as a realist. But whatever I am, I feel a sense of sadness in reading a lot of the other comments made by people in response to this article.

One interesting thing about the whole issue is that there are people with very different political backgrounds – right, left and centre – that are supporting the changes that are likely to be proposed by new legislation. Having said that, the main opposition seems likely to be from the right rather than the left. An article in the Daily Telegraph suggests that there is likely to be even more opposition from the House of Lords – the un-elected side of UK politics.

As I’ve mentioned before, I hope that it gets passed.

Between now and the vote I’ll write to my Member of Parliament (MP), Adam Afriyie, and ask if he will vote in favour of it.

If you live in the UK and have an MP and feel strongly about this the please take the time to write to them as well. You can get contact details here.

Tell people what you think about same sex marriage

I received another letter from Care over the issue of same sex marriages. I wrote about a similar letter here.

I’ve read the words. And there was a time when I would have agreed with them. But not any more. I guess that I’ve either seen the light or been blinded by it.

Here’s the text of the letter:

May 2012
A Call to Action

The Government Equalities Office has launched a consultation on changing the law to permit same-sex couples to marry. CARE is part of the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) and is encouraging Christians to express their views to MPs. If you share our concern about government plans to redefine marriage, the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others, we need your urgent help which can be given in the following ways:
• Please respond to the consultation. Submissions are invited from individuals and organisations by 14 June. In addition, your church leadership can submit views on behalf of your church. The best way to do this is to complete the online form, and you will find advice on how to do this overleaf.
• Please contact your MP Local MPs do pay attention to the views of their constituents — particularly if they have a slim majority! Handwritten letters are taken more seriously than emails, but both are valuable. It is also very effective to meet face to face at the MP’s surgery. You might like to take someone with you and explain why you are opposed to the redefinition of marriage.
• Please sign the Coalition for Marriage petition if you have not already done so. It currently stands at nearly 500,000 signatures but we are hoping for a million or more! Do encourage others to sign, either online at www.c4m.org.uk or by using a printed copy available from CARE.
• Please pray. Our prayer resource is available at www.care.org.uk/marriage
If nothing is done now, we are concerned that churches may be required to conduct same-sex marriages in the future. On the same day that Home Secretary Theresa May gave a reassurance that this will not happen, Equalities Minister Lynn Featherstone said she believed full gay marriage in churches may come back another day’. This is a very serious matter and now is the time to make your views known!
Thank you so much for your help in this.

Yours sincerely

Nola Leach
Chief Executive and Head of Public Affairs

Redefining Marriage
• CARE is very concerned about the Government’s intention to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. This would change something that has been at the heart of our society for centuries.
• Marriage has always been the natural context in which to raise children, as fathers and mothers give complementary role models to children. Marriage safeguards them and also supports the wider family across the generations.
• Marriage was recognised in law in 1866 as ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others’. The issue is not about equality for same-sex relationships; that has already been achieved by civil partnerships.
• Research confirms that compared with every other kind of relationship, marriage is more stable and beneficial for couples, families and the whole of society. Same-sex marriage is an unproven and experimental social model.
• Marriage is the only legal union which can naturally lead to the birth of children. Although same-sex couples can become parents, this leads to confusion about biological, social and family identity.
• Redefining marriage was neither in the Coalition Agreement nor in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifestos. Although they have no public mandate, the Government is adamant that it is a question of when and how, not if. It would be very costly and involve extensive amendments to hundreds of legal documents.
• There would be knock-on effects for educators, religious groups and parents who may be stigmatised for disagreeing with the proposals. It could lead to faith-based discrimination if same-sex couples were refused the right to ‘marry’ in church.
• As we have seen elsewhere, same-sex marriage could be followed by other relationship variations, such as polygamy.
How to get involved:
RESPOND to the Government’s Equal Civil Marriage consultation. The best way to do this is via the online form at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage  
Alternatively, you can email your response to the questions to: equalcivilmarriage@geo.gsi.gov.uk or send a letter to: Government Equalities Office, 3rd Floor Fry, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1 P 4DF.
If you are short of time, you need only answer Question 1 as well as Questions 2 and 16 which give the opportunity to state your opinions. Please respond before 14 June!
NB. Email public.affairs@care.org.uk for an expanded briefing with further in formation and statistics to help you submit an in formed response. There is also a briefing paper at www.c4m.org.uk
CONTACT your MP, either in writing or by visiting them at their constituency surgery. You will find practical advice on how to do so at www.writetothem.com
SIGN the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) petition at www.c4m.org.uk
PRAY using CARE’s new resource at www.care.org.uk/marriage
CARE
53 Romney Street Tel. 020 7233 0455 Executive Chairman: Rev Lyndon Bowring
London Fax. 020 7233 0983 Chief Executive: Nola Leach
CARE is a registered charity: Charity No.1066963;
SW1 P 3RF mail@care.org.uk Scottish Charity No. SC03891 1, and a company
www.care.org.uk limited by Guarantee No. 3481417

I’ve completed the online form at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage and have made it clear that I am in favour changes that would allow same sex marriages and have already signed the petition at http://www.c4em.org.uk/

The Home Office web page makes the following points:

The key proposals of the consultation are:

• to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
• to make no changes to religious marriages. No religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex religious marriages as a result of these proposals
• to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert this into a marriage
• civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a voluntary basis for faith groups and with no religious content
• individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage

Current legislation allows same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, but not civil marriage.

The full details of the consultation are included in the pdf version of the consultation document, which is available to download below

The consultation document (Equal civil marriage consultation (PDF file - 196kb) explicitly states the following:

We have listened to those religious organisations that raised concerns about the redefinition of religious marriage. We are aware that some religious organisations that solemnize marriages through a religious ceremony believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That is why this consultation is limited to consideration of civil marriage and makes no proposals to change the way that religious marriages are solemnized. It will not be legally possible under these proposals for religious organisations to solemnize religious marriages for same-sex couples. There will therefore be no obligation or requirement for religious organisations or ministers of religion to do this. It will also not be possible for a same-sex couple to have a civil marriage ceremony on religious premises. Marriages of any sort on religious premises would still only be legally possible between a man and a woman.

…

The Government is committed to building a fairer society and ensuring fair treatment and equal opportunities for all, including people of all religions. As we are only seeking to lift the ban on same-sex couples getting married through a civil ceremony, we would ensure that any subsequent legislation on equal civil marriage is clear that marriages conducted according to religious rites and on religious premises could not be between a same-sex couple. This would mean that no religious organisation, premises, or leader would face a successful legal challenge for failing to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple, whether or not the religious organisation, premises or leader involved performs marriages for opposite-sex couples. Any changes to the legislation as a result of this consultation will not, legally, enable same-sex couples to have a marriage through a religious ceremony and on religious premises.

…

We are also aware that the doctrines of many faiths hold the view that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and this belief is contained within the teachings of their faith. We are clear that no one should face successful legal action for hate speech or discrimination if they preach their belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

There are many things that I find myself in disagreement with when it comes to Government policy and proposals, but this is one that I think that they have right. And what’s worse, I believe that the letter from Care is misleading and that it misrepresents what the Government is intending. If people at Care have read the consultation document, then they seem to either be telling deliberate lies about what the Government intend to do, or are accusing the Government of telling lies.

If you have the time then please tell your Member of Parliament what you think about it. Fill out the online form. Sign the petition. But I hope that you’ll be encouraging the Government to go through with the changes rather than taking the stance suggested by Care.

Marriage … what is it all about?

Today I read that:

The Catholic Church today told worshippers they have a ‘duty’ to resist Government plans on gay marriage.

A letter from two senior archbishops, read in 2,500 parish churches during Mass, argued changes would reduce the significance of marriage

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113429/Catholic-Church-steps-war-gay-marriage-letter-worshippers-warning-profoundly-radical-step.html#ixzz1op7z8okr

The Guardian mentions it here.

The Washington Post here.

And the BBC here.

There are hundreds of articles from different sources that have appeared within the past 24 hours.

The text of the letter is here. In case it disappears from that link I’ve copied it here.

I don’t know how the people that have heard the letter being read out to them have felt about it.

In looking around a little I did come across some refreshing places.

Queering the Church  which has also led me to the Coalition for Equal Marriage which has a petition with the following wording:

I support the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender. It's only fair 

I’ve just signed it. It’s worth reading the thoughts they have about the uniqueness of marriage and the consequences of changing the legal definition of marriage.

The content at Queering the Church here and here is especially heartening, somehow.

I also found Press for Change which has some interesting stuff relating particularly to trans-gendered people.

The text of the letter from the Bishops is here. I’ve interlaced it with some of my own thoughts in italics. And a lot of people have similar thoughts.

---

A Letter on Marriage from the President and Vice-President of the Bishops’ Conference of
England and Wales

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,

This week the Coalition Government is expected to present its consultation paper on the proposed change in the legal definition of marriage so as to open the institution of marriage to same-sex partnerships.

Today we want to put before you the Catholic vision of marriage and the light it casts on the importance of marriage for our society.

I’ve seen it expressed, by Catholic’s, that what follows is the vision of some Bishops and church leaders. Rather than being the Catholic vision.

I believe that not all Catholics share this vision.

However, I don’t know enough about leadership, church structure and authority in the Catholic church to be sure about what difference this actually makes.

I know, from experience, that in some churches, if the leaders say this the way it is, then if you think it is some other way you have to go and join a different church.

The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the
Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself. Nor is this simply a matter of public opinion.

I’m not sure anyone really knows where the roots of the institution of marriage lie. It’s quite a mish-mash

I have a feeling, though, that it’s more about love and commitment than it is about gender.

We are human … and built into us there seems to be a need to both give and to receive love. I don’t see that gender needs to be the main issue in this.

A man and a woman can complement each other … but so can two men or two women.

The natural reproductive pattern of the human species is about gender. But does marriage necessarily include reproduction? Heterosexual partners don’t usually have to make marriage vows that include reproduction. There are promises to accept and love children but not usually to procreate. At least that’s how this reads to me.

Nature itself is a contradictory kind of thing. I don’t believe that marriage is an institution with laws that are governed and dictated by nature.

Contrarily, I suspect that religions and societies developed the concept of marriage to define a structure in which stable , loving and committed relationships could develop and flourish.

Because of this I think that it’s fair enough to redefine it if the redefinition serves to extend this stability to other people.

Understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, and for the creation and upbringing of children, marriage is an expression of our fundamental humanity. Its status in law is the prudent fruit of experience, for the good of the spouses and the good of the family. In this way society esteems the married couple as the source and guardians of the next generation. As an institution marriage is at the foundation of our society.

People understand that the ideal of marriage is a lifelong commitment. No one that I know of plans on redefining this.

My own feelings, though, are that it is a commitment to do things like:

- to accept children lovingly 

- to be true in good times and bad, sickness and health

- to love and to honour

It’s not about promising to reproduce. Nor does it necessarily have to be a commitment between a man and a woman, unless we choose to make it that way.

Love and commitment are the things at the foundation of society.

Marriage provides a way for people to promise openly that they will love each other and commit themselves to that love and to each other.

Marriage actually guarantees nothing.

It’s the love and commitment that do the work.

Marriage is a vehicle through which the love and commitment can be expressed.

If the definition of marriage is changed so that people who happen to be of the same sex can make the same promises of love and commitment doesn’t that have the power to strengthen society rather than weaken it?

 

There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that  the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible.

I don’t have a problem with this, other than to say it represents an ideal. An ideal that is sometimes impossible to achieve.

In the real world parents die, wars happen and families break.

In the real world some children would be better living well outside their natural families.

And some children would even be better outside of the institutions that have pledged to take care of them when they have no family.

Stable relationships are a good thing. I think most people accept this. But I don’t see that stability necessarily involves reproduction and child rearing. It involves love and commitment.

The Church starts from this appreciation that marriage is a natural institution, and indeed the Church recognises civil marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage, however, raises this to a new level. As the Catechism says: ‘The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a  partnership of the whole of life, by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptised persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the
dignity of a sacrament.’

These rather abstract words are reflected however imperfectly in the experience of married couples. We know that at the heart of a good marriage is a relationship of astonishing power and richness, for the couple, their children, their wider circle of friends and relations and society. As a Sacrament, this is a place where divine grace flows. Indeed, marriage is a sharing in the mystery of God’s own life: the unending and perfect flow of love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We know, too, that just as God’s love is creative, so too the love of husband and wife is creative of new life. It is open, in its essence, to welcoming new life, ready to love and nurture that life to its fullness, not only here on earth but also into eternity.

This is a high and noble vision, for marriage is a high and noble vocation. It is not easily followed. But we are sure that Christ is at the heart of marriage, for his presence is a sure gift of the God who is Love, who wants nothing more than for the love of husband and wife to find its fulfilment. So the daily effort that marriage requires, the many ways in which family living breaks and reshapes us, is a sharing in the mission of Christ, that of making visible in the world the creative and forgiving love of God.

In these ways we understand marriage to be a call to holiness for a husband and wife, with children recognised and loved as the gift of God, with fidelity and permanence as the boundaries which create its
sacred space. Marriage is also a crucial witness in our society, contributing to its stability, its capacity for compassion and forgiveness and its future, in a way that no other institution can.

In putting before you these thoughts about why marriage is so important, we also want to recognise the experience of those who have suffered the pain of bereavement or relationship breakdown and their contribution to the Church and society. Many provide a remarkable example of courage and fidelity. Many strive to make the best out of difficult and complex situations. We hope that they are always welcomed and helped to feel valued members of our parish communities.

The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination. But our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.

Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step. Its consequences should be taken seriously now. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to
the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children.

We have a duty to married people today, and to those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations.

I don’t know … it seems like the meaning of marriage here is being reduced to being all about having children.

It’s almost as though someone has sat down and though … “what is it that same sex partnerships can’t do” and then based a whole argument upon it.

My own feelings are that children are best brought up within loving and stable relationships. And that people who have children should try to make it work that way.

I can see why religions then say that people should marry before having children. As an expression of love and commitment.

But I’m not at all sure about the way it’s being twisted the other way around. Implying that you should have children if you want to be married, rather than if you want to have children you should get married.

Children … and grown ups as well … thrive best when they are loved and when they know that this love is stable and committed.

In one of the Bible passages that I like a lot (and I know, I am as picky as anyone) it says a lot about love but nowhere does it say that love is exclusively a man and a woman thing.

Changing the legal definition of marriage may have profound results.

With every blessing.

Most Reverend Vincent Nichols

Archbishop of Westminster

President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

Most Reverend Peter Smith

Archbishop of Southwark

Vice-President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

---

 

I know there's more than a single point of view for everything.

So, if you’re aged 16 or over and live in the UK … take a look at http://www.c4em.org.uk/ and think about it. And also take a look at http://c4m.org.uk/ to see the opposite side.

And then … be reasonable minded bout this and sign the petition at http://www.c4em.org.uk/ 

Marriage, Religion and Small Minds?

In the past I used to donate to an organisation called Care.

Every so often I still receive mailings.

A few days ago I received a letter, a poster and a petition.

The letter mentions the formation of The Coalition for Marriage.

The poster says:

MARRIAGE NEEDS YOU

SIGN THE PETITION

C4M.ORG.UK

“I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.”

The letter says:

… the Government has announced that there will be a consultation in England and Wales on redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. We are strongly opposed to this …

We are deeply concerned about this matter, and believe that this proposal to alter the nature of marriage so radically marks a decisive moment in our nation’s history. We must do all we can to oppose it.

The C4M.ORG.UK web site asserts:

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

The petition provides a place for people to assert their support for the current definition of marriage and oppose any attempt to redefine it.

The British press has been carrying a lot of stories on the issue.

Church leaders have said a lot.

I think that once upon a time I might have signed this petition.

But now I’ve grown up, or as some might say I have back-slidden and returned to the mud and vomit.

It depends on the perspective that you view me from.

I have to admit that when I read this stuff I was angered by it. Sally has quietened me somewhat.

I had stared writing a bullet pointed list of why it bothers me. But mostly it’s the sense of duplicity that I feel.

I don’t believe that the Christian church or any other religion has the right to a monopoly on defining legal terms, even in cases where the original meaning of the word had some specifically religious roots. Christians have sometimes redefined non-Christian things in Christian terms. It doesn’t seem unreasonable for the opposite to happen once in a while.

So far as I can tell, no one is planning to force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if they don’t want to.

The propaganda that is being promulgated seems to use arguments that are designed to appeal to religious people that  take a particularly literal view of a selection of religious texts and to secular people  with homophobic tendencies. It also seems to appeal to people’s fears and anxieties. Suggesting that changing the definition of marriage will ultimately result in all kinds of bad things happening.

I’m still not at all sure about the existence of God. But … if there is … then (s)he must surely be less small minded than all of this.

I oppose this small mindedness.