Once Again, Britain Leads the Way Down the Toilet
19th September 2011
Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat equalities minister, signalled the end of the centuries-old legal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
In a speech to the Lib Dem conference today, Miss Featherstone will hail Britain as “a world leader for gay rights” and outline a three-month consultation over same-sex marriage to begin next March. This means that the proposals, which are likely to prove controversial among church groups, could be written into law in 2013.
Just think what it’s like to live in a country that has an ‘equalities minister’. George Orwell would recognize it right away, the land of IngSoc. I can’t wait until they take the mask off and officially establish a Ministry of Truth.
And this is a government containing a so-called Conservative party. One wonders what they are conserving. Energy, perhaps?
September 19th, 2011 at 16:52
Perhaps they’re conserving the principle of equal rights under the law.
September 19th, 2011 at 16:55
Unlikely, in a government with an ‘equalities minister’.
September 19th, 2011 at 17:54
A mere label. Not a substantive argument.
September 19th, 2011 at 21:09
It should be mentioned here that gays already have equal rights under the law Dennis. No need for and “equalities minister” to officiate equality. Sounds like a move toward totalitarianism to me.
What will happen to the rights of those who oppose gay “marriage”?
September 20th, 2011 at 06:02
They already have equal rights under the law? Like the right to enter into a contract recognized under law which conveys certain rights and responsibilites and which heterosexual couples have been enjoying for centuries but which homosexual couples have been systematically denied? You mean those “equal” rights?
What planet are you living on?
And exactly how does allowing gays to marry infringe on the rights of those who oppose it? Are “straight” rights somehow curtailed by this? Are “straights” injured in any way? Are they somehow rendered less married, perhaps, their contractual obligations or rights to property abrogated in some way?
The only right that will suffer is the right to keep exclusively for straights those privileges which should be free and open to any and all. In other words, the right not to be annoyed. But if such a right exists, I’d like to prosecute every asshat that interrupts my football game with ads about incontinence or vaginal itch.
September 20th, 2011 at 13:32
What gays want now is to redefine the meaning of marriage. That is not a fundamental right anywhere. They have the same right to marry as has been defined for millennium.
“And exactly how does allowing gays to marry infringe on the rights of those who oppose it? Are “straight” rights somehow curtailed by this? Are “straights” injured in any way? Are they somehow rendered less married, perhaps, their contractual obligations or rights to property abrogated in some way?”
Yes, they would be.
You do realize that if gay “marriage” or civil unions become legal it will become illegal for a church to refuse to recognized the relationship in its services and membership. Churches and people that believe homosexuality to be immoral will not be allowed to deny membership to openly practicing homosexuals in a “relationship”. They will not be able to discuss the harms of homosexuality and its social consequences in a moral context, nor will they be allowed to teach their own kids that it is immoral. In fact, in keeping with the homosexual agenda so far, the goal will be to teach alternate lifestyles in Sunday School. If you doubt this take a look at California education now.
Seems like a big encroachment to me. I mean, to reverse thousands of years of social norms by judicial fiat (in this country) after some 30 states have rejected gay marriage and civil unions every time it is put on the ballot, seems like an encroachment to me. But hey…
September 20th, 2011 at 21:35
“They have the same right to marry as has been defined for millennium.” But not to each other.
“You do realize that if gay “marriage” or civil unions become legal it will become illegal for a church to refuse to recognized the relationship in its services and membership. Churches and people that believe homosexuality to be immoral will not be allowed to deny membership to openly practicing homosexuals in a “relationship”.” This is absurd. Churches are private institutions, and cannot be forced to grant membership to anyone any more than they can be forced to ordain women as ministers if that isn’t their tradition. A mountain out of a molehill.
Again I say, allowing gays to marry will not harm your rights in marriage. You will be just as married and committed afterwards as you were before. Granting them the right will not take it away from you. You are not harmed, and therefore have no “standing”.
“I mean, to reverse thousands of years of social norms by judicial fiat…” Which is exactly what happened with slavery and women’s sufferage. Just because “we’ve always done it this way” for thousands of years doesn’t ipso facto render it just or right.
September 21st, 2011 at 14:49
“This is absurd. Churches are private institutions, and cannot be forced to grant membership to anyone any more than they can be forced to ordain women as ministers if that isn’t their tradition. A mountain out of a molehill.”
You live on the border with Canada and you still think this is absurd… I know of pastors in jail in Canada for teaching homosexuality was immoral.
You are kidding yourself.
The Boy Scouts are a private organization too.
September 21st, 2011 at 14:51
“This is absurd. Churches are private institutions, and cannot be forced to grant membership to anyone any more than they can be forced to ordain women as ministers if that isn’t their tradition. A mountain out of a molehill.”
You live on the border with Canada and you still think this is absurd… I know of pastors in jail in Canada for teaching homosexuality was immoral.
You are kidding yourself.
The Boy Scouts are a private organization too.