Friday, 1 February 2013

Letter to Damian Hinds MP against SSM Bill

1st February 2013

Dear Mr Hinds,

I write as one of your constituents to ask you to oppose the second reading of the above Bill next week.

The government has presented this matter as a case of equality, but I can only echo the words of Bishop Phillip Egan that underlying this assertion is a basic philosophical misconception about the nature of equality, in which equality is confused with “sameness”:

“Equality can never be an absolute value, only a derivative and relative value. After all, a man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father, and so men and women can never be absolutely equal, only relatively equal, since they are biologically different. So too with marriage. Marriage, ever since the dawn of human history, is a union for life and love between a man and a woman. It is a complementary relationship between two people of the opposite sex, the man and the woman not being the same, but different. They are not, in other words, absolutely equal but relatively equal. This is why gay couples, two men or two women, are not being ‘excluded’ from marriage; they simply cannot enter marriage.”

By its own actions, the government is already acknowledging that there can be no true equality between marriage and same-sex couple relationships.  As opponents of same-sex “marriage” have pointed out, one reason why homosexual “marriage” is an absurdity is because it cannot be consummated.  The government’s lawyers have effectively proven this point by failing to agree a definition of “homosexual genital acts.”

Instead of admitting the logical fallacy of ascribing “equality” between same sex partnerships and marriage, it is now proposed that, as homosexuals cannot consummate marriages or commit adultery (because there is no commonly agreed definition of “gay sex”), then both consummation and adultery (as grounds for divorce) must be dropped from marriage legislation completely to avoid discriminating against homosexuals!

This is not only the logic of the asylum, but it gives the lie to all the government’s assurances that same-sex ‘marriage’ would have no impact on the traditional understanding of marriage.  On the contrary, this Bill will radically alter the meaning of marriage for everyone and reduce it to a mere contract for cohabitation.

The government has clearly failed to think through the consequences of this legislation and we are already seeing the effects of it undermining the traditional and legal meaning of marriage – before it has even been passed!  If legislating for “hard cases” always produces bad law, how much more so does legislating for an impossibility?

As David Cameron had the nerve to tell Adam Boulton (Sky News, 3rd May 2010) that he was “not planning” to change the definition of marriage, I urge you to hold him to his word and vote against this Bill.  Needless to say, his assurances, given just 3 days before the last General Election, have proven to be worthless.  I can assure you that his actions will not be forgotten in 2015 and neither will your vote.

Yours sincerely, etc.

A hat tip to Deacon Nick Donnelly of Protect the Pope  , some of whose words I have shamelessly plagiarized!
If any response be forthcoming from Mr Hinds, who claims to be a Catholic, then rest assured that it will follow - together with appropriate treatment.

Saturday, 12 January 2013

1,000 Priests and Bishops Sign Letter to Telegraph against Same Sex Marriage (sic)

St John Vianney - the Cure d'Ars
Patron Saint of Priests

SIR – After centuries of persecution, Catholics have, in recent times, been able to be members of the professions and participate fully in the life of this country.
Legislation for same-sex marriage, should it be enacted, will have many legal consequences, severely restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship.
It is meaningless to argue that Catholics and others may still teach their beliefs about marriage in schools and other arenas if they are also expected to uphold the opposite view at the same time.
The natural complementarity between a man and a woman leads to marriage, seen as a lifelong partnership. This loving union – because of their physical complementarity – is open to bringing forth and nurturing children.
This is what marriage is. That is why marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society.
We urge Members of Parliament not to be afraid to reject this legislation now that its consequences are more clear.
For list of signatories see the link here: 
For Damian Thompson's Blog "The Catholic Church really is at war with the government." see here: 

Good for our priests and bishops - hopefully this will grab somebody's attention in that den of nihilism which is Downing Street!

I, along with many other deacons fully support you in this.  The only niggle is that there would have been many more signatures if you had invited the deacons of the Church of God to sign this too!

Meanwhile, back at the coal face, all local readers in the Surrey area are reminded/invited to a Coalition for Marriage Meeting in Guildford, Surrey on Monday evening.  The Meeting will take place from 8 pm to 9pm at the Mandolay Hotel, Guildford.  Please do come along to find out how you can volunteer to help C4M in your local area.  You will find out more about how you can help the Coalition for Marriage campaign in simple, practical ways.