De Omnibus Dubitandum Est.

I've received an email from the Coalition for Marriage which relates to David Cameron's Brexit speech and makes some very important points (I've hi lighted some points): David Cameron named redefining marriage as one of his most significant ‘achievements’ when he gave his resignation speech on Friday.   But commentators are saying gay marriage marked the point when his party leadership went wrong . Max Hastings said he “forfeited the support of his party faithful” (Daily Mail, 25 June 2016). Simon Heffer said: “Not only did the Tory party alienate core voters, it also proceeded to bully them” (The Sunday Telegraph, 26 June 2016).   Dominic Lawson was a supporter of same sex-marriage but thought it was a political disaster for the Conservative Party. He goes as far as to say that Cameron only proposed an EU referendum in the first place in a bid to try and win back traditional marriage supporters (Daily Mail, 27 June 2016). The PM’s pledge to hold a referendum was mad...

So Parliament turns its attention once more this week to the now infamous Same Sex Marriage Bill . The Tory Party themselves are now citing this Bill as one of several issues which constitute a growing crisis which threatens to destroy the Party from within. Bob Woollard, chairman of Conservative Grassroots, also told the BBC the same-sex marriage bill had "upset countless people and caused many, many people - hundreds, maybe thousands, to leave the party over this issue". The Party deals with this by simply jumping on the national band wagon of Liberal Fascism and labelling people with such views as bigots ( a la Nick Clegg ) or "swivel-eyed loons" as was reportedly commented by one senior Tory. Indeed, the rejection of Tim Loughton 's amendment last night demonstrates that this has always been about enforcing conformity not equality. I have spent a lot of time pondering, and worrying over this. I have written quite a bit about it here, for example t...

I for one am not shocked or surprised that the House of Commons approved the bill for Same Sex Marriage, it seemed inevitable to me in a society that has such high divorce rates and so many co-habiting couples. Many couples today ask why they need the piece of paper to prove that they love each other. Indeed the fact that society simultaneously seems to reject the conformity of marriage whilst asserting with such authority that anyone in love should be able to get married seems slightly schizophrenic. With such a poor understanding of what marriage is and what it is about, can we really be shocked that legislation that seeks to define the institution to mere sentiment is supported? Historically Marriage has seldom involved sentiment, and has been more about security, social progress, and a framework for the birthing and rearing of children. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. Love is undoubtedly part of a good marriage, but I always think that lov...

I was asked to draft a letter on behalf of the governors of our school to our local MP regarding the proposed re-definition of marriage. I took my inspiration from the letter Bishop Philip Egan wrote to David Cameron and the letter our priests wrote to the Telegraph , as well as the educational consequences spelt out by, among others Fr. Tim Finigan . Here is the text: David Amess MP House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Dear Mr. Amess We have decided that it is necessary and essential that we contact you as a governing body in order to express our deep concern and disquiet regarding the proposed re-definition of marriage by your party. It is our opinion that the proposals constitute a further erosion of the value and sanctity of the institution of marriage which will necessarily have repercussions for society. These repercussions do not seem to have been taken into consideration by the coalition government, neither do the legal ramifications. Whilst we understand t...

Wonders will never cease it seems! Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the former archbishop of Westminster, has spoken out this morning, presenting  a withering analysis in the Telegraph of the current ' shambolic ' handling of the gay marriage debacle. He eviscerates David Cameron's election commitment to strengthen marriage as an institution and is highly critical of Cameron's understanding of the nature of marriage. He also, rightly, attacks the Prime Minister's honesty in the Conservative Party's manifesto. It could seem a little too little too late, but I have heard, and I do believe that Church leaders have been working hard behind the scenes to present a proper understanding of the argument in private. It now seems that they all are feeling a little betrayed by assurances received and are resorting to the only means of defending marriage left open to them, having instigated- and demonstrated the over-whelming public support for a proper understa...

The way I see the gay marriage debate is this. Pretty much everyone agrees that if two people love each other, that's a good thing. I agree with that sentiment as well. The problem is about what marriage is. Most people would probably say that marriage is what you get when two people love each other. It is a public commitment, an outward sign of the love they share with the rest of their community. Does that sound about right? Wrong! That's not what marriage is. The support and status that marriage entails is not a societal bonus for falling in love and agreeing to make a relationship lasting. That is not, of course, to say that love and romance are not an important part of marriage. But they are not the reason it has special status. If romance were the reason for supporting marriage, there would be no grounds for differentiating which relationships should be included and which should not. But that is not and never has been the nature of marriage. Marriage is vi...