Monday, February 04, 2013

Cameron’s gay marriage hypocrisy


From Brother Ivo:

When Brother Ivo wrote a while ago on the subject of hypocrisy, he was upbraided by some for not having addressed the bigger issues of the day. In this busy world, it is easy to forget the wisdom of the Book of Ecclesiastes:
To everything there is a season... a time to keep silence and a time to speak.
His Grace established this august blog to provide intelligent thought and to offer an opportunity to comment upon issues from perspectives that struggle to be heard in other media. The corollary to this is that he and others need time to develop ideas in their own time and at their own pace, and it is partly for this reason that, from time to time, Brother Ivo is happy to afford His Grace a measure of space to refresh himself after the punishing burden of the past seven years.

The ‘hypocrisy’ post interested many readers, although others decided to go off on a frolic of their own about gay marriage. There is some conjunction between the two, and now might be a good time to consider it.

The piece called for greater kindness towards hypocrites. Very few of us will escape that charge before God, and if we shall need mercy then, we might be a little reticent to ‘heave half a brick’ at those we currently perceive to be more guilty than ourselves.

There is however a duty to correct, but it should be offered to others with measured kindness as we in due course shall hope to learn of our faults before God:
O Lord, correct me, but with judgement; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing (Jer 10.24; Ps 6.1).
And so it comes that we should hope that our Prime Minister, Brother David, shall have his attention drawn by his surveyors of the social media to this gentle warning – that he stands in significant danger of needing the kindness of which Brother Ivo has written.

The Prime Minister has declared an intention to attempt to put down the over-mighty Eurocrats from their privileged seats, and many here will applaud that ambition. To do so, he will need to deploy a full range of arguments, chief among which will be the secret and duplicitous manner in which the followers of Jean Monnet invited the British people into a ‘Common Market’ only to draw them into the ‘ever closer union’ of a Federal State, about which the British people were never consulted; a policy upon which a significant portion of the current residents of the UK has never been given a voice.

Big changes require transparency and a clear mandate. The Prime Minister is right to be clear about that in the European context.

The process of ‘ever closer union’ has been advanced through the collective power of other parties and other nations’ interests. The British MEPs, not least those from the Conservative Party, have been divided and weakened, and the aspirations of a focused minority were advanced with no specific electoral authority for the purpose. Brother David can and should deploy that absence of mandate with all proper force during the debates with ‘Europe’, as he seeks to reclaim that which has been wrongfully usurped. It is his trump card.

The problem is that he will be in no position to claim that high ground. To do so will lead to an unanswerable accusation of hypocrisy, and that is the cardinal sin of the modern age.

Brother David must face Goliath with that potent weapon ‘put beyond use’ as our Irish friends used to say.

His liability in this matter lies in the vexed subject of the gay marriage Bill.

It was never part of the election campaign presented by any of the major parties to the electorate. It was no part of the Coalition Agreement. If it passes into law, it will do so via an ad hoc coalition of those who similarly lacked transparency on the national scale.

His Grace, ever concerned for high standards of accuracy, has drawn my attention to an apologia on the subject in the Huffington Post, in response to a letter to the Telegraph signed by 35 Conservative MPs. They, too, were of the view that this was not part of the last Conservative Manifesto, but the Prime Minister is defended by HuffPo in highly provisional terms:
‘However this is arguably not really true.’
On 3rd May 2010, three days before the general election, the then Shadow Equalities Minister Theresa May launched the Conservatives’ Contract for Equalities, which, according to HuffPo, 'included the prospect of changing the law to rename civil partnerships as marriages’.

The nexus of their argument is that the Conservative Party referenced gay marriage at election time, and that it is ‘arguable’ that three days before the election the Shadow Equalities Minister launched a Contract for Equalities which does not mention amending the law of marriage but only renaming Civil Partnership!

This is not particularly impressive , given the Government's claim to be the ‘most transparent and accountable government in the world’. May I suggest the following email be sent from No10:
Dear Huffington Post,

I don’t think you’re helping.

Yours sincerely,
David Cameron”
If Brother David wishes to have the kudos of transparency he should practise it. He has preferred to follow precisely the methods of the Eurocrats he criticises.

And there is a further interesting piece of evidence.

Those who support gay marriage and say that it was within the public debate at the time of the last general election might care to have a look at the campaign leaflet of Caroline Lucas, the first Green MP, who was elected to represent Brighton Pavilion – a seat which, given its demographic, might have had some interest in the subject, and on behalf of a party that is known to be openly supportive of gay marriage. Ms Lucas appreciated, like the candidates for every other party, that the electorate in Brighton, like everywhere else, had other priorities. She campaigned on the economy and the NHS. Her leaflet does not mention gay marriage at all – in Brighton!

Let us pause for reflection.

Brother David must know that this issue at this time is a matter of his choice: he has no mandate to change the law.

As Prime Minister, the Constitution permits him to act in that way so long as he carries the support of the House of Commons. In doing so, however, he acts not so much in the spirit of conservative democracy as in Lord Hailsham’s notion of ‘elected dictatorship’.

He may secure the necessary majority in Parliament and claim ‘equal marriage’ as his legacy, just like Harold Wilson laid claim to the Open University, and John Major to the National Lottery. That legacy is his right.

What he cannot do, however, is to act in this manner and then propound the arguments of unacceptable secrecy and lack of mandate in his case against the Eurocrats, for to do so would make him a hypocrite.

Brother Ivo might be prepared to forgive him that, for we are all fallen creatures. He doubts, however, that the electorate will be so understanding.

Posted by Brother Ivo

82 Comments:

Blogger Albert said...

‘However this is arguably not really true.’

Three days before the election Dave said on Sky News that he was not planning to change the definition of marriage. There are I think, only two possibilities:

1. The Tories did have this plan, but Dave did not know it.
2. Dave was lying.

If 1 is true then Dave is incompetent, and as even he did not know what his government would do, why should the voters (especially in view of this denial on gay marriage plans)?

2. If 2 is true, Dave is a liar and his lie concerns the very Bill before Parliament tomorrow.

4 February 2013 10:27  
Blogger graham wood said...

Albert. I believe your coment is right - except that No.1 - i.e.

1. The Tories did have this plan, but Dave did not know it.
is not believable is it?

The plain fact must be that the Tories DID have this plan, and it is inconceivable that their strategy for the 2010 election did not discuss this as proposed.
policy with DC's stamp of approval on it.

Secondly, the very fact that the policy was publicly raised in the TV interview only three days before the election, with DC's "repudiation" - i.e. "we are not planning gay marriage is also unbelievable.

Thirdly, it is no great leap of logic to understand that he must have been lying since he is NOW forcing through that same policy.

Conclusion. Dave is a liar.

4 February 2013 10:50  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Thank you Brother Albert for that useful addition.

You will have appreciated that Brother Ivo was reporting the " arguable case" not approving it.

4 February 2013 10:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Br Ivo

Who will accuse him of hypocrisy over Garage?

Who will accuse him of hypocrisy over the EU?

Those who do not want Garage tend also to want out of the EU.

Those who want the EU tend to want Garage.

4 February 2013 10:52  
Blogger bluedog said...

Brother Ivo correctly highlights the crippling flaw in the British constitution, 'As Prime Minister, the Constitution permits him to act in that way so long as he carries the support of the House of Commons. In doing so, however, he acts not so much in the spirit of conservative democracy as in Lord Hailsham’s notion of ‘elected dictatorship’'.

So why not start a campaign to do something effective about the clearly identified problem?

At present, if the Prime Minister wishes it, it is so. Surely there must come a time when a consensus builds to change the constitution to prevent these whimsical and destructive excursions by the PM of the day. The power of Kings was circumscribed, now its time to hobble Prime Ministers with kingly disregard for popular opinion.

His Grace and the company of communicants rail endlessly against the impending enactment of homosexual marriage, self included. But never does the conversation turn to the possibility of redrafting the constitution to inhibit this sort of executive outrage. As long as England is denied a national parliament enabling constitutional equality (that word again) with the other parts of the UK, the executive branch will enjoy unfettered power. A devolved English parliament may succeed in obtaining power over social policy issues such as the institution of marriage. After all, the American states have that power, and the US Constitution is the gold standard on the separation of powers.

Why not the same powers for a constituent kingdom of the UK?

4 February 2013 11:04  
Blogger Albert said...

Graham, and Brother Ivo,

Polls over the weekend suggest Dave would not even be PM if he had promised to bring in gay 'marriage'. So the only reason he is in power now to push it through is because he said he had no plans for it.

How can anyone say therefore that he has any kind of mandate?

4 February 2013 11:13  
Blogger graham wood said...

Bluedog.
"So why not start a campaign to do something effective about the clearly identified problem?"

That process of radical political and constitutional change has already been discussed in depth by a group of British patriots and is expressed in what is known as the Harrogate Agenda.
If you wish to know more, you can contact one of the prime movers at EU Referendum Blog.
Graham Wood

4 February 2013 11:15  
Blogger bluedog said...

Albert @ 11.13, we may shortly see in David Cameron the first Conservative PM to govern with the support of Labour and the Liberals but not the Conservatives.

What will he tell the Cabinet?

4 February 2013 11:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Bluedog

This country lost that chance after the Puritans lost the gains made in the Civil War through the 'Glorious Revolution' and fled to the American colonies.

4 February 2013 11:19  
Blogger graham wood said...

Albert;
"So the only reason he is in power now to push it through is because he said he had no plans for it.

Indeed so Albert, with the emphasis on the words "he said", as opposed to what he really intended.

Of course he has no mandate - but my guess is that this is an issue which will continue to be prominent right up to the GE of 2015.
Hat tip. Watch out for cases of teachers, amongst other, who on grounds of principle and conscience cannot teach pupils "gay" marriage in any shape of form as legitimate - and probably new cases of these coming before the ECHR.

4 February 2013 11:22  
Blogger Gary said...

To support homosexual marriage is anti-Christ. To claim otherwise is to reject the Bible as the word of God. Cameron is anti-Christ. So is the heir apparent (Boris Johnson). No Christian, therefore, can now support the Conservative party. They are vile. They are arrogant. They are evil. And they will damn this country to hell.

4 February 2013 11:34  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you, Graham Wood @ 11.15, will be pursued.

4 February 2013 11:42  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Dave lies quite readily these days. It's merely a matter of determining his historic persona to wonder whether he learnt to do so in office or arrived part-formed for it.

4 February 2013 11:54  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

The "green" stuff and "the big society" are dead politically.

However gay "marriage" makes Cameron look young and cool etc.

Misjudgement in terms of votes? Probably.

Unprincipled? Certainly.

4 February 2013 11:57  
Blogger Preacher said...

Brother Ivo.
As I posted earlier today on the previous Blog. There MUST be more to Cameron's immovable stance on this issue than meets the eye. But What are they?.
The National consequences of his actions are potentially disastrous for everyone in this country no matter what their sexual preferences or religious orientations are.

4 February 2013 12:12  
Blogger Owl said...

Thank you Brother Ivo for pointing out that Dave is a liar. I had figured that out already but some people seem not to realise this basic fact.

His actions and words will not benefit him either and I think that he knows this.

He appears to be following an agenda which is not of his own making but which he can't avoid (having already taken his reward).

So, we can assume that his masters are both gay (or otherwise deviant) and pro EU.

This should narrow the field down a bit.

4 February 2013 12:38  
Blogger nemesis said...

Is there any reason why the Gay community cannot start their own church, rather than hi-jack mine?

4 February 2013 12:39  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Owl,

Brother Ivo hesitates to call anyone a liar but feels called to warn of serious inconsistency.

Brother David is in no position to warn of the speck in Brother Eurocrat's eye given the beam in his own.

4 February 2013 12:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Graham and Bluedog,

It's possible that this will be to Cameron what Iraq has been to Blair.

4 February 2013 12:52  
Blogger bradypus said...

Is this indeed the Tories or is this part of the quid pro quo to the Lib Dems? And, as was suggested on a programme on Radio 4 last week, what is Sarah Cameron's role in this given that she was not originally a Tory and gay marriage is, apparently, something that she supports

4 February 2013 13:02  
Blogger Owl said...

Brother Ivo,

Point taken. May I rephrase.

Thank you for pointing out that Dave's words/deeds are not always consistant with one's normal conception of honesty/straightforwardness.

I merely attempted to point out that this seemingly hypocritical stance may not be so hypocritical at all if one looks at it from a different perspective.

i.e. once we forget this silly notion that Dave is representing us (Joe Public).

Once he has fulfilled his mission (once again not that of representing Joe P.) he will be well looked after by his masters who are also not Joe P but have their own aims/agendas.

Similar to one T. Blair.

Thank you for the article.

With respect.

4 February 2013 13:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Owl

Maybe one should use a euphemism and say Cameron is "playing politics" with the British electorate by attempting to bring homosexual marriage in by the backdoor - just like those behind the European dream.

4 February 2013 13:23  
Blogger Hugh Oxford said...

The redefinitionists have characterised it as conflict between religion and secularism (a false dichotomy in itself), and have therefore duped non-religious people into supporting them.

But this isn't about religion at all, it's actually about natural rights, and the power of the state to interfere with and withhold our natural rights. That applies to you whether you are religious or not.

Authentic marriage protects natural rights. It says that the family, rooted in extra-legal, biological, natural and anthropological reality is something real and tangible, that it establishes relationships of kinship, and offers protections, particularly to mothers and children (hence the word "matrimony"). It assures parents of their biological children, children of their biological parents, mothers of the protection of the father of their children, etc, etc.

Until now, the state's relationship to marriage has been to protect and defend that paradigm in law, to protect the natural rights marriage confers.

But now, the opposite will be the case. Whilst marriage will be devoid of anything related to the establishment of a factual family, it will still be the mechanism for the creation of legal families. So rather than being an instrument to protect natural rights, it will be a weapon to deny them. The state and the law will be used not to defend those rights, but abused to deprive mothers and children of those rights.

So "same-sex marriage" is more than simply an irrational legal fiction. It is an existential threat.

4 February 2013 13:30  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 February 2013 13:34  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Hugh.

Brother Ivo bows in humble admiration.

4 February 2013 13:36  
Blogger Albert said...

Exactly Hugh. At the level of what constitutes marriage, marriage is not actually within the jurisdiction of the state. This is a massive piece of statist overreaching. As Mussolini helpfully explained:

everything is in the state, and no human or spiritual thing exists, or has any sort of value, outside the state.

Interestingly, Mussolini goes on to say that it is "in this sense" that "fascism is totalitarian."

4 February 2013 13:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Charging a politician with hypocrisy is like charging water with being wet. No one actually expects otherwise, and all people really care about is winning anyways. If hypocrisy serves the cause, then so be it. The modern 'sin' of hypocrisy involves the imposition of moral standards on private lives. It has nothing to do with politics.

carl

4 February 2013 14:03  
Blogger Owl said...

Sir Dodo;

"Maybe one should use a euphemism and say Cameron is "playing politics" with the British electorate by attempting to bring homosexual marriage in by the backdoor - just like those behind the European dream."

I absolutely agree.

Two questions:

Are they the same people?

Who are these people who pull Dave's strings?

4 February 2013 14:08  
Blogger Anglican said...

The Culture Secretary was reported on the BBC this morning as saying something to the effect that bringing in gay ‘marriage’ was to be on the side of history.

We have been here before. In the 1920s and 1930s countless intellectuals, academics and the then equivalent of the Notting Hill set were fulsome in their praise of Soviet Communism, which was ‘the future’ and the way that history was certain to take us. Some held to this belief for the rest of their lives.

4 February 2013 14:33  
Blogger Nick said...

Is cameron a liar? Possibly. He is certainly vain, arrogant, and misguided. He and Cleggy, and a few others too, are like toffs who are trying to play at being socially-aware but haven't read the instruction manual yet.

4 February 2013 14:38  
Blogger Berserker said...

The real problem is having political parties. The politician's allegiance is to the Party first and the Country second.

Bit of George Washington:

He had believed that political parties would be the down fall of our country. As he neared his resignation, George Washington wrote a letter to the nation. He warned of the danger of political parties, and how they would turn the government from a group of people interested in their nation's future to a rabbling mob of power hungry professional politicians. In short, he opposed political parties

4 February 2013 14:53  
Blogger Gary said...

To Anglican at 14:33.

These Tory God-haters have made history their golden calf. They sense that time is heading some place, but they are too besotted with the world and the flesh to figure it all out. So homosexual marriage becomes "progress" and Christ is dismissed as the stuff of fairy tales. We have evolved, they say. By the time they figure it all out it will be too late for them, and our country will be an even bigger cesspool than it already is now.

4 February 2013 15:10  
Blogger Nick said...

Anglican said:
"bringing in gay ‘marriage’ was to be on the side of history"


I'm not sure which side of history the culture secretary is referring to - the @rse side perhaprs? couldn't she have been on the side of the "British People", or the "Nation" instead. Being on the side of "history" is completely meaningless. The same words could have come from Hitler or Stalin - they both had grand ideas about "social engineering" too.

so it is now the job of the UK government to follow - not lead. This is the down-side of democracy - leadershp through social trends and populism, spiced with political expediency, not through genuine belief or conviction. The only convictions held by many politicians are for fiddling their expenses or lying about speeding fines.

4 February 2013 15:15  
Blogger non mouse said...

Nice one, bradypus @ 13.03 "... Sarah Cameron's role in this given that she was not originally a Tory and gay marriage is, apparently, something that she supports" The moron's partner is memorable only by unattractiveness -- not by her name!

4 February 2013 15:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Gary,

CS Lewis on the ideas of progress and development:

"I have seen them both in an egg," said Caspian. "We call it Going bad in Narnia."

4 February 2013 15:29  
Blogger non mouse said...

Sorry, for typo, Mr. bradypus -- previous ref. should have been "13:02."

Graham Wood (11:15) and Mr. bluedog (11:42). Yes, I'm also following Referism and the Harrogate Agenda ... it's wonderfully close to Home for me! From the right hand column here, and other items on the internet, I believe that His Grace also supports Dr. North's work.

Further, Mr. Wood (11:32):
"Watch out for cases of teachers, amongst other, who on grounds of principle and conscience cannot teach pupils "gay" marriage in any shape of form as legitimate - and probably new cases of these coming before the ECHR."
I must ask: "How can any patriot take the supra-machinations of a foreign court seriously?" It's beyond me.

I cannot understand anyone who accepts and bows to the authority of the INVADERS. I almost hope to get dragged before them, so that my responses can publicise utter and complete CONTEMPT. I'd rather die than condone their claim to jurisdiction in this country.

4 February 2013 15:51  
Blogger non mouse said...

Sorry, for typo, Mr. bradypus -- previous ref. should have been "13:02."

Graham Wood (11:15) and Mr. bluedog (11:42). Yes, I'm also following Referism and the Harrogate Agenda ... it's wonderfully close to Home for me! From the right hand column here, and other items on the internet, I believe that His Grace also supports Dr. North's work.

Further, Mr. Wood (11:32):
"Watch out for cases of teachers, amongst other, who on grounds of principle and conscience cannot teach pupils "gay" marriage in any shape of form as legitimate - and probably new cases of these coming before the ECHR."
I must ask: "How can any patriot take the supra-machinations of a foreign court seriously?" It's beyond me.

I cannot understand anyone who accepts and bows to the authority of the INVADERS. I almost hope to get dragged before them, so that my responses can publicise utter and complete CONTEMPT. I'd rather die than condone their claim to jurisdiction in this country.

4 February 2013 15:51  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

I agree with posters Hughoxford and Anglican.

Marxism was all the rage, as indeed was Fascism, in the twenties and thirties, among the bien pensant on the "right side of history."

4 February 2013 16:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Mr Hugh Oxford: re 13:30, wow... respect! You casually laid out the core secular argument against SSM I've been trying and and failing to grasp, form and articulate. Thanks!

4 February 2013 16:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Carl,

Well it seems from the UK's political news, that politicians are not above the law. And let us see what the voters of Eastleigh have to say about the con-dem government!

4 February 2013 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Brother. Cameron’s legacy is to go down in Conservative history next to another traitor – Heath. Even Chamberlain comes out better. Such is the fate of a slippery liar. A man whose word is worth nothing. A man of no honour. He’s even resorted to the carrot and the stick. ‘Keep me in power for at least 7 years and you might get an in / out referendum, for which I will be voting for in’. There’s an ominous phrase in that sentence. Did you spot it ? Was it not the man himself who a few months ago said he didn’t think a straight yes or no was the question the British people wanted to ask ? The sheer nerve of the fellow !

And now it emerges he DENIED he planned gay marriage before the election. Well, there you have it. The Inspector would not have voted for him had he told the truth – No No No, most certainly NOT !

40 years ago, we would have called that type a “wrong ‘un”. It said it all really, implied incorrigibility. Haven’t seen the sobriquet used lately. Maybe we should bring it back - just for him, what !





4 February 2013 17:59  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 February 2013 18:07  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Brother Ivo,

I guess that ye shall be chanting evensong at the moment (enjoy your moments of freedom, for that shall soon be abolished).

Well I have voted Conservative in every election since 1945 and I will not be doing so at the next election.

Wilfully destroying how society should be ordered is not a conservative idea. I fear for my grandchildren who are growing up in this country.

In my lifetime we have abandoned everything I have cherished about our country. Now we shall reap what we have sown.

Jesus Wept..

PS -I have no problem with gay people, nor do I advocate the persecution of gay people. In fact, if that were to happen, I'd be the first to protest about it. But the same sex marriage lunacy will only lead to that which is least desired amongst the gay "community".

4 February 2013 18:18  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Avi Barzel,

I am pleased you seem to have finally mastered this new technological phone. I had a new phone for Christmas and I am still struggling with the "on" switch!

I would have suggested a blog 'whip round' for you to have the laptop replaced, but the blasted HM Revenue and customs have put paid to that plan! Blasted tax inspectors!

4 February 2013 18:33  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 February 2013 18:39  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace and Brother Ivo: May I stress another point. The re-inscription and misuse of language are major ploys in the campaign of post-modernism/ deconstructionism/ Marxism.

To that end, communists not only ravage the word "gay," but move on to change the significance of "marriage" so that it declares, proclaims, celebrates, glorifies, and publicly honours, alliances which "subvert" the commmon interests of the majority. This undermines morale as well as morality; it prepares the populace for subjugation.

But I'm glad you are raising awareness that all the claptrap works similarly: to transmute all our Word/words and, through them, our reality.

I'm told the linguistic sabotage is just as prevalent in froggish. To us, however, the process is most obvious in English - where the Post-Colonialists use it handily to incite hatred and resentment. They then turn the tide towards destruction of all things English/British. Bell Hooks teaches how to re-deploy "the language of the oppressor."* [There is some advantage to learning how they work!]

The method partly involves besetting the audience with vague, pompous buzz-words, and superfluous adjectives: for which practice students who oppose marxism will fail any Language class. At the same time, our hypocrites extend the pressure of their hot air. Using its power to transmute material reality: they manipulate their "existentialism," as Mr. Oxford shows so well. Older perceptions of such work are, of course, "alchemy" and "sorcery."

Thus, in playing with the "marriage" word, they re-apply traditional legalities about property and ownership; but they also re-define -- change the boundaries -- fix new limits for -- the relationships between couples; and so, those within the larger groups that constitute families; and, consequently, those between the even larger societies that constitute nations. From there, Demography becomes Geography.

cont'd...
______________________
*Hooks, Bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge, 1994; 167

4 February 2013 18:54  
Blogger Matt A said...

What amazes me is that this is actually happening! There was no need at all for DC to start this whole sorry affair, now he is in far too deep to do a U-turn (which is ironic, given his history), so we find ourselves with the first Tory led government for a decade and they decide to commit electoral suicide by introducing gay marriage. Leaving all the ethical and religious arguments to one side, I still just don't get it.

4 February 2013 18:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hugh: "But this isn't about religion at all, it's actually about natural rights, and the power of the state to interfere with and withhold our natural rights."

and

"The state and the law will be used not to defend those rights, but abused to deprive mothers and children of those rights."

Didn't that actually happen with the changing to our marriage laws regarding divorce? It's not clear to me how the inclusion of same-sex marriage changes anything more than that.

4 February 2013 19:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Brother Ivo: "The ‘hypocrisy’ post interested many readers, although others decided to go off on a frolic of their own about gay marriage."

You could write about the inquities of the traffic warden system and that would still happen. It might not be apparent but the blog owner pays me to be a Lightning Rod so that everyone can get it out of their system on a daily basis.

4 February 2013 19:15  
Blogger John Chater said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 February 2013 19:21  
Blogger John Chater said...

I wrote the following to my MP, after receiving a letter from him informing me he will vote for the change. Not that it will make a difference of course:

"Whilst appreciating your reply, it doesn't really address my concerns nor answer the basic question as to why such a profound change should be made now, at the behest of a small minority of the population who, for reasons I do not entirely understand, have obtained a position of leverage that is disproportionate to say the least.

"My objection is not religious as much as a cultural, traditional, historic and logical one. Marriage is a union that requires sexual intercourse (as defined in legislation). To allow homosexuals to be married will not be achievable by 'redefining' marriage, but will require the removal of sexual intercourse from the meaning and definition of the union. The effect will be to turn marriage into a civil partnership (where no such imperative exists) and the ending of marriage as it has been understood and practiced for centuries.

"This is also not a gay issue - there are many groups that want marriage redefined, but only in the face of the gay rights campaign have you and, it seems, the Tory leadership fallen under the influence of the liberal 'equality and diversity' argument. I do not see the same blind acceptance being extended to those in favour of polygamous marriage, removal of bigamy laws or an end to the prohibitions against close relative unions (all campaigned for and all of which will be closer to achievement when you change the law).

"It is a dreadful shame that you and the party have been hoodwinked into believing that this measure will protect and extend marriage, when quite simply you will have ended marriage in everything but name."

4 February 2013 19:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...




The Inspector is now hopping mad over the past, continued, and the future deceit. Is there no process to impeach the man !!!

Well, there is ONE process that can be followed. Her Majesty to instruct the General officer commanding the Brigade of Guards to encircle parliament, and to go in and arrest HER prime minister. Bring him to the palace and throw him at her feet. He can then confess before our sovereign monarch whom he serves, and explain exactly why he is queering marriage. Afterwards, to be confined to the Tower. 10 years should do it.

It comes to something when
fellow is that annoyed he has to reach to the extreme, I can tell you !!





4 February 2013 19:30  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Cranmer must be handing out cracking salaries these days.

4 February 2013 19:36  
Blogger len said...

Cameron is pursuing a policy that has not been disclosed to the electorate or even to his own Party.

This is painfully obvious but the question is why?.Is there a 'bigger picture involved'?.

The EU was advanced by stealth and those who set it up knew they could only bring about a federal Europe by deception.Is Cameron part of a plot to destroy Christianity as it stands in the way of a multicultural multi faith European Community?.Cameron is said to 'do God'but seems to have no conception what Christianity is about.

One can only ponder.

4 February 2013 19:42  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I don't really know, but cousin Louise has been summoned to do Jury service! And she hasn't done anything wrong, but if she doesn't turn up she'll get a £1,000 fine! Really worried. We've tried to get hold of brother Shlomo, but his phone just keeps going to 'voicemail'.

4 February 2013 19:45  
Blogger non mouse said...

cont'd...

Derrida notwithstanding (or not), it's worth noting the extent to which this 'filosofy' (often franco-german) springs from those who in some way focus on homosexuality. The list extends through Nietzsche, Freud, Lacan, Zizek, de Beauvoir, Deleuze and Guattari, etc. Why, thanks to Foucault, there's even a section devoted to "Queer Theory."

For anyone who has to face the field from which the warriors rise, the substance of their bombast is frequently nauseating. It's reminiscent of Baudelaire, whom many of them admire; and it evokes the application: 'There's deadly evil here that softer falls that petals from "Fleurs du Mal" upon the grass' (pace [I mean that] Tennyson).

This, then, is the poison that circulates throughout the Western World, and its emulators.

Yon Big-'eaded bit of fluff probably thinks it's clever. Especially the linguistic flim-flam; and especially if that's why they awarded his degree.

4 February 2013 19:46  
Blogger non mouse said...

... 'than petals...'

4 February 2013 19:57  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Hannah

Do not worry. A Jury summons simply means that Louise is being told to sit upon a jury, usually in criminal matters. This means that 12 men and women -of whatever background- decide the guilt or innocence of a person in criminal cases. There will be the defence, who will maintain and try to prove the person innocent; the prosecution, who will try to prove the person guilty and the Judge, who will make sure the proceedings are just and fair(and if found guilty will also sentence the person to whatever punishment is given under the law).

This has been the case in England, ever since the patriotic Barons forced the evil King John into accepting the fact that everyone has a right to be tried by their peers- be they nobleman or commoner.

Note, however, that the foreign EU does not have jury trials and that the socialist would model this by sweeping away our cherished rights and freedoms that have existed for centuries! The previous socialist regime tried to abolish trial by jury and it would not surprise me if the current toads in government would do the same...

4 February 2013 20:04  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Have, very kind of you to think of getting out a collection played for a new laptop. Not sure it would classify as tzedakah either. My problem though is not the money for one, but the time to fix this one... an HP Mini... and I'm still waiting for the motherboard to arrive. Perhaps I'll get a mini keyboard for the Galaxy, as I'm overcoming my claustrophobia over the little screen and using the thing as I did the laptop. It's certainly faster than anything I've had. Perhaps you should look at the same option for your device...and as for the start button, on mine you need to press two of them and I still fumble it.

4 February 2013 21:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0
" ... the blog owner pays me to be a Lightning Rod so that everyone can get it out of their system on a daily basis."

You probably feel you should be paid for being a lone voice on here. Some might say a constant irritant. The blog owner would never encourage trolls. And such vanity!

len
I doubt there is a conspiracy afoot concerning homosexual marriage or that some secret mandarins behind the scene are calling the shots.

Cameron wants to 'modernise' by shredding the 'Tory Party at Prayer' image and capture the younger voter. He's not focussed on homosexual *rights* at all. At the same time he's attempting to court Catholic voters by changing the rules of succession. And he's also making noises about Europe too, this time to the right, for the same political reasons.

He's simply a politician, doing what modern politicians do to maximise votes - spin. That is when they're not fiddling their expenses or perverting the course of justice. However, one prays those advising him have badly miscalculated.

4 February 2013 21:30  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Miss Hannah, not to worry; your cousin will first have to go through jury selection where she may be eliminated. Many years ago mom served jury duty on a rape case no less and while she initially didn't want to, she came to appreciate the seriousness and awesome responsibility behind this important civic duty and was proud to be involved. Dad jokingly tried to get her to talk about the case and she threatened to tell the judge on him...and she wasn't joking.

4 February 2013 21:32  
Blogger Who Stole the Coal? said...

My MP is LibDem. The following is the email I sent about tomorrow's vote:

Dear ...,

I am one of your constituents (...).

I am deeply concerned over the loss of civil liberties, free speech, and employment which will certainly be a consequence of the passing of this Same-Sex Marriage Bill.

The enactment of this Bill will not add to but REDUCE choice in society.

This is NOT a classical liberal, open democracy, freedom of conscience affirming Bill, but closer to a libertarian despotism which will delegitimize and indeed demonize dissenters. This highly alarming trend has been evident already in various court cases as you know.

Moreover, democracy has already been disregarded by the Coalition, as this initiative was not in the Queen's Speech and the Consultation returns were misrepresented.

Please note that ecclesiastical exemption is not my prime concern but the profound implications for the general citizen who is not in agreement with this Bill.

It is the educational repercussions for both dissenting staff and parents which specifically preoccupy me.

PLEASE VOTE FOR CIVIC CHOICE and FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.

PLEASE VOTE AGAINST ILLIBERAL CRIMINALIZING of DISSENT.

Yours sincerely,
.....

4 February 2013 21:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

Thanks to you and Lord Lavendon for reassuring us of these things.

PS-Louise is my father's brother's grandchild, so my uncle's grandchild, which means I think we are technically "first" cousins or something...

4 February 2013 22:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Bravo coal thief. That’s the spirit !


4 February 2013 22:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Almost forgot. NO to benders marriage, what !

4 February 2013 22:33  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Not every gay wishes to force through Same Sex Marriage.

4 February 2013 22:39  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ Hugh Oxford.
I agree with what you say. You can get in touch with me via my blog.
http://juliagasper.blogspot.co.uk/

All this talk about "equal marriage" is hypocrisy. Same sex couples will not make the same vow of fidelity and neither will adultery be grounds for their divorce. Since they are not making the same life-long commitment, they cannot claim the same rights.

4 February 2013 22:41  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ John Chater. Yes you are absolutely right. It is the destruction of marriage, carried out by a government of callow schoolboys.

4 February 2013 22:43  
Blogger OldJim said...

DanJ0:

the divorce point is taken. Not everyone is inconsistent here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/7714553/the-gay-marriage-trap/

4 February 2013 23:54  
Blogger John Magee said...

"Cameron’s gay marriage hypocrisy"

What about the hypocrisy of the C of E not condemning one of the members of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA ,for allowing a Gay marriage "rite" AND for consecrating an openly Gay bishop who lives with his male lover?

5 February 2013 00:24  
Blogger John Magee said...

Julia Gasper

"All this talk about "equal marriage" is hypocrisy. Same sex couples will not make the same vow of fidelity and neither will adultery be grounds for their divorce. Since they are not making the same life-long commitment, they cannot claim the same rights"

I agree with you but didn't you see the writing on the wall when the first priestesses were ordained in the Church of England in early 1994? That should have been a Damascus Road Moment for all conservative & traditional Anglicans, a flash of knowledge of things to come. It was for me. I sensed instantly when I read that these women were ordained that it would come to this: Gay "marriage" both civil ceremonies allowed by law and in liberal churches as religious ceremonies. The Episcopal Church, part of the Worldwide Anglican Communion has recently allowed the first marriage celebrated in the Washington National Cathedral in a "Gay Rite of Marriage" ceremony which Canterbury must have approved or the very least known about.

Here is part of that "Gay Rite of Marriage" ceremony which the USA branch of the Anglican Church, The Episcopal Church, now permits:

The Sermon

The Wittnessing of the vows and the Blessing of the Covenant

The couple comes before the assembly. If there is to be presentation, the presenters stand before with the couple, and the Presider says to them

Presider Who presents N. and N.., who seek the blessing of God and the Church on their love and life together?

Presenters We do.

Presider Do you promise to love, respect, and pray for N. and N., and do all in your power to satnd with them in the life they will share?

Presenters We do

The Presider then addresses the couple saying

Presider N. and N., you have come before God and the Church to make public your commitment to one another and to ask God's blessing.

The Presider addresses one member of the couple

Presider N., do you freely and unreservedly offer yourself to N.?

Answer I do.

Presider Will you live together in faithfulness and holiness of life as long as you both shall live?

Answer I will.


There you have it, the first Anglican Rite of Marrriage between two members of the same sex as approved by the Episcopal Church USA.

This has to have been approved of by Canterbury.

All I have done, without any animosity or malice toward by former church, is show proof to all Anglicans in England what is coming their way within 5 or 10 years WITH the approval of Bishops in high postitions within the Church of England today who know they can bring this all about if they act slowly so long as the outward trimmings remain the same...

5 February 2013 01:42  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

00:24
I think a few Anglican Bishops have divorced themselves from the Anglican Church to the extent of boycotting one of their annual get togethers by having a separate one in Jerusalem. I am not sure but there appears to be a faction odf Bshops against ssm.

As for the incident of the gay practising Bishop ..mind boggling and as they say"only in America"
This is not a personal criticism John but your country is contaminating the world through its global colonisation of crap culture and heretical philosophy.. No doubt it is an extremist backlash from the yolk of Puritanism that still plagues the nation.

5 February 2013 02:15  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 February 2013 05:37  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 February 2013 06:59  
Blogger John Magee said...

Cressida

"only in America"

You get no quarrel from me on that one.

If that quote is taken negatively, as it usally is when we say it, it is absolutely true that nearly all the modern social diseases unfortunately originated in the USA over the past nearly 50 years.

The sad fact is Europe and other Western societies eat these American social diseases, once they taste them, as fast as they can like candy and want more.

Somehow I thought they would have had more common sense or self respect.

The worst example is drug use.

No one forces people to participate in what you called "
contaminating the world through its global colonisation of crap culture" by the USA.

The problems for young people are universal.

Family life is torn apart, religion is totally absent from their lives, personal iniative was destroyed when they were children, schools are a failure, and the nanny states are so secure and boring they have to do something "exciting" with their lives. What do they chose? They use herion or other drugs when they are as young as 10 or 12.

Very sad. But it's a personal choice. Isn't that what we Catholics and all Christians believe? Aren't we as individuals responsible for our own lives and the bad choices we make?

I recently saw a documentary about heroin use among teens in Wales. It was shocking. This is what I would expect to see in the USA in a ghetto or even among stupid white kids. Every teen in this Welsh documentary said they used heroin because they were "bored".

Yes. The nanny state is boring.

I blame the nanny state, the collapse of religion, and end of the two parent family for the tragedy in Wales and all over the Western world today.

Where are the established churches amidst this human carnage by drug use all around them? They are obsessed with Gay "marriage" and "bishopettes".

5 February 2013 07:30  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Perhaps we should be grateful for this atrocity. Better the remnant church be jolted out of her sleep by a
smoke alarm.

The bishops' response will be critical.

'Repent, or I will remove your candlestck from its place....and spew ye out of my mouth'

5 February 2013 10:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee said ...

"But it's a personal choice. Isn't that what we Catholics and all Christians believe? Aren't we as individuals responsible for our own lives and the bad choices we make?

John, that's your protestant ethic coming through.

Catholics believe that societal structures generate the conditions that lessen a person's resolve and ability to resist evil. That's why we have social teachings addressing systemic issues. For protestants, especially puritans, and most especially Calvinists, its all about irresistible grace and an individuals responsibility.

5 February 2013 11:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

No. It's based on Newton's law of motion. To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.

My mother practiced it when I was a boy. When I did something wrong or misbehaved there was a fast and equal reaction from her in the form of a slap or spanking.

Those were different times but it worked. Today she and 95% of the mother's of that era would be charged with child abuse. I walked the chalk line and never gave her any lip because of her theory that knowledge of swift punishment was a deterent to bad behavior.

She was raised a RC, knew nothing about theology, but understood discipline.

Isn't discipline part of Christian self behavior and how a Catholic society should operate?

For example. Every minute of every day in monasteries and convents religious life there is run totally by discipline and rules of behavior and work.

On a national scale Franco's Spain, which I admire very much, was not the liberal cess pool it has become.

5 February 2013 15:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee

You've proved my very point. Your mother provided a climate of structure and discipline and this helped develop your character. Furthermore, you grew up in a society with a consensus of clear moral standards and principles. It is within this framework that you exercise choice.

From external control came internal control. It's a bit like the Old Covenant in relation to the New Covenant.

Pray for the children of this Godless age.

5 February 2013 20:02  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

"Pray for the children of this Godless age"

Ditto

We've lost the important virtues of self discipline and shame.

Being born in the 1940's my childhood was not much different from the vast majority of children of that era from any class or religious background in the West and other cultures around the world. It was a time before the cults of victimhood, being offended, and blaming everyone else but yourself for your mistakes and not having to face the consequences of your deeds.

Most importantly it was a world where feelings of shame still mattered.

Shame is dead. Anything goes today.

I was surprised when I Googled shame in the Bible and saw so many referenes in both the OT and the NT about the concept.

That charlatan Sigmund Freud killed shame and guilt. Shame on him.

The confessional was the original analyst's couch only it was free and there was no excuse accepted for bad behavior.

6 February 2013 03:31  
Blogger Terry Higham said...

As a Catholic, 75-year-old, married (to a woman), first-timer to this blog, I have enjoyed reading the comments on gay marriage.

UKIP are the only significant party opposed to gay marriage, and as they share my views on Europe, could well receive my vote in forthcoming elections.

The consensus view of Cameron on this issue is unflattering. Few of you apparently agree with Lord Carey (I think it was) who recently described him as a good man.

This issue has probably exercised me more than any other since the Abortion Act in 1967, but at least I feel sure that most Britons supported that act. By contrast, this process of changing the law has been totally dominated by the metropolitan elite led by Dave and the very divided views of ordinary voters have been ruthlessly sidelined.

Having due regard for my blood pressure, my daughter has kindly set up a blog for me (terencespeaksout.etc.) with a strapline 'Irate pensioner speaks out', an emotional and intellectual outlet that could prolong my life but possibly shorten others. Once I've exhausted myself on gay marriage, I hope to address more trivial topics, such as the views of Prof. Richard Dawkins of 'The God Delusion' fame.

8 February 2013 15:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Terry aid ...

" ... the Abortion Act in 1967, but at least I feel sure that most Britons supported that act."

To our everlasting shame and today as many as 98% of abortions break the conditions of that act.

The Church of England didn't speak out then. Indeed. it supported abortion. Just as it supported contraception and easy divorce and remarriage.

Homosexual *marriage* is simply the result of all these departures, without Church resistance, from Christian teachings.

8 February 2013 21:22  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older