Enter your email address to subscribe:

Monday, 4 February 2013

Gay marriage: government's argument in tatters

... and yet, the bill is still likely to be passed in the House tomorrow because all parties have stuffed their ranks with gay MPs - thanks to A-lists they've foisted on their associations.

Paul Goodman's terrific piece demolishes Maria Miller's arguments effortlessly and adds:

"This bill was not in the Conservative Manifesto.  It is not in the Coalition Agreement.  It was not in the Queen's Speech.  There has been no Green or White Paper.  There is little public pressure for it."

But that's not all. Together with the Succession to the Crown bill, we have the potential for a constitutional crisis.

What if a future king decides to marry a man?  Will we have two kings - or queens?  How would Muslims feel about that?

How can gay monarchs produce a legitimate heir to the throne, unless they are permitted by law to employ a surrogate parent? And if they do that, how would this affect the "hereditary" imperative of monarchy?  

How might we confirm that a monarchical gay marriage is consummated?  And if we cannot, what kind of constitutional crises might that engender?   

Would a gay king / queen be refused holding the ceremony in Westminster Abbey?

It seems to me that constitutional crisis is exactly what Clegg and his fellow globalists are trying to achieve:  destroy the monarchy and thus, the underpinning of our peculiar brand of parliamentary democracy.  
 
Notice how many recent bills have also made amendments to our Bill of Rights and other constitutional documents. 
 
These people want to destroy the nation state.  Britain and the US are the strongest nation states and they are both under unprecedented constitutional attack. 

As Hugh_Oxford comments:

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. 
In so doing, the state will have massively expanded. Rather than being subservient to and respectful of biological and anthropological reality, it will become its master and arbiter. It's a huge paradigm shift in the relation of the state, individuals and society. 
This should be enough to frighten anyone, religious or not, and all people who care about freedom and liberty should fight it tooth and nail.

Conservatives threaten to withhold their votes in the EU Parliament elections in 2015, or the GE in 2015.  But if the constitutional wreckers get their way and this bill passes, the damage will already have been done.  The government will have enabled itself to do pretty much anything to anybody it chooses.

By all means, threaten to withhold your vote - but we need to do a whole lot more than that, and quickly.

2 comments:

James Strong said...

I don't care about how muslims feel about 2 kings; I don't care about their opinions on anything at all because I loathe and despise their religion.

Leaving that now, because it's not the major point, what conmcerns me is the deceit practised on the electorate by the politicians. I've got no strong opinion about gay marriage, but I agree with you that Cameron has known for some time that he wanted to do this, but deliberately kept it out of the manifesto and discussion in the public sphere. That, to me, is a matter of huge importance. And it must lead to the question of what else he wants to do or plans to do that he has chosen to keep the voters in the dark about.

Fausty said...

Agree entirely, James. It looks like they're going to get away with it, too - unless we hold their feet to the fire.

It shocked me to learn from the HoC proceedings (last week, I think) that polygamy is already legal in the UK.

Related Posts with Thumbnails