Tuesday, 24 January 2012

UKIP SHIRKS BATTLE FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

The UK Independence Party is refusing to join forces with Conservatives opposed to Coalition plans to introduce same-sex marriage, calling such opposition 'morally discriminatory'.

In the light of press reports that around 100 Conservative MPs are planning to rebel against a same-sex marriage bill, Cranmer's Curate asked UKIP, which is proving a magnet for disillusioned Conservatives, about its stance.

A press spokesman told cc:
We are at heart a small-state organisation and we don't feel we should be interfering in people's private lives. We believe wholeheartedly in the married persons' tax allowance. We feel there are other ways of strengthening marriage that are not necessarily morally discriminatory.


He continued, suggesting that same-sex marriage is the logical progression from civil partnerships (a different legal entity from marriage):
We feel that civil partnerships are a fact and we believe that gay partnerships should be recognised in law, particularly when it comes to inheritance. Ten years ago sitting here I would have been very happy to support a position of no gay marriage but that is no longer the case. The party has become broader.


Apart from the fact that a 'morally discriminatory' stance in favour of good against evil is nothing to be ashamed of, UKIP's failure to uphold traditional heterosexual marriage as the spiritual, moral and cultural bedrock of a stable society is tragically ironic. Without the teaching of Christ and the Bible once again undergirding our nation's laws, customs and morals, there will be no independence for the UK but only slavery to what the Book of Common Prayer calls 'the unruly wills and affections of sinful men'.

Those truly serving UK independence are Parliamentarians of various political parties who are contending for Christian values against socially Marxist political correctness.

With the UK descending into the unrighteousness that debases a nation, that wonderful BCP Collect (for the 4th Sunday after Easter) urgently needs to be prayed by and for the Church:
O Almighty God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men: Grant unto thy people, that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise; that so, among the sundry and manifold changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed, where true joys are to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

3 comments:

  1. I am very glad you have drawn attention to this issue which is likely to be the greatest test of Christian resolve and conviction in the running battle to preserve the unique status of heterosexual(that is, Christian, marriage) to be waged in recent years.

    Leaving aside UKIP's stance - I suspect there are not enough people of principle, or understanding within UKIP to think through the subtley of the ideological threat from the "gay" community in their attack upon marriage.

    Perhaps the most alarming example of this is the push to destroy marriage in the name of special rights for homosexuals. The push to legalise same-sex marriage is not some minor matter, nor is it, as the activists claim, something that will not impact the rest of us.

    Once something as important and historically significant as the institution of marriage is redefined out of existence by the radical social engineers, then everyone will feel the impact, and faith and freedom will also be seriously impacted. Thus it is vital that those concerned about faith, freedom and family unite to stand firm in the defence of marriage.

    That is why a brand new document has just been released which deserves our support, and needs to be replicated worldwide. Just one week ago “An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans” was released.

    It is called, “Marriage and Religious Freedom: Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together”. It is signed by 39 major Christian and Jewish leaders in America.
    So it is a very wide mix of Christian leaders who are greatly concerned that the attack on marriage is really an attack on religious freedom and the wellbeing of the family. It is worth quoting portions of it. It begins this way:

    “The promotion and protection of marriage—the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife—is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community.......

    It continues with an important point:

    "SSM (same sex mariage) will force or pressure both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct."

    “These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of “marriage” does not change ONE law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once. By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.”

    These are relevant comments which suggest that the 'law of unintended consequences' will most certainly operate if SSM is legalised.
    Space forbids any discussion of the religious liberty aspect, and State interference in the internal doctrines of the church, which would be seriously challenged in the UK if SSM was to become law.
    But worth another post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Further to my last post on this subject the following is an excerpt (too long to quote in full)of a perceptive article by a Dr.Christensen in the USA on the real agenda behind the SSM movement in the USA - but equally applicable to us here in the UK:

    "In this environment, attempts to legalize same-sex marriage are not chiefly about enlarging homosexual couples’ freedom: they are free now in every state of the union to say that they are married. They can claim anything they want about their “unions”: they can affirm that those relationships are life affirming and emancipatory; they can even assert that their partnerships are actually superior to natural sexual unions traditionally called marriages. In almost all states, Americans are also still perfectly free to reject such claims and to voice their rejection as forcefully as Queen Sofia (of Spain) did—before being cowed by activists and media commentators wielding Spain’s homosexual-marriage law as a cudgel.

    Homosexual activists may plausibly assert that they were advancing the cause of freedom when opposing anti-sodomy laws, even if many Americans view the freedom advanced as morally and even medically problematic. However, when these same activists claim that they are still advancing the cause of freedom in advocating laws that grant same-sex unions the status of marriage, their arguments quickly lose all plausibility.
    For those trying to enshrine the notion of same-sex “marriage” in law are not primarily trying to enlarge the freedom of homosexuals; they are primarily striving to diminish the freedom of skeptics who would deny that the union of homosexuals is—or can ever be—a legitimate marriage. The aim of those trying to inscribe the novelty of homosexual marriage in law is actually that of making an outlaw out of anyone who would question the moral substance of this new social construct and the sexual behaviors it legitimates."
    ('The New Outlaws: How Same Sex Marriage suffocates Freedom.' - www.mercatornet.com)

    ReplyDelete
  3. The point of SSM is to access government benefits. Government shouldn't be giving out these benefits to anyone - we can't afford them, and they represent theft-and-forced-redistribution, so they are immoral. So the easy solution would be to stop all benefits and let people call their relationship whatever they want to.

    ReplyDelete