European Courts will drive coach and horses through gay marriage safe-guards – Senior Tory

Dr Liam Fox, the former Defence Minister, has confirmed what barristers have been advising the Catholic Church from the beginning David Cameron announced his plans for the legalisation of same-sex marriage – that European Human Rights law will attempt to force churches to comply with the provision of gay marriage:

“Any assurances that we are given that distinguishing between churches will not be used at some point by European courts to drive a coach and horses through the legislation carries little credibility with those of us who have watched similar assurances trounced in the past.

“Having narrowly avoided taking the State into the realm of a free press we should not be intruding on the freedom of worship that is the proper preserve of the Church not the Courts”.

Dr Liam Fox also defends the true understanding of marriage and criticizes David Cameron for embarking on a misguided policy of social engineering:

In his letter sent earlier this week, Dr Fox says: “The principle of altering the accepted legal status of the majority of the population in order to satisfy what appears to be a very small, if vocal, minority is not a good basis on which to build a tolerant and stable society and should be enough reason in itself to think twice about changing the law.”

He adds: “What makes the position worse is the way that the legislation looks as though it was made on the hoof to deal with the political problem du jour. Banning the Church of England from what would be an otherwise legal activity is anomalous and absurd. If the ‘exemption’ is, as stated, because the Church had made clear their objection to same-sex marriage then why not exempt the Catholic Church which has been even clearer in its opposition.

“The idea of making certain practices illegal for one Christian Church, but not others, risks further weakening and splintering Britain’s traditional religion at a time when many Christians feel that they are under threat on a number of secular, political and cultural fronts. To fail to understand this is to risk an affront to a large stabilising and normally acquiescent section of this country which will sow completely unnecessary seeds of dissent.”

Protect the Pope comment: David Cameron and his government must have been given the same legal advice that the European Courts will unpick the planned ‘quadruple lock’ safe-guards. However, for political reasons they are pretending that their hollow words offer real protection for the churches.  Why should we be surprised that politicians considering re-writing the meaning of marriage would be bothered about the truth of their words. In their upside down world, words mean whatever you want them to mean.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9793935/Gay-marriage-Camerons-plans-are-divisive-and-ill-thought-through-says-Liam-Fox.html

 

 

16 comments to European Courts will drive coach and horses through gay marriage safe-guards – Senior Tory

  • Karla

    Peter Tatchell who said something for a long time like Churches should be exempt if they want, as soon as the Church of England was made exempt by the government was quick to say

    “This faith-based discrimination could be open to legal challenge. The government is treating two churches differently from all other religions. Discriminating between faith groups is probably illegal under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

    http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/sexual-orientation/tatchell-says-protections-for-churches-“open-to-legal-challenge”

    • Sam Mace

      peter tatchell hasn’t stated churches should be exempt, but that they don’t have to conduct gay marriages if they do not wish there is a big difference. He was angry because if specific priests in the church of England wanted to conduct a gay marriage it would be illegal to do so and in believing in religious freedom he believes priests should have the choice.

      • Karla

        If there are such Priests, they are not in isolation of the larger Church, and the Church of England has said it should not be enabled that ‘all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.’ I don’t think a Church of England Priest can just conduct gay ‘marriages’ in an official Church of England Church

        http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1475149/s-s%20marriage.pdf

        Does Tatchell really believe a Church of England priest can marry who he wants in the Church without any regulations or rules from the Church on who can get married?

        • Sam Mace

          Mr Tatchell believes that if the church of England changes its mind and wants gay marriages or there are renegade priests who want to conduct them much like the soho mass in the catholic church then they should be allowed to do so, it is a question of religious freedom to be allowed to do so.

          • savvy

            I am going to respond to you here.

            “It isn’t about distinction between the sexes, more like it’s about social norms changing which some do not like. Marriage is property of the state sorry to say.”

            Nureoscience disagrees that sex distinctions are just subjective. Your theories belong to a school of philosophy known as gender theory. Your experiences however, real they might seem to you, are still subjective to someone else.

            There is no such thing as unlimited rights. Your rights to marriage, do not trump the rights of children to have a mother and a father.

            The question is where are you willing to drawn the line, on selfishness? You obviously have indicated that you are for 3 person marriage. This is why this movement need to be fought all the more, because it’s called collective insanity, that has no objective evidence to support it.

      • Frances

        Sam,
        Religious freedom is generally freedom to practise one’s religion not dissent from it.

        You are young and seem much influenced by those pedalling ‘choice’. Please reflect a little on the laws of nature. For example.. the muscles of the back passage are not designed for the rigours of sex, if they are overwhelmed it is a disaster. It doesn’t happen often but when it does it is a law of biology that cannot be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights. It were to happen what recourse would you have to those who had encouraged you to ‘fulfil your sexual destiny’ as a matter of ‘choice’ and ‘right’?

        • Sam Mace

          Actually religious freedom encompasses your belief, now that does also include whether you differ from your church on a particular point. Religious freedom isn’t being allowed if gay marriage isn’t, what about the quakers? They believe in gay marriage and want to practice it but cannot because of the law. What about if the church of england or even the catholic church changes its mind? Of course your leaders can decide to excommunicate whom they choose, however people still have a right a fundamental right to practice what faith they believe in.

          Not all gay men practice anal sex and lesbians have safer sex than straight couples does that mean every women should be a lesbian? What about straight couple who have anal sex? ban them from marriage as well? Part of having sex is making sure you’re responsible and safe and if so there is no reason why anal sex in a monogamous relationship should be an issue. I don’t believe that fulfilling your sexual destiny is a choice, i believe the search for love is unending and for those like me who love their own gender that love is just as pure, beautiful and worthy of respect as two consenting heterosexual couples. Homosexuality isn’t just a form of sex it is a form of love and that is so often missed on here.

          • savvy

            The issue here is the C of E priests cannot do this, without facing the consequences, since they are priests in a particular church. Marriage is not just about love. If it were about love, then any two or three people in love could enter into a marriage. But, there are restrictions on who can. It’s about distinction between the sexes, You cannot give what you do not have in this case. Your argument is with creation itself.

            As for safe sex, it is commonly known that the gay community, esp. gay men, have higher rates of HIV. It’s easier to call straight people out on this, but it’s politically incorrect to do this with the gay community, because they are now above criticism. It also costs tax payer money to pay for those being treated for sexually transmitted diseases.

          • Sam Mace

            As far as i am aware gay women have fewer rates of std’s than straight couples gay men have higher rates. In my view marriage is mainly about love and i believe that 3 people should be allowed to be married if they are in a happy consenting relationship and want to do this. It isn’t about distinction between the sexes, more like it’s about social norms changing which some do not like. Marriage is property of the state sorry to say. Tatchell wants the church of england included because if the church changes its mind then they should be allowed to do so, again my point with quakers still stands. Gay people are not above criticism, certainly not from those who i know all people want is to be allowed to call their lifetime partnerships which are the equal of heterosexual relationships marriages which is what they are.

  • Michael Petek

    We Christians have to take judgement into our own hands according to the first verses of 2 Chronicles 19. It’s ours anyway, by virtue of the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

  • I can see a situation emerging in which the Catholic Church in the UK will have no choice but to get out of the business of marriage altogether. Hence, Catholics who want to marry will have to get civil marriages and then have a convalidation (sp?) oversees.

    Or, perhaps, Churches could just do marriages separate from the state, as is the case in France (where you go to the town hall and then to your Church afterwards if you want to). That would be only the provision of a Sacrament and nothing to do with civil law.

    • ms Catholic state

      Maybe even Catholic couples could get married Sacramentally in the Church only….and so escape any tax penalties incurred by civily married couples.

      Just a thought.

    • Michael Petek

      I don’t agree with this. First, the Church has to stay in the business of conducting marriages involving Catholics. Second, she should also offer a registration service for true marriages not involving Catholics. Third, since the civil authorities are about to abolish marriage and replace it with a civil union called ‘marriage’ but substantially of different description, the civil requirement to observe the prescribed form as a condition for the validity of the union must be held to apply to these civil unions only, but not to true marriage.

  • Anne

    Dear Deacon Nick, everyone

    Is it possible that David Cameron could be invited to speak to Catholics in a large venue such as the Royal Albert Hall or National Exhibition Centre and then LISTEN to the legal objections and the voices of Catholics. The Catholic Church has many excellent people who could speak – bishops, priests, laity, gay laity, young laity…

    Is there anyone out there who could take up this idea and arrange such an event – or events up and down Britain?

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>