• Same sex marriage? No. What about opposite sex civil partnerships?

      1 comment

    This is Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone who is to propose lifting the ban on civil partnerships taking place in religious settings in England and Wales.

    Following from the Civil Partnership legislation, it was perhaps inevitable that campaigners for male and female homosexuals should seek legislative equality with male and female heterosexuals.

    For these people, there is no logical or philosophical difference between two persons of the same sex getting married or two persons of the opposite sex getting married. Those people who would suggest that there are biological, theological and moral differences are branded by these people as bigots.

    OK then. Let us look at the issue. When a couple get married in church they and the congregation are told that marriage is an institution set up by God for the joining of a man and a woman with the implication that their union can beget children.

    Clearly two men or two women do not meet this criteria. However, it must also be said that a man and a woman, where the woman is over child bearing age cannot meet this criteria. But then marriage is not only for the begetting of children. Christian marriage (that is the only marriage I have experience of and can therefore comment upon) of a couple of advancing years means that their marriage and witness can help by example members of their families. A union of two persons of the same gender cannot and does not do this.

    Now with the Civil partnership legislation on the statute book, I think we can boil this whole issue down to one word: MARRIAGE. What is it? And what should it be?

    Like it or not, marriage has a religious meaning and significance. This applies not only to Christians but to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and the followers of other religions.

    Wanting to be positive – in the sense of making suggestions – and not negative – condemning and/or criticising and making no suggestions – he is an idea:

    Rather than extend marriage, why not extend Civil Partnerships?

    If such as Mr Peter Tatchell want to see absolute equality between contracting couples then legislate to remove Civil Marriage. In other words, if a Christian (of whatever denomination) or a Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist or a follower of another religion wants to marry then let them get married under the rites and procedures of that religion.

    In other words, those persons of no religion who see no need of it or no point to it but wish to have a relationship recognised in law with another person for rights such as producing legitimate issue or legitimising children of a pre-existing relationship, then let them contract a civil partnership.

    • Congratulations coalition! They have succeeded in getting your political comment off any of the truly serious issues….many of which they seem either to be back tracking upon or simply plain wrong. You fell for this one Peter, does anyone really give a damn what these people want to do with their lovers?

    Write a comment