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.
A hat tip to Deacon Nick Donnelly of Protect the Pope http://protectthepope.com/?p=6546 , 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.
