Thursday 11 October 2012

Report on Same-Sex Marriages [Part 1] - Graham Wood

These seven articles (parts) have been used with the report author's written permission. 
 
‘POLICY EXCHANGE’ REPORT - SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
AN OPEN LETTER TO COALITION MPs.


With much of the moslem middle east in violent political upheaval, turmoil or in flames, and with the Eurozone and several western countries in economic free fall, it beggars belief that same sex marriage can feature as a priority at all in any government’s legislative programme.

Many will find it depressing that at such a time our government can engage in the distraction of an ideological theory for redefining and reshaping marriage. More so as current policy to promote homosexual "marriage" is driven by only a tiny minority, within a minority, of the homosexual community in the UK. In pursuit of this arbitrary policy this coalition government is about to degrade, devalue, and depersonalise marriage.

That is certainly to radically re-define it. Everyone is free to love whom they like but not to redefine marriage because to redefine it is to destroy it. Marriage's fundamental essence to bind husbands and wives together for the protection of their children and their elderly relatives will be gone for ever. Behind much of the government’s policy is The Conservative Party’s ‘think tank’ ‘Policy Exchange’ report of 60 pages prepared by Lord Ashcroft which attempts to justify homosexual "marriage". It offers a view that a “conservative case” in favour of reform has emerged on this issue. The title of this report itself is risible - ‘What’s In A Name? Is There A Case for Equal Marriage?’ (1).

As an apologetic for the value of marriage in general much of the report makes a very fair and reasonable case, but regretfully in many instances the references to ‘marriage’ in it assume a same sex relationship. It is decision based evidence gathering not evidence based decision making.

Likewise the report's many references to “equal” is also deceptive, accentuating as it does a perceived inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals in relation to marriage, which it claims needs to be redressed. The wrong inference drawn is that marriage as an institution is denied to homosexuals resulting in injustice, and it is this sense of grievance which mars much of some well reasoned discussion in the paper. 

For example it asserts: “there is not a compelling reason to shut out ‘gays’ and lesbian people from the benefits that marriage provides. Or - “there is still a case for equality before the law”. Again, “we do not believe that somebody’s sexuality is a justifiable reason to prevent them from marrying the person they love”. 

These claims perpetuate the myth that homosexuals are denied access to marriage, when what is really meant is marriage to one another!


REFERENCES:
1. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk.

2. Clashdaily.com. Article by Jennifer Thieme: “The Roe v Wade of our time – The battle over
Marriage.”
 

No comments: