The Prime Minister is deliberately provoking a conflict with people of faith, and risking turning their beliefs into criminal 'hate offences', by pursuing the legal enforcement of same-sex marriage, according to the UK Independence Party.
The party's National Executive confirmed that while UKIP fully supports the concept of civil partnerships, it opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage. NEC member and the party's appointed spokesman on the subject, David Coburn, said:
"We are a libertarian party which doesn't believe in the government interfering in how people live their lives. We support civil partnerships, enabling gay men and women to register their long-term commitment to each other. I have fought for this all my life.
"But David Cameron seems to be saying that marriage is something else. If so, it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths – and it is none of government's business to meddle with it.
"It seems that, through some kind of political correctness, David Cameron is picking a fight with the millions of people whose religious faiths do not recognise same-sex marriages. That, in our view, is an aggressive attack on people of faith, and an act of intolerance in itself.
"In addition, if the government does legislate in this way, we believe that any criticism of same-sex marriage which may be expressed by someone on the basis of their faith could be classified as a 'hate crime'. That would be a grotesque assault on people's freedom of conscience."
K B Napier: "We cannot endorse same sex civil partnerships, but these are unfortunate effects of allowing evil to proliferate. Thus, let (rhetorical) homosexuals have their fake partnerships (which rarely last more than two years). They may not, however, take over marriage, for marriage is instituted by God... even for those who are not Christians. Civil Partnerships, then, are not recognised by scripture, or by us. They are the meddlings of government and wicked people. As far as we are concerned they are irrelevant to the vast majority of people and manufactured to suit evil men and women. Cameron is indeed being extremely aggressive to what UKIP calls 'people of faith'... that is, all religions. In particular it is an attack on Christians, who have already been pushed into a corner by Cameron and other elites who refuse to accept or recognise any morality at all. We welcome UKIPs comments, even if we reject the part about partnerships."
Good for them! but I would vehemently oppose civil partnerships as well. As long as this is around the gays will continue to press for marriage. Since the decriminalisation of homosexuality, in 1967 and the appeasement of the gay liberation front we have been in retreat ever since- until we have got to the point where we are now, with us the criminals. An appeaser is one who hopes the crocodile will eat him last. We are all but completely overwhelmed.
Obviously there are those who would accuse me of not only being a right wing, narrow -minded, homophobic bigot but of being an alarmist; but as Lord Monson said, during the debate, on the 3rd March, 2008, in the House of Lords, recounting a previous debate, fifty years ago, when the Wolfenden Report resulted in a relaxation of the homosexual laws, there was a voice of disquiet then:
“Yes, the Wolfenden proposals are all very well, but they are the thin end of the wedge. The pendulum is bound to swing too far in the other direction. Mark my words, before many years are out, they”—the more militant homosexuals and not, of course, the ordinary discreet sort—“will demand not merely toleration for their sexual activities—no problem about that—but positive respect, even admiration, for them”. ‘To which I ( Lord Monson) replied, “Oh, come on. Nonsense. You’re being alarmist”. ‘With hindsight, I have to say that I was wrong and they were right.’
With regard to the Wolfenden Committee Report, H.L.A.Hart, Professor of Jurisprudence Oxford Unversity, wrote, in 1959,
".. it does not follow that everything to which the moral vetoes of accepted morality attach is of equal importance to society, nor is there the slightest reason for thinking of morality as a seamless webb; one which will fall to pieces, carrying society with it, unless all its emphatic vetoes are enforced by law.”
“Surely even if in the face of the moral feeling that is up to concert pitch - the trio of 'intolerance, indignation and disgust' (Patrick Devlin - my speech marks) - we must...ask whether a practice which offends moral feeling is harmful, independently of its repercussion on the general moral code.”
“Secondly, what about repercussion on the moral code? Is it really true that failure to translate this item of general morality into criminal law will jeopardize the whole fabric of morality and so of society".
(Wasserstrom (Ed) Morality and the Law Wadsworth, 1971 and in R.M. Dworkin, (Ed) The Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press 1977 pp83-88.)/
WOW, YES, PROF HART, YOU UNDISCERNING ‘USEFUL IDIOT’ ; IT IS ALL THAT YOU SCOFFED AT.
I do remember at the time of the civilpartnership debate, Norman Tebbitt commented why should not elderly sisters living together not also be able to claim the same benefits as the gays?
Elderly sisters told they can't have same tax rights as gays - but they could if they claimed that they were gay.