The parliamentary discussion on the proposal to redefine marriage in such a way as to open it up to homosexual couples is due to begin next week. In many ways it feels like a watershed moment in the life of our nation, where our huge social experiment based on secular humanism is really coming of age.
I wrote to our (excellent) MP Anne Main this week urging her to vote against the proposal.
This is the substance of the case that I outlined:
‘I have three principle reasons for being opposed to this move:
1 It is not necessary. As I understand it, homosexual couples in civil partnerships share all of the legal rights of married heterosexual couples.
2 Given this, it is needlessly provocative. Why enshrine in law something that is going to be an affront to the sensibilities/convictions of huge numbers of people (e.g. Muslims and Jews as well as Christians), in order to meet the demands of a small (but vocal) minority?
3 I have no doubt that legal action will end up being brought against many in public office (e.g. school teachers, church leaders, social workers etc) who dare to imply that any moral distinction ought to be drawn between homosexual and heterosexual marriage. There will end up being very little if any freedom of conscience on this matter. There is an important issue of unintended consequence here.
Are we really wanting to drive so many good people out of the public square? What mandate does our Parliament have to do this? Apart from anything else, I strongly suspect that the majority of the general public do not support this proposed change, whether religious or not.’
It is important to add that I don’t see this as a matter of ‘gay rights’ and homosexual men/women are just as much made in the image of God as anyone else is. Rather, this is about our understanding of marriage and it is in this light that the debate needs to be had.
‘In wrath, remember mercy’ (Habakkuk 3:2)
Simon