Sunday, February 03, 2013

Gay marriage - 'a policy dreamt up in Notting Hill'


This coming week will see a culmination in the quest to introduce gay/equal marriage: on Tuesday, the House of Commons will make its voice known in the first vote on the matter, and the process to redefine marriage will have begun. Even Tony Blair never went as far as riding roughshod over history, traducing culture and ignoring biology. For New Labour, Civil Partnership was deemed sufficient to establish legal parity for homosexuals and lesbians, and amendment to that Act on matters of taxation and pension rights is deemed insufficient by David Cameron to strengthen the equality.

Gay marriage is the Prime Minister's personal mission - pursued, he insists, because he's a Conservative - despite it 'ripping apart' his party and causing more heartache and angst than any matter since reform of the Corn Laws. It may be a form of justice, but it is appalling politics. Even 'banging on about Europe' has taken a back seat to gay marriage. And it is distinctly possible that the Bill will pass its first Commons hurdle with a majority of the Conservative Parliamentary Party having voted against it. It is sure to attract overwhelmimg Labour and LibDem support, but Cameron's discomfort at the thought of only a minority of Tory MPs voting for his policy is sure to fester like an unlanced boil for many months to come, risking a permanent scar deeper even than any ever inflicted by 'Europe'.

Local Conservative associations are bleeding members by the thousand, with chairmen and other senior officers resigning or simply not renewing their life-long party membership. One chairman dubbed gay marriage 'a policy dreamt up in Notting Hill', echoing Liam Fox's assertion that it is the obsession of a 'metropolitan elite'. Dr Fox has much more to say: the letter he sent recently to one of his constituents not only amounted to an alternative manifesto; it was a true conservative response to Cameron's attack on the natural order. For Liam Fox, the policy is not only 'a form of social engineering of which Conservatives should be instinctively wary', it is 'divisive, ill thought through and constitutionally wrong'. It is time for him to return to the front line. 'The principle of altering the accepted legal status of the majority of the population in order to satisfy what appears to be a very small, if vocal, minority is not a good basis on which to build a tolerant and stable society', he wrote.

But the constitutional dimension is of no consequence at all to David Cameron: the implications for the Church of England and the Royal Family go right over his head. Everyone knows that the Bill is a dog's breakfast of 'quadruple locks', random exemptions, religious straitjackets and fake assertions of equality. Anyone with half a brain will understand that its religious assurances are provisional and its locks are eminently pickable. Equality is the new inviolable state orthodoxy: there can be no lasting exemptions, no conscience considerations and no organisational opt-outs. All must conform, or face the consequences of inquisition and suffer the same historic fate of all heretics.

And so the Christian solidiers have been mobilised: meddlesone (and/or turbulent) priests are confronting the Prime Minister, and the churches are 'briefing' MPs. For the Church of England, there is concern for the 'uncertain and unforeseen consequences for wider society and the common good when marriage is redefined in gender-neutral terms'. For the Church of Rome, there is opposition to a policy which 'fundamentally seeks to break the existing legal link between the institution of marriage and sexual exclusivity, loyalty and responsibility for the children of the marriage'. Both reports merit reading in their entirety.

As far as His Grace knows, Liam Fox's letter has not been published in its entirety, so here it is (click to enlarge). If you can't be bothered to read the bigoted views of the tedious clerics, here's one Conservative politician whose observations and warnings merit very serious consideration indeed:

73 Comments:

Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's hard to see what Cameron can actually do now, other than allow himself to be pushed out of office. A U-turn at this point will make him look worse than ever. Even I agree that it's a bit of a lash-up as far as the law is concerned. I'm left hoping that the loose ends will get tied up properly as time goes on.

3 February 2013 at 10:16  
Blogger Flossie said...

Conservative Association chairmen are at this very moment on their way to Downing Street to present a letter of protest to David Cameron.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/02/03/tory-constituency-chairmen-present-letter-to-no-10-on-gay-marriage/

3 February 2013 at 10:38  
Blogger Damian said...

Local Conservative associations are bleeding members by the thousand, with chairmen and other senior officers resigning or simply not renewing their life-long party membership.

Best news I have heard for a while, let's hope it is the end for the treacherous Tory party.

3 February 2013 at 10:39  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

YG

Cameron is becoming a pastiche of Will Hutton or even Shirley Williams - wrong about everything all of the time. It takes skill to be so idiotic - bravo!


@Damien - well you're safe in Stockport, pop a red rosette on a donkey and it'll win because the natives don't really like working, do they? Mind you, having never tried it, I doubt they know.

3 February 2013 at 11:11  
Blogger bluedog said...

It really is quite remarkable, Your Grace.

There must surely come a point when Cameron's facade of confidence and bluster evaporates and he confronts reality. He faces certain oblivion on two fronts, his own political career and that of the Conservative Party. There will be no second coming for either.

As many of your communicants have been saying for years now, Cameron is completely out of touch with the world outside a very small strata. The same can probably be said for Milipede and most certainly for Clegg, a third rater if ever there was one. Only Farage has developed a career outside politics before being elected. There seems no easy solution to the risks inherent in the Westminster system that permits such complete naifs to achieve high office.

It is frankly shocking that the head of department at the Office of National Statistics has had to write to Dave explaining to him the precise difference between a government budget deficit and aggregate government debt. As communicant Naomi King informed us, Cameron appeared to be lying about the UK's debts. But it wasn't a lie, it was ignorance, Cameron didn't know what he was talking about. One can only speculate on proceedings at cabinet meetings where the budget papers are presented. Perhaps Dave just plays Ninja Turtle on his iphone under the table until the whole thing goes away.

And this is the man who goes in to bat for the UK at the EU!

As AIB has said, PPE ain't what it was.

3 February 2013 at 11:25  
Blogger raggedclown said...

It's amusing to hear Conservatives bleat and whine about elitism; I thought they were in favour of that sort of thing. Besides, this is merely a semantic slur, because marriage equality has the support of the overwhelming majority of the public.

You know it's inevitable, but can you grin and bear it, and maintain a little dignity? No. Never mind, the rest of us are enjoying your anguish and floundering. Never mind, you can always bugger off to UKIP.

3 February 2013 at 11:33  
Blogger raggedclown said...

Besides, shouldn't you lot be in church now? What hypocrites!

3 February 2013 at 11:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

The party of Pitt, Churchill and Thatcher is descending as UKIP is rising and the vultures of Socialism relish the prospects dining on the carcase of this nation.

3 February 2013 at 11:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "As communicant Naomi King informed us, Cameron appeared to be lying about the UK's debts. But it wasn't a lie, it was ignorance, Cameron didn't know what he was talking about."

I followed that up and I'm amazed that he said it. It's quite common in my experience for people to get mixed up with "deficit" and "debt" but it didn't look like it was a slip of the tongue. Yet it's hard to see that it was an attempt to deceive because everyone who is interested at all in the economy or politics in general must realise that our national debt has yet to peak. Afterall, the plans of both parties before the election were based on how they would deal with the deficit with the intention of limiting the increase in debt. Their plans set out the expected deficit and debt over the course of one or two parliaments. Clearly it's not ignorance either as Cameron and Osborne must have to worry about the failure to impose sufficient austerity or create enough growth to handle the problem.

3 February 2013 at 11:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Raggedclown: "[...] because marriage equality has the support of the overwhelming majority of the public."

I've just heard Andrew wotsit on the politics programme on TV say that another poll has been published today showing majority support. I'm trying to find it now.

3 February 2013 at 11:46  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well Mr DanJo @ 1143, if Cameron wasn't ignorant he was deliberately lying. Note he did not repeat his claims with a session of the Parliament.

The ONS are to be commended for their action in attempting to restore the integrity of the British government.

Cameron is completely unfit to hold any high executive office. He has serious deficiencies of character.

3 February 2013 at 11:53  
Blogger Albert said...

the implications for the Church of England and the Royal Family go right over his head.

Well said. I am finding in conversations with people that while some people are angry with David Cameron over this, everyone seems to end up saying something like "He just doesn't seem very bright."

When parents who have supported this because they don't want to interfere in other people's lives, find their primary children are reading "Daddy's Roommate" or one of their best teachers is being disciplined for refusing to teach this nonsense, or they finally wake up to the fact that homosexuals tend to remain promiscuous even within stable relationships (and the law has helpfully accommodated this), Dave is going to look even sillier.

3 February 2013 at 11:56  
Blogger len said...

It is somewhat strange that we are possibly entering a triple dip recession, there is unprecedented child poverty in the UK, our banks are balancing' on a precipice' of distrust and some will soon topple over the edge ,Worldwide terrorism, the EU is collapsing into disorder,and the focus of our leaders of our Government is..... 'Gay Marriage'.

Whatever is Cameron thinking and exactly who`s agenda is he attempting to carry out?.


3 February 2013 at 12:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A Warning From The Inspector General

Fellows, consider this. The battle by The Gay has been won, and they have Same Sex Marriage. Now what ?

Of course, they will disband and go home, and prepare for their own travesty of a wedding. And after that ?

We look to the US to see, that’s what we do - what happened after. Well, the domino effect has produced a large number of states caving in to the relentless pressure, and there it is, SSM in place. Which leaves a large number of gay activists twiddling their thumbs in these states, for they have no intention of going home. They are, after all, on a roll.

Their next target ? A rather sweet plum “as it happens, guys and girls”. The Boy Scouts of America, no less. They can’t resist their urge to get involved with the young, and be close to children they would dearly like to have sex with. The BSA operates a policy on the lines of what US forces had until recently – “Don’t ask / Don’t tell”. If it does come out that a scout leader is gay, he is expected to resign.

Now you think that protecting the young in their formative years, and thus in a vulnerable state from potential sexual predators would be a sensible policy acknowledged by both sides. Oh no – not by The Gay. You see, that policy infringes upon gay men’s HUMAN RIGHTS !!

As we can see what is taking place all over the civilised world, the interests of the militant uber group comes first. Every other consideration comes behind.

Follow the nefarious assault on the BSA over at Pink News....

3 February 2013 at 12:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

One of the things that has happened to our society is that these days, one in ten children simply ask for a dad for Christmas. Dave is right on the nail. He's going to ensure they end up with two or even three dads.

The Tory party is assuming that the long term prospects for this are going to be good for them. I think once parents discover the consequences for their children people will turn against this.

3 February 2013 at 12:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We really need more of people like you speaking out in the media, Inspector. It'd be a PR coup for us.

3 February 2013 at 12:11  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 12.09, it's all in the Kirk-Madsen plan. Google away.

After enforcement of Garage comes legal sanction on criticism of homosexual practices and compulsory education for the innocent young in homosexual practices. Teachers who rebel will suffer dismissal and legal sanctions, of course.

The final objective is the abolition of the family.

Sadly, this is not a joke.

3 February 2013 at 12:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0said.. "We really need more of people like you speaking out in the media, Inspector. It'd be a PR coup for us.

Dear boy, you prove the Inspector’s point so well. You are a homosexual first, and a member of society second. You have been swept along with the best of them.

On every board, on every decision making committee, we will soon have ‘The Gay’ officer. EVERYTHING will need to be approved by him or it won’t happen. There is precedent for this, the role of Political Officer in the former Soviet Union. Nothing new under the sun, you know...

3 February 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "[...] and the focus of our leaders of our Government is..... 'Gay Marriage'"

It's not really though, is it? The government has all sorts of things going on: reforming the welfare state, police force accountability, NHS and education changes, election boundary changes, defence cuts, deficit reduction in general, energy policies, devolution, European Union, and so on. You're particularly sensitised to same-sex marriage yourself, and the religious are campaigning hard against it in the media, that's all.

3 February 2013 at 12:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Dear boy, you prove the Inspector’s point so well. You are a homosexual first, and a member of society second."

You probably even believe that too. The more people like you speak out like you have above, the better it is for the us as most people will cringe like they do when the BNP says its stuff. If you can drop some religion in too then all the better as the religious are getting a bad reputation out of all this I think.

3 February 2013 at 12:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

For those interested in the Scouting movement, and this man was one himself and thoroughly appreciates it ethos, the US types who run theirs are so concerned about the stripping away of all defences against the male sexual predator, they are considering the unthinkable, yet on reflection the inevitable. Unable to guarantee to parents and guardians the safety of the beloved children, they will have no alternative but to close down.

The Gay’s response. It that is to happen, let it happen, but you can't go on discriminating against gay men any more. A somewhat selfish attitude, but one we so sadly associate with LGBT aspirations. ‘Discrimination’ is a good word, by the way. It means you can summon the fire brigade and not have several of the lads turn up in wheelchairs to fight a fire on your property. For the scouts, it means they can go off camping for the weekend, and not be subjected to possible inappropriate behaviour by their overseers...



3 February 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. You can’t post in response and leave the ‘BNP’ by its lonely self. Come on, that man, where is ‘homophobic’, where is ‘bigot’ where is ‘hateful’ ??

Really, call yourself a campaigning gay ?

You're not bullying anyone the way you're carrying on !

3 February 2013 at 13:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, all I need to do is stand next to you when you're in full flow and I appear normal by default. No campaigning necessary.

3 February 2013 at 13:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


How sweet of you DanJ0, but what’s this ? and I appear normal by default.. Wishful thinking lad. We tend to associate ‘normal’ with fellows who put society first, and not their own selfish objectives.


3 February 2013 at 13:08  
Blogger Johnnyrvf said...

In 1866 the Birmingham Small Arms company was formed, it became a huge industrial giant which entered many other fields of manufacturing one of them being motorcycle design and production. As the years and models past, the initials BSA gleaned other meanings, Bastard Stopped Again was one, Bits Stuck Anywhere was another but the most pertinent to this thread was after a long ride on the rigid rear models, Bloody Sore Arse, sadly the young male children of the scouts movement of America are not going to have this inflicted upon them by a certain form of
'riding', not sadly on motorcycles.

3 February 2013 at 13:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

May I add something to the sociological implications that Len and Albert have provided?

The Moslem and Sikh communities tend to be pig ignorant of the implications of proposed national legislation.

When they discover that their children are being taught that which affronts their gods and realise that on legal grounds they are powerless - we will witness first fines, refusal to pay fines, then arrests, then exceptionally violent civil strife.

The great irony of this is that it is only the Conservative right and, dare I say it, UKIP who can prevent the foreseeable bloodshed.

3 February 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...




I say blue doggy, your link is damn informative....Selected paragraphs herewith....


Conceiving their book as a ‘gay manifesto for the 1990s’, the authors called for homosexuals to repackage themselves as mainstream citizens demanding equal treatment, rather than as a promiscuous sexual minority seeking greater opportunity and influence. They saw the AIDS crisis not as a tragedy, but as an opportunity to change the public mind. ‘As cynical as it may seem,’ they wrote at the height of the conflagration, ‘AIDS gives us the chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving protection and care.’
At the heart of their campaign was to be the potent image of the Victim. ‘The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable … gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector.’

This, they saw, would necessarily involve marginalizing some of the homosexual community. In-your-face homosexuals would be held firmly in the back seat; no moustachioed leather-men or drag queens on this platform! Middle-class queers with doting mothers were to be the order of the day. The less said about sleazy San Francisco bath houses the better.

At the same time there would be an attempt to make homosexuality seem intellectually respectable. Theologians and historians would be needed to rework the evidence and to claim gay culture as part of the ‘great tradition’.

The remarkable thing is that this well thought-out programme has actually worked. Through the 90s of the last century the Kirk–Madsen plan was followed to the letter. It was more successful than their wildest dreams. Christianity was claimed, in 1989, to be the perennial enemy. But mainstream Protestantism has shown little substantial opposition in the last twenty years; and now the Episcopalians in America have a practising gay bishop! Who would have thought?

That shift has been one from obligation to gratification. The purpose of human life has come to be seen increasingly as what is called ‘personal fulfilment’. The effects of this change are everywhere. In politics the rights of the individual take precedence over the needs of the collective. In social relations, marriage is in terminal decline. In the Universities, canons and disciplines upon which whole Schools have been based are dismissed as ‘irrelevant’. A vague notion of ‘rights’ is ubiquitously applied. People are said to have ‘rights’ to things which, for their grandparents, were not even aspirations.

In such a world it was inevitable that sooner or later, gays would demand the same public recognition as heterosexual couples (marriage now having no declared purpose beyond self-fulfilment – witness the divorce epidemic; and sex having been re-categorized from the sacral to the merely recreational).

Geoffrey Kirk (no relation) is Vicar of St Stephen’s, Lewisham, in the Diocese of Southwark.



3 February 2013 at 13:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That poll I mentioned earlier is here.

3 February 2013 at 13:53  
Blogger John Henson said...

raggedclown said...
Besides, shouldn't you lot be in church now?


I was at our traditional 9.15 service; 60+ of us there and there were 150+ at the more free-wheeling 11.15. Not all of the CofE is in decline.

The NT reading for today was 1 Corinthians 13. Perhaps you might care to read it Raggedclown? It includes the well-known verse:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me."

One day you might grow up and understand it.

3 February 2013 at 15:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Gotta love a Christian who uses the Bible to try to patronise someone else and put them down. It has a transgressive feel about it.

3 February 2013 at 15:11  
Blogger Berserker said...

ONS tells that only 1.5 % of the UK Population is gay. Actually, genuine and reliable figures are hard to come by, but in recent years the Gay population has been considerably overestimated by the Government and proselytizing bodies.

So this great brouhaha is just for fifteen people in a thousand. And of course not all the Gay population would be in favour of Gay Marriage. Hardly seems worth it, does it?

The BBC were at their arrogant and biased best today in World at One. A Conservative MP made the point after being harassed on the dreadful turmoil in the Conservative Party that the Labour party had MP's who were against Gay Marriage. But the ghastly woman interviewer refused to discuss the Labour Party position.

Indeed their are members of the Shadow Cabinet who are anti as well as about 60 MP's.

What next? Paedophiles might find a voice and say return the age of consent to 12 years as it was until 1875 in GB.

3 February 2013 at 15:24  
Blogger Anglican said...

Here’s an idea which seems to cover the facts: Cameron is a ‘sleeper’ (or mole’) introduced into the Conservative party by Labour (or Liberal Democrats?) to subvert and destroy the Conservative Party. As an Old Etonian he must have seemed an obvious choice. His controllers could never have dreamed that he would rise so fast in the party and introduce measures that they would be very cautious of doing.

3 February 2013 at 15:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Berserker: "So this great brouhaha is just for fifteen people in a thousand. And of course not all the Gay population would be in favour of Gay Marriage. Hardly seems worth it, does it?"

That's about the number of practising Roman Catholics in England and Wales. Can we ignore any claims from them on the same basis? That is, there simply aren't enough of them for us to bother about?

3 February 2013 at 15:31  
Blogger Tony, Somerset said...

So what happens if a gay couple's demand to be married in the C of E is refused, and they then go to court on the grounds that their human rights are being denied ?

I could envisage a situation where the judgement goes against the C of E, the clergy in question refusing to carry out the marriage for reasons of conscience, and eventually going to jail for contempt of court.

Cameron really hasn't thought it through, has he ?

3 February 2013 at 15:52  
Blogger Flossie said...

Let no-one be in any doubt about what will be taught in schools. We already have pro-gay books in primary schools. 13-19 year old boys are being given the NHS-endorsed sexual health advice,‘The Sexy Stuff’ which is an NHS endorsed booklet with breezy tips on high-risk anal sex (‘some do it simply for pleasure’) and ‘rimming’ published by the Young Rainbows, a Dorset ‘health’ project. Promiscuity and multiple partners are tacitly endorsed: ‘Good sexual health is about being positive
and respecting yourself and your partners, as well as it being safe and enjoyable’.And later: ‘Partners – someone you are having sexual relations with, whether it be regular or a one-off’. It tacitly endorses promiscuity, and the ‘health’ charity, GMFA [Gay Men Fighting Aids] offers tips for ‘casual’ and ‘group’ sex indicates multiple partners are a recognised norm in gayworld. GFMA advises use of condoms for ‘staying safe’ with multiple partners, in spite of soaring HIV rates and statistics to the contrary.

The Sex Education Curriculum, CGP Key Stage Four, gives information about stimulating the prostate via receptive anal sex.

The NHS-Warwickshire ‘Respect Yourself ’ SRE package for 13 year olds has embedded itself in Warwickshire secondary schools. It tacitly or openly endorses having multiple sex partners, animal sex fantasies, anal sex experimentation and an ‘only you can know’ view of the Age of Consent.

There is more, much more, from the good old Terrence Higgins Trust (‘Out in School’), Brook Advisory Services and others.

I wonder, is this going to cease following gay ‘marriage’, or is it possible that we will get more of the same?

3 February 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Flossie, it is inevitable that the more senior teaching staff will refuse to promote gay sex, and if gay marriage is legalised, that will be it. They will be quietly sent down the early retirement route. Meanwhile, their eager but green successors, the twenty somethings coming into the profession will have NO trouble spouting whatever organised buggery will have them say, no doubt to the horror of the children.

One foresees a new era of Gay bashing manifesting itself in the classrooms. The kids just wont ‘go quietly’ on this one. It is often said that it is to society’s benefit the young are questioning of the ways of adults. The will reject what they the are taught, and good for them....

3 February 2013 at 16:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Tony, Somerset

So what happens if a gay couple's demand to be married in the C of E is refused

If the state changes the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, then churches should simply withdraw from acting as agents of the state. They should refuse to perform weddings that are recognized by the state. There isn't much else to be done.

Look, western culture has become (in metaphor) the herd of pigs into which Jesus cast the demons. They race towards the water to drown themselves. We are along for the ride whether we like it or not. That means we are going to get wet.

But don't fear the redefinition so much the consequences that will attend. This change codifies into law the idea that that children are ancillary to life - that marriage is about companionship and that sex is about pleasure. It obliterates with a stroke of the pen the idea that there is a necessary relationship into which children should be brought. The fruit of that change is eventually going to produce a government that is both virulently nationalist and pro-natalist.

That's the irony. Sexual liberation is leading straight to sexual suicide. Unconstrained freedom will eventually lead right back to sexual repression because of the chaos the liberation has produced. Except it will be a virulent form of repression. In the end, the West won't much resemble the West ever again.

carl

3 February 2013 at 16:32  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Oh, I don't know, Tony from Somerset - one suspects Cameron has thought it through very thoroughly, and decided that redefining marriage (all this talk of not redefining it is cobblers; opening it up to same-sex couples redefines it as a gender-neutral partnership arrangement by definition) is worth it for the sake of "de-toxifying" the Conservative brand, which is what all this is about, because like most contemporary politicians he only thinks in terms of short-term political objectives.

All C of E parish clergy are, ex officio, registrars; certain ministers in other denominations and faiths can also become registrars. If the law defines marriage as a union between same-sex or opposite-sex couples, it is not difficult to see that the ECHR will be able to drive a coach and horses through these so-called "quadruple locks" - one is either a registrar or one is not.

A possible solution would be for CoE clergy and other ministers to stop being registrars - in effect, to stop performing marriages and only perform weddings (a distinction which few in government or media seem able to grasp), but even then there seems little reason why the ECHR could not decide, should it wish to do so, that refusing to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple amounts to discrimination in the provision of goods and services, WHATEVER protection Mr. Cameron thinks he has written into British Law, since the ECHR can decide whether that law is in and of itself discriminatory.

Personally, I don't think religious groups will end up being forced to conduct weddings against their consciences, at least not for some time to come, but there is every possibility that the price of that will be the end of religious groups, including the CoE, being able to conduct legal marriages alongside religious weddings.

The last time CoE clergy faced prosecution for their religious consciences was in the years following the 1874 Public Worship Regulation Act, when several Anglo-Catholic clergy were imprisoned for using "Roman" ritual in services. That Act (though not repealed until the 60s) rapidly floundered because no one was prepared to actually enforce it in the face of public outrage. One wonders if the same thing will happen again - seems unlikely, somehow.

3 February 2013 at 16:43  
Blogger John Henson said...

DanJ0 said...
Gotta love a Christian who uses the Bible to try to patronise someone else and put them down. It has a transgressive feel about it.


Don't run away with the idea that being a Christian believer means that you've got to be meek and feeble and take crap from morons.

And as an aside, as you mention love in your comment you too might like to read 1 Corinthians 13 because that's exactly what it's about.

3 February 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

That's about the number of practising Roman Catholics in England and Wales. Can we ignore any claims from them on the same basis? That is, there simply aren't enough of them for us to bother about?

Marriage is an ancient institution belonging to us all. It exists for the common good and is so rooted in society that it is not possible to change it to accommodate one group without changing it for everyone. There are genuine fears about the effect it will have on freedom and on the education of our children. If the Catholics in this country (or a tiny minority of those Catholics, to be more precise) demanded a change on this level, they would (quite rightly) be laughed at.

Similarly, Muslims could argue for polygamy, but no one will listen to them. Hence, it is evident, that this is not about equality. It is about Dave trying to look modern and trendy.

3 February 2013 at 17:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I think gay 'marriage' may be an opportunity for the Church. It is really the state that is withdrawing from marriage (you only have to look at the Bill to see the exceptions necessary for homosexuals). What will be left is 'proper' marriage (as I heard a teenager describe it, quite naturally recently). 'Proper marriage will be the preserve of the Church.

3 February 2013 at 17:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John: "Don't run away with the idea that being a Christian believer means that you've got to be meek and feeble and take crap from morons."

John, it's just words on a page not someone being in your face. You actively chose to respond when it was best ignored. Also, I already know what 1 Corinthians 13 is about. Many Christian marriage ceremonies include at least part of it, presumably because it's about love but also because it's about moving from one state to another. I'm not sure you've made the move yourself if you're using it to beat someone up about being immature.

3 February 2013 at 18:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector

We see our little 'Icky' victim playing out the very strategy you have posted in outline.

Play the 'victim' by wilfully fanning and then drawing hostility from committed Christians; attracting the 'rescuers' on here who have an agenda against the Catholic Church or who have fallen for the "love everyone" meme; framing opposition to this unnatural behaviour as bigotry, homophobia or repressed homosexuality; attacking belief in God etc. etc.

The way to respond is to expose the 'forum game' and to avoid being sucked into it.

3 February 2013 at 18:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John. Don’t upset DanJ0, there’s a good chap...

3 February 2013 at 18:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see the coven is gathering again.

3 February 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger non mouse said...

Indeed, Mr. Jacobs @16:32 --"Sexual liberation is leading straight to sexual suicide. Unconstrained freedom will eventually lead right back to sexual repression because of the chaos the liberation has produced. Except it will be a virulent form of repression. In the end, the West won't much resemble the West ever again."

As I keep on saying, Aldous Huxley showed precisely what was, and is, happening to our world.** After an introduction to the horrors of "orgy-porgy" (of "atonement" no less), his character John, whom the neutopian-worlders have dubbed "Savage," can only say: "Oh, my God, my God!" (266).

Then the media get a hold of it and: That evening the swarm of helicopters that came buzzing across the Hog's Back was a dark cloud ten kilometres long," (BNW 266). Note the units that AH applied--way back in 1932).

Finally:
The door of the lighthouse was ajar. They pushed it open and walked into a shuttered twilight. Through an archway on the further side of the room they could see the bottom of the staircase that led up to the higher floors. Just under the crown of the arch dangled a pair of feet.

"Mr. Savage!"

Slowly, very slowly, like two unhurried compass needles, the feet turned towards the right; north, north-east, east, south-east, south, south-south-east; then paused, and, after a few seconds turned as unhurriedly back towards the left. South-south-west, south, south-east, east.
(BNW, 267).
There we are then: Suicide in a "shuttered" "lighthouse," no less. No recognisable Church remaining, to help anyone scale a way to better things? Is that why so much of the heading is 'south'?

And us? Despite the warning, we keep on playing: we let the dictators promote the s** game and induct ('educate') our children into its soulless, mindless, filth. The children won't even get their feet on the old staircase.

Meanwhile, (though not quite dead yet) we swing left and right on a compass of our masters' making. And next? Eugenics/test-tube babies; institutions as their homes. Here they come.

And we are "mad" for thinking in terms of AntiChrist?

Thanks to His Grace, the likes of Mr. Fox, and the gentlemen on the new strand ... we 'savages' may yet stand a chance of helping the West, and its young, to survive. We need to wake up the sleepers, though; and we must find more ways to fight.
___________________

**Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World (BNW). New York: Harper-Perennial (Div. of Harper-Collins). 1969. (Originally published 1932; 1946).

3 February 2013 at 18:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said ...

(John)"You actively chose to respond when it was best ignored."

And, yet again, the 'forum game' is revealed . Provoke by poking fun at Christianity and then attempt to embarrass the person who responds.

Why doesn't he just play with himself?

3 February 2013 at 18:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I thought it was a fair comment myself. In fact, one of you lot ought to have done it really. It ranks along the "pearls before swine" verse as a favourite to do stuff like that.

3 February 2013 at 18:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said...

"I see the coven is gathering again."

And again .... It's so obvious.

Cressida .....?

3 February 2013 at 18:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm assuming raggedclown is Mr Tingey but perhaps I'm wrong.

3 February 2013 at 18:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo, when the Archbishop suspended proceedings. The Inspector considered himself at least partially to blame. This man now walks in the fresh air, on the sunny side of the street. Come over and join him - there is no need to respond that way...

3 February 2013 at 18:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector

Play the 'forum game' with himself, Sir. The tactic he uses is unproductive and unfruitful and, let's be frank, is a form of self pleasuring.

3 February 2013 at 18:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJo

Once the legislation comes into force - most taxi drivers are Moslem.

How are ye going to reach front door step?

3 February 2013 at 18:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Is tonight another one of those nights where you take off your fake pearls and start being vulgar, sexually vulgar, yourself, Dodo?

3 February 2013 at 18:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "Once the legislation comes into force - most taxi drivers are Moslem. How are ye going to reach front door step?"

We're not tattoed with G A Y on our foreheads, Mr Singh. How would they know? Anyway, if I were ever refused on that basis then I'd have their licence off them.

3 February 2013 at 18:37  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Albert @ 17.35 says, 'I think gay 'marriage' may be an opportunity for the Church.'

This is the hope.

Cameron's homosexual and secularist agenda offers nothing but social fluidity and unending confusion. Christian teaching offers structure, certainty and time tested wisdom that will renew its appeal in the face of the nihilism and chaos offered by the progressives.

Perversely, Cameron may be doing Christianity a favour, although it doesn't seem that way yet.

3 February 2013 at 20:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

And just where was there any vulgarity in my post or anything sexual? To use an analogy of masterb*tion for your forum behaviour is neither. Both are singular, unfruitful and, ultimately, dissatisfactory.

3 February 2013 at 21:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

bluedog

A good analysis, Sir.

Let's hope the human need for structure and order will be met through a return to Christianity and its morals. The alternatives are truly dark.

3 February 2013 at 21:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Bluedog,

It all reminds me of the fall of the Roman Empire. Very painful, but what an opportunity.

3 February 2013 at 21:42  
Blogger Johnnyrvf said...

@DanJo, ' I would have their licence off them' Now that would be worth watching, you really do like flattering yourself, don't you.

3 February 2013 at 22:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Johnny, now you know DanJ0 is an internet hero, but is mild mannered Danny in the closet in real life. Do stop winding him up...


3 February 2013 at 23:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny, taxi drivers operate under licence and have duties under both that and under the law. They also have to display IDs for exactly this sort of thing. Why on earth would I tolerate something like that? It wouldn't be the first time I've officially complained about something or in fact taken someone to Court when necessary.

4 February 2013 at 06:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, you're a fine one to be talking about being in the closet! Man in his 50s, outwardly very homophobic, never married, lives on his own, apparently unable to maintain adult relationships ... it doesn't take much to join the dots.

4 February 2013 at 06:41  
Blogger Johnnyrvf said...

@DanJo, I was an HGV driver for many years and hauled all sorts of very nasty stuff around, I had more than one license because Hazardous Goods come under VERY strict regulations and the fines ( and even prison sentences ) are severe for both the operator and driver who do not follow the letter of the law; not so Taxi ( mini ) cabs, I knew of 5 drivers who used the same license as they were NEVER checked, London Black cabs are very strictly regulated, but just about all the rest can get away with all sorts of indiscressions. Imagine a group of illegal immigrants making a lot of money from cabbing and someone chooses to make it difficult for them, how likely is it that they are likely to observe the protocols that they hold in contempt.

4 February 2013 at 09:12  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

Bluedog.

"Let's hope the human need for structure and order will be met through a return to Christianity and its morals. The alternatives are truly dark."

We had a small thing called "The Enlightenment" in the 17th century or did you not notice.

You want to go back to the dark ages.



4 February 2013 at 11:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny, I don't know why we're even batting this back and forth as it has no real value in the scheme of things. If you or Mr Singh, perhaps as a sop to your own feelings of political impotence, hope I'd be intimidated by something as trivial as that then you're much mistaken.

4 February 2013 at 12:50  
Blogger Albert said...

BeeLZeeBub,

I think the Enlightenment lasted longer than that - it led directly to the French Revolution and the following Terror.

But that was okay, because it was in the name of reason.

4 February 2013 at 12:57  
Blogger Jon said...

Albert - you said "Marriage is an ancient institution belonging to us all." But the CoE changed it to allow divorced couples to remarry comparatively recently, and I don't see you picketing Downing Street about it? After all, Prince Charles and Camilla are going about, redefining marriage all up in your face and it undermines your marriage *completely* doesn't it? No? Why's that then? Too big a battle for your Church to fight? Best take on the gays instead - you might still just have the muscle to bully them....

Interesting that one of the other posters put on about 1 Corinthians 13. Once again - the clanging cymbals who have not love are out in force. "These three remain..." Which one was it again that we are told was the greatest? And which one is it half the Catholics on here are constitutionally incapable of displaying?

4 February 2013 at 14:21  
Blogger Jon said...

Albert - are you implying we'd have been better off living in the dark ages?!

At least we'd still believe that lightning was God's way of showing his wrath - that's the appropriate level of respect you're seeking, ultimately I guess.

If I were the Inspector, I'd use this point in my post to extrapolate wildly that having taken hold of all scientific and political institutions, the Church would come for schools, except it already has... And look what a mess your Church made of so many kids in its care.

Funny that, isn't it Inspector?

4 February 2013 at 14:25  
Blogger Johnnyrvf said...

@DanJo, I no longer live in the U.K., so you are correct in that this discourse has no significance in any scheme of things. I watch with a detached air of regret that my country of birth has changed beyond all recognition but as the U.K. has no relevance to me you are wasting your time making suppositions of what I hope for; as to political impotence, that is why I moved to a country which still respects what the majority of it's citizens wish, whilst having realistic protocols to the gay communities.

4 February 2013 at 14:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Jon,

The issue of divorce is historically (and indeed biblically) controverted. Yes, the change to permitting divorce is a move away from where we have been in Europe (and I think, away from the Bible too), but marriage which permitted divorce is older still. My views about divorce are thoroughly Christians. My views about gay 'marriage' are thoroughly natural law based (and therefore more universal). So whatever my views about divorce, in the end, a marriage between man and woman, even if one is divorced, is still the same relationship. The word 'matrimony' as the Telegraph pointed out yesterday derives from the Latin for 'mother'. In that sense, divorced marriage is still equal. Gay relationships are not equal to that, and therefore, to impose them is to create a form of unjust privilege - which is perhaps why they are attractive to Dave.

are you implying we'd have been better off living in the dark ages?!
At least we'd still believe that lightning was God's way of showing his wrath - that's the appropriate level of respect you're seeking, ultimately I guess.


'Dark Ages' is not an appropriate term, I think, implying as it does an ignorance of the period. But yes, in view of the unprecedented levels of violence under the secularists, there were certainly ways in which were better off then.

4 February 2013 at 14:46  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well said, Albert (14:46): 'Dark Ages' is not an appropriate term, I think, implying as it does an ignorance of the period. But yes, in view of the unprecedented levels of violence under the secularists, there were certainly ways in which were better off then.

Anybody who understands anything about it understands that we presently live in a comparatively Darker Age. We can extend human lifespan --- but for what? And we kill our own --- for what?

If our people today knew how to exercise the intellect, talent, and courage that characterised our ancestors, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. Instead of letting them destroy what's left of our heritage and freedoms, we'd be taking steps to preserve and build upon them. Why, we'd even be able to do brilliant things with our own language.

4 February 2013 at 21:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you, Non mouse,

Our technological and scientific achievements (which are marvellous) mask the moral and spiritual poverty of this age.

4 February 2013 at 22:35  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older