Homosexuals enjoy the same civil and conjugal rights as everyone else, but they are not at liberty to describe their relationships as marriages. The reason for this does not originate in some mean-spirited and nasty prohibition: it is a matter of plain logic. Analogously: everyone may run about on a field and be awarded goals, penalty shoot-outs, corner kicks and line-outs; but no one is at liberty to describe what they are doing there as cricket.
When this Act comes into force ”“ and it is a matter of when not if ”“ the damage done will be first to the rational use of the English language. But it will not end there. Create a language and you create a world. So when marriage is redefined as an institution open to homosexual couples, then the nature of marriage will be revolutionised. This will not come about by some sort of fluke or procession of unintended consequences. The change will follow necessarily from the altered definition.
[We must fave the fact that]…homosexual marriage will have profound consequences for Christian spirituality and psychology. There is a spiritual and psychological hiatus when a woman stands at the altar and says, “This is my body.” In so saying, she is representing Christ. What then happens to the ancient spiritual imagery of the church as the Bride of Christ? When homosexual marriage becomes law, the Bride of Christ might well sport a moustache and a beard and certain other physical characteristics, unmentionable here.