Report on Same-Sex Marriages [Part 3] - Graham Wood

‘POLICY EXCHANGE’ REPORT - SAME SEX MARRIAGE.

AN OPEN LETTER TO COALITION MPs.

Civil Partnerships. [Part 3]

A serious weakness in the arguments put forward for homosexual "marriage" by the authors of the Policy Exchange report, much of which purports to support the institution of marriage, can be fully applied to the terms of Civil Partnerships, including the claim of “equality before the law”. As many opponents of homosexual "marriage" have pointed out, there is virtually little legal difference between Civil Partnerships and normal marriage so there is no need to re-define marriage to include them. CPs “confer the benefits of marriage in all but name”.

One of these differences between CP’s and marriage it is claimed, “is that the former can be a purely legal agreement, whereas a marriage must involve an exchange of vows”. But that invites the obvious retort that there is nothing to prevent partners in CP’s making or exchanging such vows if they wish. It is rightly said then that marriage and CPs have been designed for two very different types of relationship and should be kept distinct.

This being the case we must look elsewhere for the underlying push for homosexual "marriage", and the fanatical zeal by the many various homosexual lobbyists in agitating for a change in the law. Policy Exchange appears to confirm what others have already said, namely that homosexuals are looking for a greater measure of acceptance within society, and specifically for their homosexual acts to find acceptance and legitimacy in ‘marriage’ which CP does not provide.

For example the report states: “Equal marriage would be an important and decisive step to fully integrating gay and lesbian people as members of a society.”

So a change in the law would entrench that perceived legitimacy, and would be an important first step towards acceptance by the general public of a much wider homosexual ethos. Thus a progression from CP’s to ‘marriage’ would indeed change our understanding of what marriage is, and would radically re-define it for all of us, and some of which, it is feared, will have severely damaging consequences.

Report on Same-Sex Marriages [Part 4] - Graham Wood

‘POLICY EXCHANGE’ REPORT - SAME SEX MARRIAGE.

AN OPEN LETTER TO COALITION MPs.

Re-defining Marriage – Complex and Expensive. [Part 4]

Apart from a casual reference in the report’s conclusion – “The law is relatively easy and inexpensive to change in this area”, the economic and administrative changes required for homosexual "marriage" are ignored by Policy Exchange, perhaps for obvious reasons to do with some real political and economic implications. But many others reach an entirely different conclusion for, as Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship points out, “Redefining marriage will be expensive, would have complicated policy implications, would have bewildering effects on the English language and lead to further unfairness.”

The change “could cost £Billions, and involve amending hundreds of pieces of government legislation. The word ‘marriage’ appears 3,258 times in UK legislation, which underlines the central role the institution plays in national law. Introducing SSM is a legal can of worms which cannot be achieved without changing the legal and common definition of the word marriage, and other words which define it (e.g. ‘husband and wife’, ‘consummation’, and ‘adultery’). These changes will inevitably change the definition and nature of marriage for opposite sex couples by trying to accommodate these two different kinds of relationship under one legal umbrella.” (3).

If, as it is suggested, civil partnerships become open to heterosexuals and marriage open to same-sex couples then even the leading homosexual advocates admits this would cost about £5 billion.

How can the government’s proposals be justified at a time of deep national debt and economic recession? In terms of cost alone and the additional complex administrative changes SSM must be seen as an expensive irrelevance which must not shape public policy. The fact that Policy Exchange fails to recognise and include these aspects in their report is a serious omission.


REFERENCES:

3. www.cmf.org.uk Christian Medical Fellowship. Article: Peter Saunders: ‘Why not legalise same-sex marriage?

 

Report on Same-Sex Marriages [Part 5] - Graham Wood

‘POLICY EXCHANGE’ REPORT - SAME SEX MARRIAGE.

AN OPEN LETTER TO COALITION MPs.

The Ideological Divide. [Part 5]

This lies at the very centre of the deep divisions between the government and advocates of homosexual "marriage" on one hand, and opponents and supporters of traditional God-given marriage on the other.

Natural law, the weight of a general consensus, including that of all the major world religions, all add up to the recognition that marriage is essentially a heterosexual union of a man and a woman for the procreation of children. “Marriage has existed in all cultures for thousands of years …. One man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life….. It is not up to governments to redefine marriage, but simply to recognise it for what it is, and to promote and protect it as a unique institution. Same sex marriage is an oxymoron, like a four wheeled bicycle or a two storey bungalow)” (4).

Similarly: “Marriage by its very nature and essence is about two people of different genders coming together. While marriage may have accidental predicates, such as the duration of the ceremony, the particular ages of the participants, whether it is a church wedding or not, its essential predicate is the one man/one woman requirement.

This gendered nature of marriage is its essential defining feature. Take away the two genders and you no longer have marriage. Simply redefining something does not change its ultimate reality. Marriage is still about a man-woman relationship, and calling homosexual ‘marriage’ marriage does not make it so.

Peter Saunders comments: “to legalise SSM also involves complex policy choices. First the Government has to decide whether it wants civil partnerships to continue. According to the consultation the Government wants there to be two legal options for homosexuals (civil partnerships and marriage), but only one for heterosexuals (namely marriage). This is hardly equality. Surely this state of affairs is wide open to legal challenge by an unmarried heterosexual couple on discrimination and human rights grounds?” (5).

Homosexual “marriage” therefore is a deeply divisive ideological issue, for the “gay-rights” movement is instinctively totalitarian. It seeks nothing less than the total and complete acceptance of gay marriage and the repudiation of marriage as it has existed through all human history. However, we elect MPs into office to govern, not to promote their own ideological theories from positions of power at Westminster.

REFERENCES:

4. Peter Saunders.

5. Ibid.

 

Report on Same-Sex Marriages [Part 6] - Graham Wood

‘POLICY EXCHANGE’ REPORT - SAME SEX MARRIAGE.

AN OPEN LETTER TO COALITION MPs.

The Biblical Case [Part 6]

Consciously or otherwise, the great majority of people accept the God given institution of marriage as between one man and one woman as normal. As many have indicated, to extend marriage to same sex couples is a distortion, and may well lead to unintended consequences in many areas of life, and not least for children and education.

For orthodox Christians the words of Jesus on the matter are both clear and final, which endorse exclusively heterosexual marriage as God’s plan and purpose – “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder”. The government plans to change the law, but needs the reminder that there is a higher law of God on the matter of marriage, and higher than that of any human government.

In Jesus’ discussion on marriage, albeit in the wider context of divorce, He drew attention to two facts: First, “human sexuality was a divine creation, and human marriage a divine ordinance” (J. Stott ‘Issues Facing Christians Today). By definition therefore same sex unions are a perversion of the divine order and must be wrong for all concerned.