These seven articles (parts) have been used with the report author's written permission.
AN OPEN LETTER TO COALITION MPs.
With much of the moslem middle east in violent political
upheaval, turmoil or in flames, and with the Eurozone and several western
countries in economic free fall, it beggars belief that same sex marriage can
feature as a priority at all in any government’s legislative programme.
Many will find it depressing that at such a time our
government can engage in the distraction of an ideological theory for
redefining and reshaping marriage. More so as current policy to promote
homosexual "marriage" is driven by only a tiny minority, within a
minority, of the homosexual community in the UK. In pursuit of this arbitrary
policy this coalition government is about to degrade, devalue, and
depersonalise marriage.
That is certainly to radically re-define it. Everyone is
free to love whom they like but not to redefine marriage because to redefine it
is to destroy it. Marriage's fundamental essence to bind husbands and wives
together for the protection of their children and their elderly relatives will
be gone for ever. Behind much of the government’s policy is The Conservative Party’s
‘think tank’ ‘Policy Exchange’ report of 60 pages prepared by Lord Ashcroft
which attempts to justify homosexual "marriage". It offers a view
that a “conservative case” in favour of reform has emerged on this issue. The
title of this report itself is risible - ‘What’s In A Name? Is There A Case for
Equal Marriage?’ (1).
As an apologetic for the value of marriage in general much
of the report makes a very fair and reasonable case, but regretfully in many
instances the references to ‘marriage’ in it assume a same sex relationship. It
is decision based evidence gathering not evidence based decision making.
Likewise the report's many references to “equal” is also
deceptive, accentuating as it does a perceived inequality between heterosexuals
and homosexuals in relation to marriage, which it claims needs to be redressed.
The wrong inference drawn is that marriage as an institution is denied to
homosexuals resulting in injustice, and it is this sense of grievance which
mars much of some well reasoned discussion in the paper.
For example it
asserts: “there is not a compelling reason to shut out ‘gays’ and lesbian
people from the benefits that marriage provides. Or - “there is still a case
for equality before the law”. Again, “we do not believe that somebody’s
sexuality is a justifiable reason to prevent them from marrying the person they
love”.
These claims perpetuate the myth that homosexuals are denied access to
marriage, when what is really meant is marriage to one another!
REFERENCES:
1. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk.
2. Clashdaily.com. Article by Jennifer Thieme: “The Roe v
Wade of our time – The battle over
Marriage.”
No comments:
Post a Comment