AN OPEN LETTER

Most of you will know that we are in the middle of a national consultation on the way same-sex relationships might be brought into the category of marriage. The consultation finishes in a month’s time and it is critical that the Christian voice is heard on this issue along with all others
who find this disturbing. Three ways of speaking out are to sign the petition organized by C4M, write to your MP, and respond to the questions being asked in the government’s consultation paper. If possible we need to do all three. Already nearly 500,000 people have signed the petition, and there cannot be too many. Government ministers tend to live in denial unless “blown” out it!

I thought it might be of encouragement if I made my own letter to my MP an open letter in this column, and so I do. It has been a difficult to know how to write this letter. I can’t say that I am fully satisfied with it since it is quite impossible to say all that ought to be said or to know how it should be said. My only consolation is that at least I’ve said something, and along with others who might just say something we trust it may have an effect. You might find it helpful; you might want to make a comment on it; you might want to disagree. I simply offer it:-

Dear (MP),

I hope you will not mind me writing to you in connection with the government’s consultation on equal marriage. Though that consultation makes provision for the expression of individual viewpoints, I none the less value the opportunity of writing to you personally as my MP since you would be involved in any consequent legislation in the Commons, and I do not feel satisfied by the unavoidable faceless and impersonal process with which the consultation responses are to be considered.

I simply want to say that I am deeply disturbed by the proposal to redefine marriage to include
same-sex relationships. I believe it to be retrogressive, not progressive, since it will inevitably undermine the most important of our social institutions, the nuclear family of a man and a woman and their children. It will lead to a sea change in terminology and in attitudes which will confuse a new generation and lead them away from that nuclear family, seriously distorting and damaging our society.



I am equally disturbed by the fact that the Minister for Equality, Ms. Lynne Featherstone, should have publically dismissed the sort of viewpoint I have just expressed as being “homophobic”, making the assumption that all right thinking people should see things through her own “liberal progressive” eyes. That clearly betrays intolerance; an intolerance that is also very evident in the curt, draconian manner in which the consultation has proscribed any discussion on whether such change should or should not be made, and confined it to the “how” only. As many have pointed out this is scarcely a democratic way of proceeding since no party manifesto spoke of this. Changes to foundational, time honoured institutions cannot be brought in by the back door.

May I enumerate three further considerations?
1. There is no legal necessity for this proposal; all legal requirements for same-sex relationships are in place in civil partnerships.
2. There is no national mandate for these proposals. Quite the contrary. Numerous social surveys show that when people are aware of what civil partnerships already provide there is a very clear majority desire to retain marriage as it is. It is interesting that all the states of USA which have held a referendum on the issue have rejected same-sex marriage though upholding civil partnerships.
3. The "safeguards” to protect the continuance of heterosexual marriage only in religious organisations look very much to be unfounded reassurances. They are ignoring a statement from the European Court of Human Rights to the effect that if the British law is changed making same-sex marriage legal they will ensure that it also applies to those wishing to be married in churches in this country. All ministers of religion need cast iron assurance that there can be no legal proceeding against them if they decline to marry same sex couples in church. This is a crucial right of conscience, and it will undoubtedly be under threat.

I apologize for the length of this letter but thank you in advance for whatever time you are able to give to it. I know you will have your own personal views n the issue, but have the confidence to believe you will take the viewpoint I have expressed seriously and seek some safeguard.

With continued good wishes to you in all the good work you do for the constituency, which is appreciated by many.

Yours sincerely, etc



May the Lord guide all of us, whether in prayer or
action.

N.B. C4M stands for "Coalition for Marriage" and its website can be found by entering C4M in "Search". The Consulatation Document can be found on the Home Office website.

Bob

To print this column; Go to the Archive list of dates on right hand and side
of page and click on the date of this column. This will allow the printing of
this column alone. This can be done for previous columns.

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.