The Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont, will debate same-sex “marriage” this Monday, 29th April. The title of the motion to be debated is,
“Marriage Equality at the Constitutional Convention,” and it was tabled by three Sinn Fein MLA’s, Caitriona Ruane (South Down,) Barry McElduff (West Tyrone,) and Bronwyn McGahan (Fermanagh and South Tyrone.)
This unholy threesome are intent on undermining real, Biblical marriage (and the Union between Northern Ireland and the UK,) with their wretched, malicious motion. This is clearly seen in the reference to the “Constitutional Convention,” which voted on homosexual “marriage” on 14th April this year in Dublin. The result was, 79% in favour, 19% against and the remainder had no opinion!
Sinn Fein’s goal is to bring about a united Ireland and this is reflected in their support for homosexual “marriage” as they obviously think that any Constitutional change in the Republic should have force in Northern Ireland.
The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP,) have tabled a Petition of Concern ahead of Monday’s debate at Stormont, which means that the SF motion will not be carried without cross-community support. This action on the part of the DUP is to be welcomed.
However, on many occasions in the past number of years, since (wrongly) agreeing to share power with Sinn Fein, the DUP have capitulated to their demands and abandoned previously held principles again and again.
Sinn Fein will not get their way at Monday’s debate but, sadly, the demand for homosexual marriage will not cease, unless and until the majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland face down these aggressive homosexual challengers and tell them, in no uncertain terms, ” we will never permit two men or two women to “marry” in our beloved Province!”
The Truth Shall Set You Free 
We agree with you 100%. Christians including myself have been very busy lobbying over the past week and rejoice in two victories A. David Ford MLA has had his wings clipped by Templepatrick Presbytery of PCI being forced to cease performing the duies of an Elder. As far as we understand he has now resigned ! B. Danny Kinahan MLA who represents South Antrim for the Ulster Unionists
has declared that he will oppose SSM unlike his previous vote in October. Again we have lobbied him by e.mail as have many others from Baptist and Presbyterian churches in the constituency mainly. These are very positive outcomes and we must give God all the glory ! Psalm 118 v 8
I have a few questions for the Christians here.
1) Have any of you noticed that there appear to be powerful forces behind the extremely recent, sudden, and international demand for same sex marriage, and that in the mainland UK, which has civil partnerships, it isn’t needed to protect anybody’s right to equal treatment under the law, yet the British government is acting in obedience to those powerful forces?
2) Where do you think this is coming from? Who or what, which is international, is in command, so that even the British government, that already has provided civil partnerships, is promoting an apparently pointless change that doesn’t confer on anybody much any new rights they lacked and wanted, other than by an attempt to change the definition of a *word*?
3) What, if anything, might be God’s purpose in allowing this? In permitting to happen, that which he forbids?
4) Whom will same sex marriage harm, if anybody?
5) Might same sex marriage harm the church? Might it *benefit* the church universal and invisible?
5) Might same sex marriage harm children?
6) If you think that same sex marriage might harm children, how do you think it might harm children?
7) If you think that same sex marriage will harm children, and you also think you know how it will harm children, how would you attempt to explain to somebody who did not share your Christian faith, how same sex marriage will harm children?
8) Do you care enough about children, to give thought at all, as to whether same sex marriage will harm children, and how it might harm children, and how to explain this harm, to people who do not accept the authority of scripture, and are not Christians?
9) Are you open to new ideas?
I have given thought to all these questions.
It is our beloved Province too – not just yours.
When it becomes law in the rest of the UK it will be interesting because the only way you will have of legally defeating an equality case to the ECHR (which views the UK as a single entity) will be for you to persuade the rest of the public in Northern Ireland to leave the UK over this issue. Good luck with that,
If the law changes and you really mean
“…we will never permit two men or two women to “marry” in our beloved Province!!
Your only alternatives will be to leave or to stop people getting married by force (and against the law). Which is it MrandMrsWhite – leaving or illegal acts? Are you packing your bags or threatening violence?
Or is this all just more righteous indignation and windbaggery.
@ Golfieni
“the only way you will have of legally defeating an equality case to the ECHR (which views the UK as a single entity) will be for you to persuade the rest of the public in Northern Ireland to leave the UK over this issue”
Would you care to argue this more completely? I do not see how you can predict that that argument would succeed, especially in the light of Scalk and Kpof. In GAS AND DUBOIS v. FRANCE reported at
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-109572
the court said at paragraph 66 of its judgment:
66 The Court observes at the outset that it has already ruled, in examining the case of Schalk and Kopf, cited above, that Article 12 of the Convention does not impose an obligation on the governments of the Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage (see Schalk and Kopf, cited above, §§ 49 to 64). Nor can a right to same-sex marriage be derived from Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (ibid., § 101). The Court has further held that, where a State chooses to provide same-sex couples with an alternative means of recognition, it enjoys a certain margin of appreciation as regards the exact status conferred (ibid., § 108).
I do not think that you can so safely predict that the court will impugn the laudable practice of subsidiarity in the exercise of the UK’s margin of appreciation, by devolving to Scotland and Northern Ireland (or perhaps even to Wales, though I have not heard that this is contemplated) the decision as to how that margin of appreciation will be exercise in these two countries of the kingdom, either to allow or to forbid same sex marriage.
John,
The argument is not whether the government is required to offer same sex marriage, it is the inequality of rights and familial protection within the UK which will be the issue that I think (and you are right I cannot predict) which will force this on Northern Ireland. In some ways the NI Assembly has made a rod for it’s own back in the way it spitefully ensured that only single people or married couples could adopt. (A single gay man can adopt but a couple in a Civil partnership cannot because they are not single or married). This will bring the ludicrous situation that if a couple married in England who have a child jointly adopted by them move to NI they will have to become civil partnered and so their adoption and parental rights are removed so removing the protection that child has under law in the rest of the UK.
This situation could (as I say cannot predict) provide the inequality of protection and rights which would allow the ECHR to find in favour of the need to ensure equal rights and protections across the UK (it is the UK that ECHR recognises as the member state not individual bits of it). Further the UK government could hardly defend the situation in NI given that it supports the opposite in the rest of the UK. When the rest of the UK has equal marriage the case you quote will not apply as the UK government will have already granted same-sex couples access to marriage.
This is not dissimilar to how the case for decriminalising homosexuality was won in Northern Ireland despite the best efforts of the NI legislature. They were taken to the European court, lost and Westminster had to sign an executive order to change NI law in order to bring NI into compliance with UK law and European judgements.
You are right, Golfieni. It’s a can of worms. There isn’t a middle ground that protects everybody’s rights equally, in a balanced way, so far as I can see. It really is all, or nothing, a fight to the death. Google the phrase “an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy” and read the 1987 essay by Michael Swift. “All churches who condemn us will be closed.” Many a true word is spoken in half-jest.
John,
There is a middle ground – equal civil marriage and the churches can decide for themselves whether allow them within their individual denominations.
It is not up to any individual church to decide whether I can or cannot me married in the eyes of the law and it is not up to the government (or other churches) to tell individual churches what ceremonies they can or cannot perform.
This gives freedom of religion and equality for same sex attracted people.It also recognises that there are significant numbers of people for whom both religion and religious weddings hold no interest.
It is certain churches who decided to make this civil matter a battleground and if they lose they will not have to do anything different from they do today (unless they want to). They certainly will not have to close.To characterise this as a fight to the death is a little over the top unless what is being defended is the right of certain churches to tell other people how to live their lives – that privilege needs to die a death.
@ Golfieni
“There is a middle ground – equal civil marriage and the churches can decide for themselves whether allow them within their individual denominations.”
The non-existent middle ground that I was referring to, was one that would give *legislative jurisdictions the freedom to decide for themselves whether to have what you call “equal civil marriage”, not the freedom of *churches* whether to conduct same sex weddings. We have already established that, in theory, countries have that discretion (or “margin of appreciation”). But you then went on to point out certain practical problems, when people cross borders, with marriages allowed in one country, but not in another.
Consider legislative jurisdictions such as Northern Ireland, England & Wales, and Scotland, or any of the separate states making up the USA, or (to some extent) the member states of the EU, or the contracting parties to the ECHR. Any “middle ground” that infringes the autonomy of such legislative jurisdictions to define their own laws and customs and to have their own culture respected, isn’t any sort of “middle ground” at all. It is total victory for the global governance homogenisers, and total defeat for those who want to retain subsidiarity.
“It is not up to any individual church to decide whether I can or cannot me married in the eyes of the law and it is not up to the government (or other churches) to tell individual churches what ceremonies they can or cannot perform.”
I agree. Nobody is suggesting that.
“equality for same sex attracted people”
There has never, that I know of, been any legislation anywhere in the world that denied equality to certain people on the basis that they experienced same sex attraction.
“the right of certain churches to tell other people how to live their lives – that privilege needs to die a death”
This particular post isn’t about the rights of churches to tell other people how to live their lives, although churches, and every individual, has the right to tell other people how to live their lives, and you are not slow to do so yourself. You (not me) introduced the question as to whether Northern Ireland had the right to make a different decision from England and Wales, or from Scotland, about whether to redefine the word “marriage”, without leaving the United Kingdom. THAT is what I have been talking about. I don’t see where “churches” come into the discussion.
The right to disapprove of certain behaviours, other than silently and in fear of punishment for thought crimes, is what is at stake. Did you read Swift’s self-satirical rant? It is the “rage” to which he referred that is a threat to liberty. The agenda in his essay, is the agenda of that rage. We’ve seen it. The Gaystapo takes no prisoners, Golfieni.
I have invited you, several times now, to read my blog piece that gives a secular argument for the cultural hetero-normativity that you show every sign of wanting to see eradicated, by fair means or foul. You aren’t interested in that argument. You prefer operating below your probable intellectual potential, annoying simple people of faith here, people who find homosexuality deeply offensive for reasons that include religious reasons. They have a blog here in which they wish to discuss these matters within the context of their simple, biblical faith, but find themselves harassed continually by those who attack that faith, rather than defend homosexuality, as though there weren’t any sane reasons why non-Christians might not want their sons sodomised any more than Christian parents do. (Sorry to lapse in ad hominem, but I don’t know how else to put the point across to you, that this isn’t just about religion and “churches”, as you seem determined to make it.)
John, what do you mean by the word “simple,” as you describe us as “simple people of faith.” Are you saying that we are not intellectual and articulate? We find your description of our blog offensive. You seem to believe that you are more capable than we are when it comes to confronting the enemies of righteousness. By the way, John, you have not explained what “SJ’s” stands for, which you mentioned in a previous comment. However, if those letters stand for something vulgar, forget it!
One other point, John, we have challenged feminists to a public debate which they have refused to engage in. It seems that they do not feel able to debate “simple folk!”
@ Mr & Mrs White
“… what do you mean by the word “simple,” as you describe us as “simple people of faith.” Are you saying that we are not intellectual and articulate? We find your description of our blog offensive.”
If I did not appreciate your blog, I would not be here, and put so much effort into commenting. I regret any unintended offence.
I wrote, to Golfieni,
“You prefer operating below your probable intellectual potential, annoying simple people of faith here, people who find homosexuality deeply offensive for reasons that include religious reasons. They have a blog here in which they wish to discuss these matters within the context of their simple, biblical faith …”
I was *challenging* Golfieni, to make *cleverer* use of his time, than sniping with silly arguments.
When I used the word “simple”, of you and your faith, I had in mind a comment by Tom Lehrer, when he described something play or book as “obscene, or, as they say in New York, ‘sophisticated'”. I was thinking primarily of the idea that the apostle Paul put across in the middle of 1 Corinthians 14:20, “Brethren, do not prove yourselves to be children in your minds. As regards evil, indeed, be utter babes, but as regards your minds prove yourselves to be men of ripe years.”
When I say that I think *you* are an utter “babe” (when that is your duty), I am not insulting you (or flirting with you, saying that you are “babelicious”.) I am paying you a *compliment*. Think of the phrase, “pure and simple”.
An SJ, in the context in which I used it elsewhere, is a member of the so-called “Society of Jesus”, a Jesuit. (I mentioned Loyola and the present pope in that context, if I remember correctly.) A Jesuit has the letters SJ after his name, when he isn’t working undercover, which Jesuits often are.
John,
“They have a blog here in which they wish to discuss these matters within the context of their simple, biblical faith, but find themselves harassed continually by those who attack that faith”
I understand that you don’t live here so it is understandable that you see this blog in isolation.
MrandMrsWhite’s blog is just one facet of their overt campaign against homosexuals. In this part of the world we have to listen to their tirades on the Nolan Show, lunchtime phone ins, letters to the press and their active protests at any thing remotely gay (like Belfast City council lights, Belfast Pride, Foyle Pride and Andy Wharhole exhibitions to name but a few things which have attracted her ire.). Her (for it is almost always her) demeaning rhetoric in the public sphere is what generates what you call harassment and what I call right of reply. She has taken a personal and public stance in opposing LGBT rights in all their forms and so attracts the attention of those she opposes. The fact that almost no-one takes a blind bit of notice of her is neither here nor there.
Several times you have mentioned a hatred of christians – I think you are falling into the persecution rhetoric which I would have thought you above. I resent the influence that christianity has had in my life, effectively making me a potential criminal in my younger days, I resent the way some christians speak about me and compare me to thieves, murderers, paedophiles and people who have sex with animals. Having said that I know well many christians, including clergy, who I have deepest respect for even though we disagree on many things but do so on a basis of mutual human respect. My mother is a christian and I certainly do not hate her.
It is the mutual human respect which defines whether an interaction (in person, on a blog or whatever) is civil or not. MrandMrsWhite initiate all interaction on this blog and I see little respect for me and people like me in her blog posts and I guess that sets the tone.
You should also be aware that even amongst most of the Evangelical groups in NI she is regarded with embarrassment for her vicious outbursts. As one senior evangelical leader once said to me that whilst he had firm beliefs about homosexuality etc that were diametrically opposed to mine he felt that the only way to approach the debate was with graciousness, respect and a willingness to both listen and speak. That approach I can respect and reciprocate.
You have indeed invited debate here, and I have no problem with that and I have responded on occasions but unfortunately it has not got past the censor (it was neither obscene nor rude just not what the censor thought was wholesome) and I suspect that this post might not either so you will not know I have replied.
Perhaps when I retire in a few years I will have the time to debate more on different blogs, I certainly enjoy it, but at the moment time does not allow for much more than I currently do and I feel it is more useful to be here on the blog of a person who feels the need to force her way into my home in a tangible way.
@ golfieni
“… any thing remotely gay (like Belfast City council lights, Belfast Pride, Foyle Pride and Andy Warhol exhibitions to name but a few things which have attracted her ire.).”
Remotely gay? I didn’t watch Belfast Pride and say to myself, “Hmm. I suppose I must admit that it *is* remotely gay, if one studies it carefully enough.” Rather, as I watched that video, I thought, “Wow! That parade is *well* gay!”. It reminded me of a certain amusing article in The Onion, “Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years” (q.v.).
You misunderstood what manifestations of anger I meant, if you thought I was talking about persecution. However, there *is* persecution of Christians in the world. It’s not a made-up story. The media don’t give the topic much coverage, that’s all.
IT will never ever truly be “marriage,” any more than a dandelion will ever be a rose, or a tail a leg.
Except of course it will be to those who marry and to those who accept that everyone should be treated equally regardless of sexuality.
What you really mean is that it will not be to you which is fine.
Golfieni,
No one has ever tried to do anything BUT treating homosexuals equally. The problem is that homosexuals don’t want equal treatment – they want the right to FORCE everyone to sanction their unions, the right to redefine what marriage is, etc. I guess with them some people are more equal than others.
“No one has ever tried to do anything BUT treating homosexuals equally”
Absolute nonsense. When I was younger and it was illegal for me to have sex because I was a homosexual I was not treated equally. When I could be sacked from my job for being a homosexual I was not treated equally.
I don’t know what books you read but you really ought to throw them away – or do you write your own revisionist history.
Next you will be telling us that the USA never had laws against homosexuals (even though they haven’t repealed them all)
The Lord in sovereign mercy and providence keeping the door open for Christians in Northern Ireland I firmly believe because in His Grace, he has turned the tide to some degree with regard to the Assembly vote on 29th April – time will tell and unfold more. Yet we dare not surrender to the forces of secular humanism or relax our guard
Or Glenn a Christian….
PhillipandMason,
You have no foundational basis by which to judge whether or not one is a Christian. You just demonstrated your ignorance by your comment.
Oh for the old days, when the gay lobby mocked marriage, and wanted nothing to do with it.
I think in those old days the gay lobby was a small reactionary, angry and militant voice. It is very different from the much larger out, confident and more moderate gay population which exists today which really just wants to get on with their lives, be treated the same as everyone else and not be discriminated against for who they are.
You may wish for that old crowd as they were easy to categorise and pretend they were not like you – it is more difficult I suppose when the people you might wish are different are actually in every profession at every level just like everyone else in society.
Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for those early campaigners, I may not agree with everything they did but at the time anger was justified and being militant was the only course open to them. Now we have laws and protection from within which to further the cause of equality and we also have support from the majority of the population.
The last time I was in the company of several people at the same time was when I visited the home of a certain clergyman (who died recently) and several other people. This clergyman self-identified as “being a homosexual”. I stayed with him, and the several other men who slept in or visited his flat. This was back in 1970 or 1971. I read some literature by Gay Lib, and by CHE. There was a certain reasonableness about those fellows. However, the sheer smuttiness and campness of all but one of them did my head in. (His name was Andy, and I quite liked him and had some good conversations with him.)
What I didn’t notice, at all, in those days, about those particular people, was anything about them that was reactionary, angry or militant. But they definitely thought that some softening of social attitudes to homosexuality was needed, and this was a topic on the discussion agenda.
Nowadays, in contrast, although I can only think of one person I know who self-identifies as same sex attracted, and am not even a friend of his, the impression I get generally, is that anger and militancy are everywhere.
What I see nowadays, in terms of anger and militancy, is far in excess of anything I witnessed in 1970-71. But especially I see something I never saw then almost everywhere. I see it whenever certain topics are discussed, same sex marriage being one, and abortion being another. What I see (and find frightening) is a burning hatred of Christians. This so much alarmed me, that I tried to track down my “gay” clergyman friend from the 1970’s, with whom I had lost touch decades earlier, to discuss this phenomenon with him. That is how I discovered, with some sadness, that he had passed away a year or so beforehand.
I am prepared to accept that perhaps part of the reason for this is partly that then I was meeting people then as a friend and his friends who became my temporary acquaintances, face to face, socialising with them, and sleeping in the same room as several of them, for several nights over a long weekend. In contrast, now I am merely reading the comments of strangers on news stories, including those in online titles such as Gaystar News and Pink News, and also the stories and the headlines in those publications. Perhaps people find it easier to be hateful when they are typing internet content, just as they find it easier to be obscene and camp when they are in the pub together telling jokes.
The burning hatred people have for Christians is such that whenever anybody, Christian or not, defends the unborn child and critiques his enemy, the abortion industry, or argues using purely secular arguments against the propositions used to advance a pro-gay agenda, and in favour of cultural hetero-normativity, many respond by attacking not the dissident opinion, but the Christian religion, to which they suppose their opponent to adher, merely because of his opinion about something else (e.g. that he is pro-life, or anti-gay.) Sometimes you come across to me as a reasonable, intelligent man, Golfieni. But at other times, you come across as one of those rampant “Christophobes” yourself. An example is on this page, when you started talking about the right to free speech for churches (which you wanted to end), out of the blue, in the context of what I had supposed was a discussion of the rights of nations (such as Northern Ireland) to legislate cultural norms.
Maybe I am not making a fair comparison between having “gay people” in my social life in 1970-71, and seeing the hatred expressed online for Christians, in almost any online discussion of gay issues, in 2013. But the impression I have nowadays, is of a gay community that has far *more* anger and militancy than ever I saw in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s. Not *less*, as you say is your experience. As a homophobic person, I don’t feel SAFE in today’s Britain, nor free.
Golfieni, we aren’t talking about decades ago – we are talking about today, now, the past decade or so. No one is punished for homosexuality any more, but those who speak against it are severely punished.
Glenn,
Are you not aware of a lady in your own country being sacked in the last few weeks because her bosses found out she had a female partner ?
golfieni
Are you referring to Carla Hale from Ohio?
Golfieni,
Are you not aware that she signed a contract which would result in her termination for immoral conduct? Now she wants to punish the school for not affirming her homosexuality. She was punished for violating a contract.
Yes John I was.
Her conduct was not immoral and was in her private life.
Her conduct was indeed immoral. Homosexual behavior is immoral. It was a Catholic School, which has the right to determine what they will or will not accept as morality in their employees. She signed the contract knowing what the Catholic Church taught about homosexual behavior, and yet she agreed to abide by their rules. Therefore, when she elected to lie about her life by signing the contract, then she subjected herself to firing when discovered. As a school teacher, she is expected to set an example with her life (and too many public school teachers are not held to that standard), and since she was not setting a moral example by her lifestyle, she was not complying with the rules under which she was hired. She has no right to complain, since she KNOWINGLY accepted the moral rules of the Catholic Church while at the same time KNOWINGLY was violating them.
@ golfieni
“Her conduct was not immoral and was in her private life.”
The facts of Carla Hale’s case are bound to remain somewhat shrouded in mystery, if we can only rely upon her published statements, and the sensationalist media reporting. But, anything that was her “private life”, she has apparently elected to make anything other than private.
If she had been challenged at work, in her job employed by the Roman Catholic Church, “We have found out that you live with another women. Are you doing Lesbian acts together, of which the church that employs you disapproves?”, and had replied, “Oh yes, you must mean my flat mate. I love her to bits. Lesbian Acts? What us? Sorry, no comment.”, she would still have a job. At least she can always get another teaching job, next time not working as the employee of a church that has fixed and old-fashioned views against Lesbianism, and promising to live a moral life, as that church defines morality.
Compare and contrast Carla Lanes plight, with the permanent career sabotage of black British schoolteacher Robert Haye, reported at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/apr/12/homophobic-teacher-loses-ban-appeal
(I have deliberately chosen the least sympathetic coverage I could find in a hurry, of his particular persecution for thought crime.
Tolerance has got to be a two-way street, or it is merely a euphemism for intolerance.