What is it with politicians in that they only see certain freedoms in the power to say yes, rather than the power to say no? It appears that the Westminster lot believe that churches should have the right to say yes to ‘gay marriage’ rather than the right to say no as they are now.


The Labour leader backed Government plans to legislate for same-sex marriages as a sign that Britain is a “modern country”.
However, he went further than ministers in calling for the right to hold same-sex marriages to be extended to faith groups as well.
In a video recorded for the Out4Marriage campaign, he said: “I think, whether you are gay or straight, you should be able to signify your commitment, your love with the term ‘marriage’, and so the Labour Party provides its wholehearted support for this campaign.
“We will be pushing the Government to get on with the process for legislating for equal marriage, and we’ll also be saying to them, where faith groups want to provide that opportunity for gay couples as well as straight couples, they should be able to do so.
“We’ve come a long way on gay and lesbian rights in the last two decades – civil partnerships, age of consent, a range of other things – but I know there’s further to go.

Now to my mind a civil union is a gay marriage, it’s a choice they have which gives them the same rights under the law as a married couple. The only difference being that churches (and Mosques and Synagogues) have religious reasons for not allowing gay marriage on their premises. Very much a case of ‘my gaff my rules’ you would have thought, though not that apparent to the political classes or the various gay groups who are attempting to force through legislation allowing such things.

Part of the problem for the legislators is that the holy books of the religions they are targeting specifically forbid any for of gay relationship, that these days they don’t complain or campaign against it (generally) is a moot point, the specifics are still there. Abrahamic religions are expressly forbidden by their deity to allow marriage in their terms to anyone other than a man and a woman. It’s not really a choice, certainly not one they really have the freedom to choose other than to say no. Whether or not gay groups get the right to hold marriages in a church shouldn’t mean that churches will allow it, however we all know how this game is played and you can already sense the rustlings of law suits being prepared when some vicar comes face to face with a choice between what his holy book says and two people hell bent on being married in a church because they have ‘a right’

Rights and freedoms should go both ways, in that whilst people have a right to say yes, they also have a right to say no. Legislation in this field only stirs up bitterness and resentment, gays have their civil unions, it gives them equality.

That should be enough, as it is they are now hell bent on infringing another groups rights and removing their freedom to say no.

14 comments for “Freedom?

  1. john in cheshire
    September 27, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    It comes as no surprise that a socialist (if not a communist like his father) is quite relaxed about undermining anything to do with religion, particularly Christianity. And I don’t understand why it should be ‘modern’ to force established practices that have existed several thousand years to be abandoned to the vagaries of socialist prejudices. This lot will not rest until Christianity has been expunged from our nation and every concession and illiberal law is just another step down that path. Isn’t it time for us to say enough it enough and no further?

    • Greg Tingey
      September 27, 2012 at 5:01 pm

      There, there, go and masturbate over a crucifix, or something, until you feel better!

      Remember, that communism is a rlegion, and just as vile and murderous as all the others.
      And lying as well ……

      • Single Acts of Tyranny
        September 27, 2012 at 10:24 pm

        Steady on, contrary opinion is welcome and valuable. Abuse by contrast, isn’t. Having read many of your posts, I suspect you are better than that,

        • Greg Tingey
          September 28, 2012 at 7:51 am

          Admitted, but JiC needs a good metaphorical kicking, since he plainly isn’t connected to reality.

  2. ivan
    September 27, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    I wonder what will happen if they apply it to Muslims or is it just to be for Christians in which case it will be blatant discrimination.

    • Single Acts of Tyranny
      September 27, 2012 at 10:22 pm

      It would be a brave couple of Muslims of the same sex who pitched up to the mosque to ask if they could marry. I suspect the point maybe moot, but I would think some Jews may give it a go at some point if the law passes.

  3. September 28, 2012 at 6:53 am

    “Part of the problem for the legislators is that the holy books of the religions they are targeting specifically forbid any for of gay relationship”

    Also the consumption of shellfish, the wearing of mixed fabrics, having tattoos. Virtually no Christians or Jews are actually holy book literalists. Someone can be a 100% genuine Christian or a Jew and believe gay relationships are OK, just as they can genuinely be a Christian or a Jew and wear a polycotton shirt.

    The RCC is unlikely to sanction gay marriage in our lifetimes, if ever. The Quakers have said that they would like the opportunity to conduct them right away. Surely it’s basic freedom of religion to allow the RCC to continue to refuse gay marriages while also allowing the Quakers to hold them?

    Nobody has suggested compelling churches to conduct same-sex marriages against their wishes, everyone has been very clear that any law allowing churches to conduct SSM will be non-compulsory, and both UK courts and the ECHR have repeatedly found that religious groups are legally entirely free to discriminate with regard to conducting religious services (as opposed to the provision of secular services – in other words, a Catholic-owned shop can’t refuse to serve you because you’re gay, but a Catholic church can kick you out of the service because you’re gay).

    • Greg Tingey
      September 28, 2012 at 7:55 am

      SPOT ON.
      And some are, quite deliberately, trying to confuse the two, so they can claim “persecution”.

      I wonder, incidentally, about my local “church” of totally brain-washed followers & really creepy priests, who profess to believe that the bible is “Inerrant” ….
      How closely do they follow it?
      If challenged as a court witness as to relibility, would they profess a bat to be a bird?
      Or that the value of pi is 3?
      Or that the winds are kept in a special place?

      Could be really interesting.

  4. graham wood
    September 28, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    QT. Very good point and spot on. Traditionally in the UK we believe in the freedom of religion (as opposed merely to the freedom of worship) which is an inherent right for Christians as for others.

    “Also the consumption of shellfish, the wearing of mixed fabrics, having tattoos. Virtually no Christians or Jews are actually holy book literalists”

    In reply to John B above. This is to mix apples and oranges, and neither is the issue remotely connected to a crass literalism in the extraction of Bible verses out of context – certainly not of Old Testament cultic, hygenic, and ceremonial rules applicable to the historic Jewish nation as set out in the Decalogue.
    However, the New Testament is, as QT points out, the authoritative Scriptures of Christianity, which expressely forbid homosexual practice in any shape or form. Thus the right to say ‘No’ is fundamental and necessary for religious freedom.
    Notwithstanding Greg Tingey’s jibe about an inerrant Bible – this is what orthodox Christianity asserts. I have no problem with that, and neither have leading theologians and the majority of Christians down the centuries.
    The right of Christians to say ‘No’ therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with the State. At stake here is the principle of the freedom of religion and included is freedom of conscience.
    Graham Wood

  5. Furor Teutonicus
    September 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    What is to stop them setting up their OWN “church” if that is what they want?

    From here, it looks like a case of “I want, because I can.”

    Not a great fan of Abrahamic religions myself, my Family being of the Norse/Sammi tradition, but I also accept that “clubs” have rules. And if you don’t want to follow the rules, DON’T bloody GO there.

    Make your OWN, or keep your bloody legs together.

    • graham wood
      September 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm

      “What is to stop them setting up their OWN “church” if that is what they want?”

      FT. Precisely! I have argued the same point several times. Nobody is stopping “gays” building their own ‘temples’, with their own officiating ministers, services, and anything else they want.
      As you imply, why should they wish to impose their “right” to demand a Christian, Moslem, Jewish, or whatever service of ‘marriage’ to accomodate them – all of which are mutually out of kilter anyway?
      Actually, the reason is that they want a ‘Christian’ marriage service as eventually entrenched in law, to give homosexuality the veneer of acceptance and respectability which they lack at present.

  6. Watchman
    September 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    So we are making a fuss about the fact that independent organisations (and the CofE, which should be) can make their own decision to do something or not? Odd point of view for libertarians.

    Why it should be of any concern to anyone what any church but their own, or any individual who is not their spouse or partner, does is still a mystery to me. Marry who the hell you like, and do it in any organisation that can do so and feels they want to accept your ceremony. If it is wrong in their religion, presumably the celebrant can have that discussion with their deity or deities at some point. One or two comments on here suggest that rather than that, they wish to impose their view on what is right or wrong.

    • September 28, 2012 at 8:18 pm

      We are making a fuss at the politicians who seem to believe they have the right to dictate to independent organisations over the right to say yes or no, by removing the right to say no.

  7. Budvar
    September 28, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Marriage is by definition a union between a man and a woman, so there’s no such thing as a gay/same sex marriage.

    Yes the government of the day can legislate a new difinition of the word marriage, in much the same way they could legislate the definition of the word “Dog” to be that of a cat. The reality is, a dog is still a dog.

    “We’ve come a long way on gay and lesbian rights in the last two decades – civil partnerships, age of consent, a range of other things – but I know there’s further to go.”

    By “further” I take it he wont be happy until it’s made compusory?

Comments are closed.