Of course you can respond too. You can use the Government's online consultation form. Alternatively the Christian Institute has a more concise response form.
For further comment, see the post at Defend Marriage in Scotland: Dirty Tricks from the Scottish Government?
UPDATE: Thomas writes in the combox:
Actually, it appears that submissions from outside of Scotland have been accepted from the beginning of the 14-week consultation. It's just that the Scottish Government managed to assure the Scottish Catholic Parliamentary Office that only submissions from Scotland would count. At the same time, they also managed to let those campaigning for the redefinition of marriage know that external submissions would actually be accepted. It's all about creating the illusion of a groundswell of support.
The adage about an 'unlevel playing field' comes to mind...
9 comments:
"Religious bodies may not wish their premises to be used to register civil partnerships. Do you agree that no legislative provision is required to ensure religious premises cannot be used against the wishes of the relevant religious body?"
This is from the Government form. This is the key question, buried way down the survey, and couched in terms that Sir Humphrey would be proud of. It's not funny though. You can see by the way it has been worded that it strongly suggests that they are angling to take all protection away from Churches who do not wish to "marry" gays.
Actually, it appears that submissions from outside of Scotland have been accepted from the beginning of the 14-week consultation. It's just that the Scottish Government managed to assure the Scottish Catholic Parliamentary Office that only submissions from Scotland would count. At the same time, they also managed to let those campaigning for the redefinition of marriage know that external submissions would actually be accepted. It's all about creating the illusion of a groundswell of support.
The adage about an 'unlevel playing field' comes to mind...
A new website and petition:-
http://scotlandformarriage.org/
Are you really sure about this? The only indications seem to be a single Tweet and what someone apparently said on the end of a telephone, whereas the Ministerial Foreword to the Consultation document says 'We want to hear from all sections of Scottish society', and the Christian Institute form specifies 'You must live in Scotland', in bold type.
Delia,
According to the SCPO, the person who phoned spoke to the office that is responsible for the public consultation in question. So their acknowledgement that external submissions will be considered carries as much weight as is needed.
It appears that, whatever mixed messages we're getting, the other side are actively canvassing non-Scottish support:
http://defendmarriageinscotland.org/2011/11/29/dirty-tricks-from-the-scottish-government/#comments
The Scottish press has been full of pro-gay 'marriage' comment from non-Scottish sources (particularly US). I'd ask anyone Scottish resident or not to submit to the consultation: the abbreviated forms will not take long to fill in, and the government here should be sensitive to international/other UK opinion. (I'm sure they'll be getting bucketloads of the 'make Scotland a modern, go-ahead country' sort of stuff from gay activists.) At the worst, you've wasted a couple of minutes. But I suspect that non-Scottish opinion will count to some extent, at least if the legislation materializes and is then subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
in Australia, the Labor Party (no spelling mistake) has just put in its policy platform support for amending the marriage act to enable homosexual marriage.
This may take some time to pass Parliament but the same pro-homosexual groundswell of media is happening here as well.
A senior Labor figure described it as a 'human rights' issue.
Peter Tatchell is frequently described in the UK press as a "human rights activist".
As Dilly says real Sir Humphrey stuff as you have to read the questions very carefully. It also refers to "options" without telling you what they are. They are the proposals of a totalitarian state.
Post a Comment