Same-Sex “Marriage”

obama gay marriage cartoon

I was saddened, though not surprised, to see that the House of Commons has voted to approve same-sex marriage.  It was a small consolation that more than half of Conservatives voted against.  Nice to think that there are still some responsible people in my former party.  But as I Tweeted next morning, the vote showed the shocking arrogance of MPs, in voting to vandalise an ancient institution for the sake of a modish whim.  My former colleague Julie Girling MP, Chief Whip of the Conservative MEP delegation, told me that I was “on the wrong side of history” on this issue.  But in social policy (as in business, and in climate science) it is a mistake to project current trends in straight lines.  Many of these phenomena are cyclical, not linear.

The reason that marriage has a special and unique place in our society and culture, the reason it commands our respect (and should command tax breaks) is because it replenishes our population, it provides for the future of our society, and it potentially creates the ideal environment in which to nurture the next generation.  We respect marriage not as a private affair between a man and a woman (after all many couples have private affairs without marriage), but because of the clear and massive benefits which marriage offers to our wider society.  Indeed it is an existential issue.  Without procreation, we have no future as a people or a nation, and all the evidence shows that marriage and the traditional family are the best forum for procreation.

I have absolutely no problem with same-sex couples making their own, private arrangements to live together, and entering into civil partnerships.  That’s none of my business.   But let’s be clear.  Calling these relationships “marriage” offers no additional rights or benefits to the couple.  Rather, it imposes (or seeks to impose) an obligation on the rest of us to respect such relationships on an equal basis with marriage (as properly understood).  But it is not equal.  It is a private arrangement which offers no extra benefits to society.  It is merely a pale imitation of marriage.  For myself, I decline to recognise same-sex relationships as marriage, whatever the House of Commons decides.

But you may well ask, “How does it affect you personally?  Why should it bother you?”.  Truth to tell, it probably doesn’t affect me directly, though we are all demeaned and diminished by the dilution of a great societal institution.  But if I were a vicar, or a teacher, or a Registrar of marriages — or, indeed, a bed-and-breakfast proprietor — it could affect me a great deal.

Be assured, the so-called “protections” for churches to behave according to their creed and conscience will soon fall before the onslaught of Stonewall and the European Court of Human Rights.  Christian teachers (and perhaps those of other faiths) will lose their jobs for declining to teach or endorse same-sex marriage.  At least in the Commons debate, both sides of the question were aired.  But soon, any criticism of “gay marriage”, any failure to recognise and respect it, will be deemed to be “discrimination”, and “hate speech”, and “homophobia”.  And political correctness will have driven another nail into the coffin of free speech.

BREAKING NEWS — Same-Sex marriage driven by Brussels

The Government’s same-sex marriage legislation is being driven by an EU proposal which is set to become law later this year, according to the UK Independence Party.

“Many people have been asking what prompted the Prime Minister to pick this uncalled-for fight with many people in his own party and the country at large,” said UKIP leader Nigel Farage. “It has also been unclear why the same debate is being had simultaneously in other countries such as France, where opposition is also growing. Now we know the answer.”

An EU report due to be voted through the EU Parliament this November would see all marriages and civil contracts conducted in any EU country become legally binding in all other member states. Under the Berlinguer Report, a couple who are not permitted to marry in their home country could travel to another member state in order to wed, knowing that on their return home they would have to be regarded as married.

Paragraph 40 of the Report would mean that any member state would have to grant ‘all social benefits and other legal effects’ such as legal recognition, tax breaks and benefit entitlements to a married couple, even if such a marriage did not exist in their own legal system.

Mr Farage said:

“Now we know why David Cameron has launched this highly contentious and disruptive legislation, apparently out of the blue.

“If a couple were to marry in Belgium, Spain, Portugal or Sweden where same-sex marriage is possible, the EU will say that they have to be given the same legal rights in whichever member state they then chose to live – even if that state itself opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage. In essence the Berlinguer Report seeks to establish an EU-wide right to same-sex marriage.

“It’s no surprise that the Prime Minister has kept quiet about this, even at the expense of cohesion in his own party. He has a hard enough time trying to force his own backbenchers to swallow both his dedication to keeping Britain in the EU and his wish for the state to interfere in the definition of marriage. To suggest that the two issues are in fact interconnected would have caused complete uproar.”


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Same-Sex “Marriage”

  1. harrybeckhough says:

    Roger, the whole, hidden, object is reduction of our population on Marxist principle carefully planned heretofore with leaders acting under instruction

    • Dean Fox says:

      I think you’re running too far with this one. Gays being able to “marry” isn’t going to reduce the birth-rate since it won’t do anything to encourage otherwise hetrosexual men to become gay; I certainly don’t feel a sudden urge to go gay now I know I can marry a man if I so wish.

      The population of the world could do with being reduced though because more people just means more poverty.

    • Scaredypants says:

      I was just having the same thought. Where will this hidden agenda stop? The blatant attack on family values is outrageous as proven by promised tax breaks for marriage not materiakisibg. Last week I heard it was suggested the age of sexual consent be reduced to fourteen. Fraud and corruption is not just rife but thrown in our faces on a daily basis. Reward for failure at the expense of the taxpayer. Everything of value this country holds dear is being blatantly sabotaged. The question is ” what to do about it?” Cameron the puppet must be pushed aside.

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      Hi Harry, long time no see, but very pleased to hear you again. You’re correct of course, more folk are starting to see the picture as the dots join up. Google Frankfurt School for further historical disclosures folks.

  2. Phil J says:

    I couldn’t agree more Roger-funny how the majority in the Commons seem to have forgotten all about the AIDS crisis a few years back-I wonder what Freddie mercury would ‘ve said to all this?

    • B Hough says:

      I can foresee the human rights lawyers and courts having a financial field day once any Christian Church does not accept a request for a same sex marriage, I am crossing my fingers that the `establishment` will exert the same pressures on Mosques and Synagogues, also these same educational establishments.
      Is this not giving them another reason to criticise Christianity?

      • Dean Fox says:

        No church should be forced to perform any service they do not wish to. This should be a none issue.

    • Dean Fox says:

      Did you know the one demographic least affected by STDs including AIDS is the lesbians. If AIDs is a judgement from God then is this not an endorsement of lesbianism? (I think not in either case)

  3. says:

    Support your position entirely. Cameron must have some political motive for the vote but it will almost certainly work against him in the future. The next hair-brained idea is electronic tagging for dogs. Is this another oddity he wants out of the way? If so, we don’t need him as a party “leader” when there are so many other major issues to be tackled. His EU referendum pledge means nothing as he won’t be in power after the next election unless he sorts it now.

    P.S. I heard your interview on Radio Nottingham this morning and can only apologise for the ignorance of the presenter when he obviously did not know which party you represent.

    • Scaredypants says:

      Latching onto the subject of dogs, it’s not the microchipping I am so concerned about. It’s the fact that you can be penalised for your dog attacking somebody on your own private property or in your own home. So man’s oldest friend who may bite a burglar can get you into trouble. Have I now got to train my dogs to welcome burglars in, sit them down and offer them tea and cake along with the family silver? Yet again the innocent victims are going to be penalised

  4. Jack Kinsman says:

    Dear Roger, I too am saddened and thoroughly disillusioned with this terrible decision to promote gay marriages. What next, allowing Pedophiles the same ‘rights’, and then offering them ‘Child allowance’ The world has gone absolutely crazy. Jack

  5. Anne says:

    Many of those that voted for Gay Marriage also attend various Churches. Do they then not know how many times written in the Bible, makes quite clear that, “man shall not lie with a man”?

    • Dean Fox says:

      But I’d be against stoning them to death as prescribed in the bible. Just as I’m against stoning unruly teenagers to death as prescribed in the same book; note that the good book says the parents get to decide this punishment so forget it if you don’t like the kid next door. I also disagree with the prohibition against doing any work on the sabbath on pain of stoning to death; work includes such things as picking up sticks. Not to mention the chopping off of the hands of a woman who defends her husband by grabbing the genitals of his attackers.

      If we’re to use the Bible as a moral compass then it should be all or nothing, not a cherry pick of the bits agreeable with one’s feelings. I go with nothing.

      • Scaredypants says:

        Asking what appears to be a silly question, to be married in church you should in theory profess to be a christian. You cannot be a christian without believing in the Bible. So hence you cannot be christian AND gay. You surely must make a personal choice? Yet again we have the rights of the few, taking away the rights of the many

      • Brin Jenkins says:


        The Bible is my compass, and I often go off course. Had it not been for sinners there was no reason for Jesus to come. There I said it, I’m a sinner like everyone else.

        The Bible in two distinct books, the old and new testaments. The Stoning is in the old testament, and is not an instruction to Christians. Jesus in fact stopped the stoning of a women.

        John 8.3. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.

        But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

        9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

        11“No one, sir,” she said.

        “Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

  6. Dean Fox says:

    I disagree with what you’re saying about gay marriage but defend your right to say it. At a time when we should be abolishing laws that infringe on free speech I will fight any notion that criticism of gay marriage should be deemed hate speech in the same way I fight the notion that criticism of religion is blasphemy or hate speech.

    On the subject of gay marriage I think the divorce rate brings the concept of marriage down rather more than the idea that two people of the same sex can call themselves married.

    As to divorce I’m all for people being able to rectify realised mistakes, I wouldn’t have it any other way.

  7. andrewh00 says:

    UKIP seem to do well on most of the issues that are of concern to me.

    I write as an EU sceptic who was too young to vote in the 1970s. After the recent EU referendum “promise” I noted the way that Conservative EU-sceptics rallied round their party, whilst UKIP remained, er, sceptical. I have been wondering which of these is the right way to be thinking, and am now decided. Given Cameron’s track record, I am on the sceptical side over the likelihood of the promise being delivered. There is also so much from the EU side that can still come in during the meantime to erode British sovereignty further still.

    And then we move on to the marriage debate. I cannot see beyond the scripture quoted by Andrew Selous MP (Gen 2 plus 2x in the Gospels by Jesus and once in the epistles) – “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.”

    His Grace – the blogger Cranmer – has already highlighted the disingenuous Government document where the concepts of “myth” and “reality” are turned on their heads. The link now being revealed to the EU even in this (thanks again to UKIP) makes worrying sense.

    Whilst I applaud the stand of the mainly Conservative MPs voting against the 2nd reading, the leadership and overall direction of the party on important social matters is just too similar to Labour and the Lib Dems.

    People with a moral conscience in any traditional sense are being systematically disenfranchised, and long-standing foundations of stable society are under attack in an unprecedented way – including, it would appear, from a Conservative government!

    Since it doesn’t now seem to make much difference whether you vote Lab, Lib or Con, I am inclined to give my support to UKIP.

    In addition, having become convinced about the scale of the scam of wind energy,energy policy seems to be another area where UKIP score heavily.

  8. Anne says:

    It proves without doubt and even though this proposal was not in any Conservative Manifesto, this man his Hell bent on the destruction of his own Country for, as you are aware Roger, all he
    has put forward since he has been in POWER is implement EU Legislation.

    • Scaredypants says:

      Cameron is a puppet. Such a shame as I thought he might have some guts and stand up for this country. Spineless

  9. Chris says:

    and also
    “…Little did they know it though, the MPs were actually voting to implement Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5, to fulfil a commitment made by HM Government last year, while holding the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. Completely unaware of the real reason for their presence, they were led by the nose, oblivious to the fact that the same “debates” have been taking place all over Europe, to exactly the same agenda…”

  10. Malcolm Edward says:

    I am utterly appalled and sickened by those MPs who voted for this abhorrence of so-called same sex marriage. Marriage is between a man and woman – that has been so since the start of recorded history – it is not for our MPs nor the EU to change. Anything otherwise is not marriage (as defined until now). The house of commons are destroying marriage and they are replacing it with something else but reusing the same name to describe it. Why on earth can they not leave marriage as it is. If they really feel the need to do something, why not extend civil partnership to be available to all couples (or else create a new category of union for that purpose). What they are doing goes against the inbred instinct of many people – certainly myself – who strongly reject homosexuality and do not want to be equated to that lifestyle by any means. Why on earth do those who are currently married have to endure this travesty – why can’t we have an institution reserved for mixed sex unions – for now and for the future. What about diversity ? What about the rights of heterosexuals ? Its like any club, if you don’t fulfill the membership criteria you can’t be a member. You cannot equate everything.
    The nature of the institution of marriage is being destroyed and replaced by something else – where does that leave those who are married under the old institution but who refuse to agree to the new proposals – because surely under contract law, a change to contract is not valid until agreed to by the parties involved. Surely those couples should have some means of being able to continue under the existing institution – but our MPs are not making that possible. (I also recognise that many homosexuals lead outwardly normal lives and they are not pushing for this legislation).

    A consequential point, is that the conservative party will suffer most at the next election for this legislation (despite half of its MPs opposing it). Cameron is aware of that, and so he is acting in a way that makes a lib/lab government more likely – which would usually be considered odd – except then he will not have to deliver on his EU referendum pledge and his personal wish to stay in the EU will be fulfilled.

    As a huge understatement, I have no goodwill towards David Cameron or to those MPs that supported the same sex marriage bill.

  11. Mr. Helmer,

    It is disingenuous of Nigel Farage and Ukip to claim that Cameron was being driven to introduce this samesex marriage law as a result of the proposal from the European Union.

    Is it not a fact that the UK, when chair of the CoE in 2011, promised to implement Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 and it is that that forced Cameron to introduce a bill that was not in the Coalition Manifesto.

    It does Ukip, nor Nigel Farage, no good when they are shown to be ‘spinning’ the facts. Whether this is through ignorance I know not, but suspect that that may be the case. Do we not get enough obfuscation from the main three political parties? Should not Ukip at least attempt to be seen as being brutally truthful?

  12. Anne says:

    WE ALL know by now that we have three major Political Parties that ALL want to remain in the European Union -forever. We here in the UK have been promised a referendum after and IF the Conservatives get into Government through the next General Election in 2015.
    The people realise now, more than ever before, that ALL THREE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES WANT TO REMAIN IN THE EUROPEAN UNION -FOREVER. So why would those that want out of the EU vote for any one of them? It is time to put OUR COUNTRY BEFORE ANY POLITICAL PARTY YOU MIGHT BE IN. And this may well be the last chance you will have to save our Country from PERMANENT foreign rule.

    I believe, that should the people vote “YES” to remain in the EU, not only would this Country have to remain in the EU FOREVER-for I cannot see another REFERENDUM on this Subject being allowed, AND a “YES” in the promised REFERENDUM would, I suggest, be seen to destroy and over-ride our very own Common Law Constitution-ALL OF IT-all down to the people’s vote.

    A referendum suggests that our Constitution is negotiable. It is NOT negotiable, never has been and never will be. However, always be aware that there are those that are trying very hard to destroy it. Overthrowing our Constitution is treason: conspiring to overthrow our Constitution is treason: contemplating overthrowing our Constitution is treason and inciting other people to overthrow our Constitution, as in calling for a referendum, on an “IN” or “OUT” of the European Union is also treason. This is the reason why our Constitution has remained ‘safe’ for hundreds of years and the very reason we fought in two World Wars.

  13. Chris says:

    Just a bit more background to my comment above about why David Cameron was intent on pursuing the gay marriage policy, and about how it was linked to the Council of Europe and the EU, see Richard North’s latest posting on this:
    “….Yesterday’s vote on gay marriage brings to light to the knowledgeable (which excludes the majority of MPs) the extraordinary role of that little-known institution, the Council of Europe (CoE), and the role of a scarcely known mechanism known generically as “soft law”….”

    • mikestallard says:

      Yup, it is the EU after all.
      Several European countries (including Germany and the Netherlands) have now introduced “Gay Marriages” and the Berlinguer Report has been accepted by the Commission. This really will mean that “Gay Marriages” concluded in Germany (or several other countries) must be recognised in UK.
      I understand from Charles Moore in the Telegraph that half a million French Catholics paraded through the streets of Paris about this subject. But that, of course, was not reported over here.
      “Meanwhile evangelical Christians from Britain travelled to Paris yesterday to observe a mass protest by Christians and Muslims against President Francois Hollande’s plans for same-sex marriage in France.
      Organisers said that 800,000 people converged on the Eiffel Tower for a demonstration attended by Jean-Francois Cope, the leader of the centre-right UMP party.”

  14. Mike Spilligan says:

    Mr H: I don’t want to try to be over-smart but the EU “imperative” behind the Bill has been circulating in the “blogosphere” since the weekend.
    My negative reaction to it was confirmed to be correct when I heard William Hague say “It’s the right thing to do”. That sounded like a recording from the worst days of New Labour ideology, when the Party couldn’t think of a valid reason, nor any logic for particular legislation. That was confirmed when an hour later I heard Yvette Cooper say exactly the same.
    As to Cameron’s recommendation I can only repeat what I stated elsewhere – the Camservatives – a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Lib-Dem and Labour coalition, funded by the British taxpayer via Brussels.
    While we cannot know the outcome, it seems to me that the HoC’s vote could be seen through the distorting prism of other social legislation. If MPs voted to call grey skies blue ones, would that make them so?

  15. I say live and let live. As a recent UKIP member, I disagree with Mr Helmer`s opinion. Its actually the only UKIP policy I disagree with, It wont stop me fighting the LibLabCon, and helping to promote UKIP at every opportunity, but I feel these views are primarily driven by religion and decades old peer-driven nonsense. Onwards to Independence Day, whether you are married, gay, straight, in a civil partnership or not so civil partnership.

  16. Anne says:

    It was quite clear from the very beginning that this legislation started its Journey from the European Union. PLUS, this present Prime Minister has only put through EU legislation thus far.

    I believe WITHOUT DOUBT that if the people do not use the coming General Election as the referendum they were promised, but will never have, this Country will be trapped in the European Union -FOREVER. Just do not vote for anyone of the three major Political Parties. You already know-without doubt- that all three major Political parties want their money, the vast expenses but want foreigners to govern this Country AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY TO OUR LONG STANDING COMMON LAW CONSTITUTION. Not only that, but what is the European Union at present, will indeed turn into some-thing quite different later on, which you have had a glimps of already with such as DATA RETENTION.
    EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020: legislative proposals also try what is in store for 2015–2022
    Oh and what they EU has in mind for Wales in 2014 to 2020
    Budget for Europe 2020 Brussels, Part 2 29.6.2011 COM(2011) 500 final
    A Budget for Europe 2020 part 1 Brussels, 29.6.2011 COM(2011) 500 final
    and so it goes on!

  17. ogga1 says:

    The toxic trio Cameron,Clegg,Miliband, Rumpy,Baroso all members of the same club.
    No benefit to England/GB whatsoever, what is worse in this situation is the tribal voter.

  18. Eric Worrall says:

    Roger, I’ve got a friend – he’s generous, kind, utterly trustworthy and reliable, and totally gay.

    If he ever finds true love, I couldn’t in all conscience tell him he can’t express that love through marriage, the way I have with my hetero partner, because his relationship isn’t important enough, or isn’t the right kind of relationship.

    And you are wrong about gay people being able to contribute to society the way hetero couples do. There are an awful lot of children stuck in soulless and often abusive institutions who could benefit from a loving home life, even if Mum has a penis (or dad doesn’t). There’s a part of me which feels a bit weird about this, but come on – two people who want to devote all their love and attention to a child, vs a bunch of government time servers? How can the loving environment possibly be worse, even if both partners are the same sex?

    And hetero marriage doesn’t discriminate against married hetero couples who don’t have children, and who never intended to have children. While it is normally understood that marriage is a commitment which will probably lead to children, it is hardly a prerequisite.

    Having said all that, with the British economy crashing around his ears, you would have though Cameron could have found some higher priority issues which merited his attention. But then again, I’m not gay – perhaps this is that important for a lot of people.

  19. Jane Davies says:

    I disagree with you on this Roger, as I disagree with your support on the merits of fracking. But we cannot agree on everything. It’s none of our business if a gay couple wish to marry, good luck to them and we should not pass judgment, but of course bible thumpers will never agree about this and religion promotes hypocrisy doesn’t it?

    • Scaredypants says:

      If a gay couple want to marry, the law shouldn’t intervene to stop them. But to be equal to opponents of gay marriage, the law shouldn’t enforce teachers, preachers etc to promote or perform gay marriage, but you bet your cotton socks they will. So equal rights and freedom of expression to gays, the rest have had their human rights and freedom of choice taken away

    • I respect your view, Jane. But I disagree. Anything that changes the nature of the institution is very much the business both of people who are already married, and of wider society. That’s my point. A Civil Partnership is essentially a private matter between two people. But a marriage is between three parties — a man, a woman and society.

  20. Linda Hudson says:

    Not one child on earth who doesn’t want or need a Mam and Dad, and to live in the safety of a family, thats the foundation of marriage!
    It took 1 man, and 1 woman to create a Straight and gay human being!

  21. David C says:

    It’s sad that UKIP has only just woken up to the fact that this is driven by EU politics. It really is a big story and has been missed by all those who should have been on it from the beginning.

  22. Anne says:

    Not one word of this slightly below, did I hear when listening to the debate re this subject, in the House of Commons on Wednesday. Little did the people know it though, the MPs were actually voting to implement Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5, ( to fulfil a commitment made by HM Government last year, while holding the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.

    Our present Prime Minister has only implemented EU legislation since he has been in power? You have just one way to save your country from foreign Rule, and that is to vote for any Political Party or Organisation that wants out of the EU. You now know-without doubt-all three major Political Parties want to remain in the European Union forever. Use the General Election as the REFERENDUM you may not have. If however, this becomes obvious that none of the three may get into Government, ‘they’ might decide to hold a REFERENDUM BEFORE the General Election. If so-will it be fair and true? You can still vote for anyone other than one of the major three come the General Election still, because no Parliament may bind another. I cannot think of any other way to save our Country from foreign Rule. I do know there is very little time left to set this Country FREE, for there will be very little left to claw back.

  23. Chris. says:

    The effects of this law on gay marriage will affect the whole country. In churches, who will be taken to the European Court of Human Rights when they refuse gay marriage in their church. In people, who oppose gay marriage being accused of discrimination.

    David Cameron is finished. For grabbing a small amount of votes from the “right-on”, metro liberals, he has lost many more Tory voters. The type who canvass on the door step and lick the envelopes. Since he has become leader of the Tory party, membership has halved.

    I for one, will be voting UKIP in 2015.

    • cosmic says:

      I thought it was about grabbing a small number of votes from the “right-on” crowd and annoying traditionalists he regards as fruitcakes, but it appears this is not the case.

      Cameron is doing this, and significantly damaging the Tories’ electoral prospects, because not to do it would cause enbarrassment with the Council of Europe and the EU. Basically, he’s answering his master’s voice.

      It says everything as to his motivations and honesty. Now no one with any sense, who knew the first thing about Cameron or the EU, would ever have taken seriously his prattle about renegotiations and a referendum. In the light of this, even the slowest members of the audience must be catching on.

  24. Anne says:

    I have never been in any Political Party or Organisation, never have been and never will be, but UKIP had my vote at the last general election and it will get my vote at the coming General election if there is one to vote for. I will never vote for any of the three major Political Parties again. It matters not if they have never been in Government before, for we have never had a real British Government since 1972/3 anyway. Every British Governments has interpreted the laws of FOREIGNERS. Done that way instead of allegedly directly. (Which our Constitution does not allow-re treason) But the EU eventually will want the EU’s Committee of the REGIONS to govern its REGIONS, Mr CAMERON set up through the EU’s Localism Act,- directly. Will the EU, I wonder STILL NEED National Governments then?

  25. Jim says:

    At least the Russians still oppose all this nonsense. What an irony!

  26. Dave Cox says:

    I agree completely, it is a shabby affair at best and should be treated with the disgust that it deserves! I agree with the previous comment, I voted for Cameron, because I thought from his promises that we had a man who represented many of the things that the normal decent person felt. How wrong I was ! I will be voting for UKIP in the next election !

  27. Jane Davies says:

    To go of topic if I may, I live in Canada and I still have my right to vote for another seven years. I wanted to vote UKIP last time but the voting papers were posted too late to allow me to return them by the deadline, some idiot in charge could not work out how long it takes the postal service to get to Canada and back. Many Brits were denied the right to vote because of this cock-up. Are you able to remind said idiots, Roger if they could “do it right” next time? Also is the UK alone in denying their citizens who live overseas the right to vote after 15 years? Shabby treatment as we are still taxpayers. The UK government is alone in freezing state pensions of their citizens who live in some countries but not all expats suffer this injustice, they have no shame. I hope once in power UKIP will right these wrongs.

  28. Anne says:

    So much for the Bible teaching, “Man shall not lay with man” eh

  29. silentvoice955 says:

    Mr Helmer may not wish to add any more posts to this now; but I can say this… If we, as a nation, do not unite and stand up for Truth and support the age-old principles of one man-one woman marriage, then we deserve to suffer as a result of our own apathy.
    Those who bleat that this is the “twenty-first century” and demand that all those “pesky Christians and their churches” are swept aside, do so merely because “those pesky Christians” are upholding the very Light that shines down to reveal the perverseness and evil nature of the whole situation….and the bleaters don’t like it.
    Be assured that other, unpleasant religions could be waiting in the wings to take over, if the Christian churches fall…..and that is something that we definitely do not want in control of the UK.

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      Total agreement. I need a moral compass, it seems many don’t need one any more. All Jesus said is summed up in the Sermon on the Mount. Very simple to understand. Not like The EU legislation on Cabbages.

  30. Chris says:

    See where Richard North indicates that it is the Council of Europe commitment that Cameron made that is the key to understanding Cameron’s drive towards gay marriage.North says the situation with regard to the Berlinguer Report is more complex than UKIP is suggesting. He also says that said Report was voted through the E Parliament in Nov 2010, but it has no legislative force. So, as I understand it, although it indicates direction of travel with regard to equality etc it is not law, and the Commission apparently, according to R North, shows no signs of adopting it as law. However, it is still part of the general “influence” that Cameron, as PM of a Member State, will be all too aware of.

  31. Greg Haislip says:

    I used to be gay, but over SEVEN years ago Jesus set me FREE! Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman according to the King James Bible (Genesis 2:24) so I am now married and my wife is pregnant by me. What’s really cool is that now my life is not focused on “ME” I actually think about others. More to the point, it’s not about “ME” at all it’s ALL about JESUS CHRIST! Jesus is Lord!! – (Note: edited by the moderator.)

    • themanontheclaphamomnibus says:

      I sincerely believe that I too have been set free by God – free to be who He made me to be. That person is gay. Nobody chooses to be gay just as nobody chooses to straight, or white, or black, or to have brown hair. As a theist this leads me to the logical conclusion that this is the way God, in his omniscience and omnibenevolence, has decided that I shall be. As Christians we should love and respect all of God’s creations – that includes LGBTQ+ people. Jesus preached a message of love – love of God and love of our neighbour – as expressed in the two great commandments. These are the summation of all Christian morality as “on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:40). It is a fallacy when undeniable homophobes claim to hate the sin not the sinner. This so-called sin is an expression of the perpetrator’s true nature. As being kind, generous and altruistic may be the true nature of a particular person, so giving to charity or volunteering may be expressions of that nature. I know God loves me. He loves me for all my flaws and shortcomings but being gay is not one of these. I hope you can understand where I am coming from because I am truly sorry to say that I cannot understand where you are coming from. God wants us to be happy and for me that means many things including finding a man with whom I can spend the rest of my life. Thankfully this new legislation will allow us to do that as a married couple.

  32. ricky66 says:

    why is discrimination OK? Marriage is between 2 people, why discriminate against someone because of their sexuality which they can not choose?

    • rogeroffice says:

      It’s not discrimination, it’s just what the word means.

      • themanontheclaphamomnibus says:

        Just as it meant that the married couple would remain married until they died (or for all of eternity in heaven) before divorce was legalised and accepted by most sectors of society. The definitions of words do change and it is high time that gay marriage is legalised. Although some bigots like your good self may remain opposed to equality people eventually see sense just as they did in the early part of the last century following the introduction of universal suffrage or before that when most sane individuals reconciled themselves with the fact that working-class people could vote.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Man with clap on his bus, Perhaps folk rush into marriage to quickly and easily? I did, and I was divorced. The untold damage this causes is legion, a problem and one goes to a lawyer, I was told by one they are not for marriage guidance, they are paid to carry out a legal process only. I have been re-married now for over 30 years. No one said it would all be a honeymoon, and it needs understanding, care and love. I’m totaly hetrosexual, I understand others have alternative ideas, fine just dont mess with mine and hijack our marriage. I’m content to live and let live, so make allowances for us straights, its in our genes, get over it.

  33. But by” freedom,” he could not find and develop his latent
    resources, and to find a man to date this truth the scientific world is rapidly being drawn.
    We’ll find a man to date have to take the bus there.

  34. Pingback: InFacts Boris outs himself on Brexit, gay rights - InFacts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s