Yet the Prime Minister seems weirdly determined to push this through. George Osborne is the latest grandee to throw his weight behind it. Even Iain Duncan Smith, who opposed the repeal of Section 28 when he was leader of the party, has had a conversion experience and is now a true believer in the value of redefining marriage.
Back in March, the consultation document made it clear that the Government will take into account the various points raised in the consultation but not the number of responses received. They obviously already knew the level of opposition this proposal would generate. Imagine if the majority of responses were in favour of same-sex "marriage": Teresa May and Lynne Featherstone would be trumpeting the fact across the land. They knew that wouldn't happen.
It is good to read the statement of the Bishops regarding same-sex marriage and to hear of Archbishop Nichols' address in London after the Bishops' Conference meeting, urging George Osborne not to use marriage as a political football. I am just beginning to wonder whether this is actually about politics after all. It is of no obvious political use to the Conservatives: many MPs have expressed concern that it is upsetting core members and long term Conservative voters.
Cui bono? For whose benefit is this glassy-eyed determination to legalise same-sex "marriage"?
14 comments:
"Cui bono? For whose benefit is this glassy-eyed determination to legalise same-sex "marriage"? "
How about a seriously-pro-Gay, extremely influential group, with connections in many, many, high-level places ?
I could be wrong, of course.
Just saying . . .
Well, whoever it is, it has to be the same group that is pushing so hard for it here in the States. And that, literally, means the states, all 50 of them, since the laws of each state govern marriages.
Satan's?
I wholeheartedly agree with the points made by Fr and Zephyrinus. It strikes me that the gaydom is the 21st century version of Freemasonary so pervasive is its reach.
This is not about human rights, or civil rights, or equality. It isn’t even about marriage. It is all about recruitment. And it always has been. In 2009 the Australian draft-dodger, Peter Tatchell informed the readership of The Guardian: “Good quality sex and relationship education... should start from the first year of primary school onwards, with age-appropriate information about love, emotions, relationships and the physical changes they will experience at puberty.”
"Age-appropriate"? At 5 years of age? And this is homosexualist sex education he was talking about!
He went on to say: "In secondary school, this information should become more explicit, giving pupils the knowledge, skills and confidence to make wise sexual and emotional decisions." More explicit!
Twelve years earlier he had told that same readership: "While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful" (Guardian, June 26, 1997). And he has the gall to harangue the Catholic Church!"
Redefine marriage and this guy and his ilk get access to our children from age 5. They have already got a foothold in schools on the pretext of anti-bullying. Objectively, of course, bullying in relation to perceived hmosexuality is the least of our schools' problems but their friends in high places got them in anyway.
Cui bono? UKIP -- let Cameron slit his throat.
BLESS THEM
Some of us do not want to be "Married".
After all we do not really need it as we already have "Civil Partnerships".
However, we should like the opportunity as being Christians of having our relationships blessed.
Our faith is important to us.
If one looks at the Coalition Agreement for Government between the Conservatives and Lib-Dems on the No 10 website, there is not a mention of the redefinition of marriage.
Presumably the commitment to the redefinition came after the Coalition Agreement
As to cui bono, both the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems are traialing Labour in the polls badly. The Liberals would be decimated in a general election now. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/04/local-elections-clegg-under-fire
Now that PR and Lords Reform and other pet Liberal projects have been lost, what is in it for the Liberals to continue the Coalition ? Gay marriage might be considered some kind of fig leaf to enable the Liberals to continue on in the Coalition.
If there was no gay marriage proposal, what exactly would the special contribution be of the Lib Dems to the Coalition Government ?
Hmm. Most people against it. Loses you votes. Gives no additional rights to homosexuals. Muslims wanting to use 'gay marriage' will be assaulted/murdered by their communities, which the politicised police will allow as 'cultural'. This is a purely anti-Christian measure.
Cui bono? No one. This is purely an anti- Christian attack.
There is the same determination to push through unpopular and immoral laws in Ireland and in other countries. One does have to ask who is pushing this?
It is all part of Common Purpose and the Freemasonic takeover of our country.
How long Loed, how long?
Paul
The real truth is that Stonewall provides wonderful dinners. Tony Blair loved them and passed the good news on to David Cameron. Being wined and dined and fawned over is an irresistible temptation to good to miss. So David is working hard for the next one.
Raising the pink (or rainbow) flag of international gayosity makes Cameron and Osbourne feel groovy and relevant, even outdoing Labour in their revolutionary insanity.
Post a Comment