Wednesday, May 24th

Last update:02:09:25 PM GMT

You are here: Politics List View Letter of Objection to Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) to Helen Grant MP

Letter of Objection to Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) to Helen Grant MP

E-mail Print PDF

18 February 2013

Mrs Helen Grant MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH

Also submitted to Parliament Scrutiny Committee and published on Parliament UK website.

Dear Mrs Grant

Re: Equal Marriage

Thank you for your letter addressing the issues I raised (letter 18 December 2012) concerning Same-Sex Marriage to Mr Geraint Davies MP; he has forwarded a copy to me with a copy of the document “The Facts about Equal Marriage” (January 2013).

Your letter and document are still not addressing the core issues of Same-Sex Marriage and diverting the argument away on to irrelevancies. This tactic was also followed by MPs who supported Same-Sex Marriage in the debate in Parliament on 5 February 2013. The core issues are these:

1 There is No Mandate for Same-Sex Marriage. This was admitted openly in the debate, but it was dismissed as not being relevant and justified on grounds of ‘equality’ and ‘love’. It is however highly relevant. No political party or the government has a mandate from the public to introduce such a seismic change to society as we know it. So why is parliament ‘raping’ the public and the culture of society with this policy?

2 No government has the authority to redefine the definition of Marriage. Marriage, the joining together of a man and a woman, the two becoming one, and the procreation of children to populate the earth was commanded by God and supported by the physical biology and sex (not gender) of a man and a woman. Marriage has for millennia been defined and commonly accepted as being between a man and a woman. Previous Parliaments may have changed civil law to grant or deny certain legal rights to the man and the woman united in marriage, but the fundamental definition of marriage being between a man and a woman can never be changed as it was defined at Creation by God.

Your belief that “loving some one of the same sex” is not a reason for preventing people getting married is astonishingly perverse and open ended. It is based on the presumption that Same-Sex Sexual Relationships are valid in the first place, when God has said they are an abomination and that those enter into such behaviour are worthy of death. If ‘love’ is the only qualification for marriage, what about marriage to: children (aka paedophilia), incest and multiple same-sex partners in marriage as in other countries or even animals? Also, there is no evidence that what same sex relationships have is ‘love’ – more like lust.

3 Why is the government promoting a lethal lifestyle and high-risk unnatural sexual behaviour? It is well documented, although totally ignored now by politicians and now concealed by revisionists, that homosexuals were the original source of HIV and AIDS, which has resulted in the death of millions across the world. Also their sexual behaviour is classified as high-risk from injury and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. How can this be part of the natural union of marriage between a man and a woman?

4 Same-Sex Marriage is not about equality it is about approbation of Same-Sex Sexual Relationships. Even the most casual observer of the debate could see that there is no equality in Same-Sex Marriage: no consummation, no man and a woman, no husband and wife, just ‘husband and husband’, and ‘wife and wife’ under the new government definition, and of course completely sterile couples. The real agenda is that the government is committed to forcing UK society to accept the approbation of Same-Sex Sexual Relationships and to fall in line with pending EU legislation requiring the recognition of Same-Sex Marriages registered in other EU countries within the UK – the elephant in the room at the debate.

5 Religious Rights and Freedom of Speech will not be protected by the Quadruple Lock. For years, even before this bill was proposed, street preachers have been arrested for stating that homosexuality is a sin; advertising challenging the myth that people are born gay was banned from London buses by Boris Johnson; Christian Concern was banned from holding a conference to discuss Same-Sex Marriage in two public venues; an employee was demoted and almost lost his job for saying on a private Face Book page that he disagreed in Same Sex Marriage (many others have lost their jobs in similar circumstances); and private accommodation providers have been all but forced out of business for applying their Christian beliefs to their business.

Additionally, it was reported in the debate by many MPs that they had received threats of violence for their opposition to Same-Sex Marriage, a common experience for anyone who opposes homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage.

Even if an individual case is won by a very brave defendant standing up for his or her right to express their rejection of homosexuality or Same-Sex Marriage in a public, work or private context, the fear of reprisals, loss of employment or a lengthy, financially ruining, court case will shut-up most people with another level of political correctness. That is not Parliament defending freedom of speech, but quietly enforcing censorship from a distance.

Does the government honestly expect a teacher to be able to say to a classroom of students: “Marriage was defined by God at the time of Creation as between a man and a woman. Therefore, Same-Sex Marriage is not marriage. The law of the land says that Same-Sex Marriage is legal, which suggests that it is a right thing to do, but in my opinion it is not.” When a child in that class repeats this lesson to their guardians in a Same-Sex Marriage or gay relationship, a complaint will immediately be made to the school, and pending a disciplinary hearing, the teacher will automatically be given a summary dismissal. It is happening now in places of work, when someone objects to homosexual behaviour and Same-Sex Marriage.

Given the militant and Gestapo like tactics of Stonewall, their sponsorship of legal prosecutions to challenge the boundaries of the law and gay rights, and the way Peter Tatchell writes Cameron’s speeches, why should anyone think that MPs and judges will come out to support the religious and speech freedoms of those who object to: homosexuality, Same-Sex Marriage, the new definition of marriage, husband, wife, mother, father, parent and even what it means to be a man and a woman, which is determined by gender not sex? The government is having a laugh as it gags its citizens.

How can the government state “(it) is committed to freedom of speech and has always been absolutely clear that being able to follow your faith openly is a vital freedom that the Government will protect. Everyone is entitled to express their view about same-sex marriage at work or elsewhere;” unless you add, “but don’t expect to keep your job, or expect not to be arrested if you make such statements.”!

The introduction of Same Sex Marriage is the most divisive and anarchic bill ever to have been proposed by Parliament as it strikes at the core of what it means to be a man and a woman and our understanding of family relationships. It also attempts to subvert the definition of marriage commanded by God and yes, although repeatedly and mockingly denied by MPs in the debate, Same-Sex Marriage completely devalues the marriage of every citizen in the UK in the same way as introducing into circulation counterfeit currency. Same-Sex Marriage is not genuine Marriage and it never can be.

Therefore, I appeal to your commonsense to abort this complete and total folly before you bring God’s severest judgement on this government and on this nation.

You will certainly lose many votes.

Yours sincerely

Dr James B Waddell

cc:
Geraint Davies MP
Public Bill Committee

©18 February 2013

Published on www.christiandoctrine.com

Bible Theology Ministries - PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH
Wales
United Kingdom

Please 'Make a Donation' to support the work of Bible Theology Ministries