This week has seen the publication of the Government’s Consultation on Marriage, and it calls for comment. The issue of extending marriage to encompass same sex unions really is of grave importance and needs to be pursued – its passage will totally change the relationship landscape, as its proponents realise only too well. It’s a point of no return.
A week or so ago the editor of the Times produced a leading article in classic free thinking, liberalised style saying that the newspaper supported the changes, and that it represented progress. It has not said much since. In contrast, the Daily Mail, in its rather more sensational manner, produced two days ago a massive front page display with the words, “DON’T USE THE WORDS HUSBAND AND WIFE”, and went on to report that much official literature “must be rewritten so that it no longer assumes that a married couple is a man and a woman”. It really got to the heart of the matter. It pointed out also that “private companies will be told to overhaul paperwork and computer data bases containing the words”. It also notes that marriage certificates could change and the terms bride and bridegroom face redundancy. Husband and wife would be infra dig terms.
Is such a change in terminology really that important? Yes, it most certainly is! Such a change re-defines the whole landscape and will hugely change the future public outlook. The essential nature of real marriage between a man and a woman will be completely obscured and the door opened to worse liberalisation of the marriage union. The Daily Mail has picked up a crucial point in its own inimitable way. It did not reflect on the kind of terminology that might replace the age old terms, and that was probably wise, since the kind of politically correct jargon that is likely to emerge defies imagination.
A more sinister aspect of the whole business has emerged in the case of a senior M.P. who is a Christian, and who has been sent scores of intimidating e-mails and messages (including hate mail and death threats) over his opposition to gay marriage. He has been forced to send the material to the police, not, as he said, because he feared for himself personally, but because he was deeply concerned about the curtailment of freedom of speech and the vitriol that poisons any proper discussion. The gay lobby has, unfortunately always had this violent strain in some of its militant followers. The M.P., Tony Burrows, fears that such activists will not hesitate to put pressure on teachers and others who try to act out of Christian conscience.
The government seems to be quite blind to this sinister side of things, though one suspects that it is more bullied by the militancy of the gay lobby than it is ready to acknowledge. It keeps referring to “safeguards for conscience” for Christians and traditionalists but more and more it is becoming evident that such safeguards in legislation can be easily challenged and overcome by militants. Lynne Featherstone, the Minister for Equality, who is so determinedly pushing through the legislation for marriage change, is not too far behind the militants. She has declared that anyone who disagreed with the government’s changes could be “fanning the flames of homophobia”. That smacks of bullying. “Homophobia” has been the unpleasant, evocative and meaningless cry of the militants all along. Such a remark from a government minister seems quite inexcusable at the beginning of consultation; even if it is in her mind a consultation of the “how” and not the “whether” about change.
And still, at the very bottom of all this controversy, is the simple fact that there has been no general call from the nation as a whole for such a change in such a crucial area. Most people on this issue are sensibly traditional. From start to finish it has been the promulgation of a minority, who have been vocal and demanding in their agenda. That is not unusual, of course, when it comes to affecting change. But it is to be hoped on this issue that there will be a general reaction against what is highly dangerous and fundamental social change. Those who wish gay relationships have all they need legally in the civil partnership legislation already active; the coping stone of integration into marriage is unnecessary.
Pray on. It is so crucial to fight this battle.
Bob
To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue.
Posts
