(The Tablet Editorial) Prime Minister David Cameron's colossal Same-Sex Marriage muddle

Not even the most determined supporter of the proposal to recognise gay marriage can have been impressed by the way the Government has managed the issue. Like the outcome or not, it is impossible to disagree with the comment of the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark that the public consultation exercise was “shambolic”.

Even after the consultation had taken place, the Government was amending its own proposals concerning the exemptions to be granted to religious institutions ”“ moving the goalposts, as it were, after the penalty kick had been taken. It is hardly surprising that even those who no longer want marriage confined to heterosexuals were alarmed to discover that the Government was now proposing to enshrine that discrimination, where religious bodies were concerned, in statute law.

Intended as concessions to mollify religious objections, these proposals amount to the reassertion of full parliamentary control in this respect over the worship and doctrine of the Church of England and the (Anglican) Church in Wales, for safeguards granted by Parliament today may be withdrawn by Parliament tomorrow.

Read it all.

Print Friendly

Posted in Uncategorized

2 comments on “(The Tablet Editorial) Prime Minister David Cameron's colossal Same-Sex Marriage muddle

  1. Br. Michael says:

    [blockquote]Intended as concessions to mollify religious objections, these proposals amount to the reassertion of full parliamentary control in this respect over the worship and doctrine of the Church of England and the (Anglican) Church in Wales, for safeguards granted by Parliament today may be withdrawn by Parliament tomorrow.
    [/blockquote]

    And there in the great difference between the US Constitution and all other governments. And great idea of liberty that liberal/progressives are trying to abrogate. Our neither the Constitution not the federal government are the source of our liberties, and thus they cannot be taken away by government. They predate government and the federal government was created to protect those rights and liberties. The theory is succinctly expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

    [blockquoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [/blockquote]

    What the Declaration sets out in theory the Constitution puts into practice. If you bother to read the document no where in it is any grant of rights or privileges to the people. And the reason is that the people already have all the rights and privileges. The Constitution is a grant of power to the federal government to protect the rights and privileges of the people given to the people by their Creator.

    That is why the Bill of Rights is worded the way it is:

    Congress shall not….; Congress shall not….; Congress shall not…!

    In the UK rights are not really rights but privileges granted to the people by the government and what government gives can be taken away. Yet this is the way Obama and the liberalprogressives think along with most of the other governments in the world. They are truly the enemies of the Constitution and of liberty.

  2. MichaelA says:

    “The whole exercise reeks of incompetence and arrogance, by a Government whose approach is incoherent but which is convinced it always knows best.”

    Hmmm, cruel but fair!