Saturday, 25 February 2012

Lynne Featherstone: Government Minister for the Promotion of Homosexuality

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, is outshining both his successor and our own Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, in defending natural marriage against the State. He, at least, appears to be publicly conversant in the issues that are at stake if marriage should be redefined by the State. Unlike our own Catholic Archbishop, he appears to be in combatant mood when it comes to defending natural marriage. More power to his elbow.

He knows what is at stake. Let us remind ourselves once more of what, exactly, is at stake. For 'gay marriage' is not fundamentally a movement by the State recognising the inequality and injustice experienced by the lesbian and homosexual community. If that needed to be addressed, it surely already has been. It is only this on surface level. 'Gay marriage' is a radical departure from traditional morality so great, so culturally explosive, so antithetical to societal expectations and norms, so contradictory to objective morality, that it can only be the movement of the State towards totalitarianism.

There was a time when I considered that the smoking ban that came into force in the United Kingdom under the previous Labour Government was primarily to do with smoking and public health. It has taken me time to realise that it was only to do with public health on surface level. It wasn't primarily about smoking being a danger to public health or even about the State performing a blanket ban on a public habit enjoyed by a minority of people and making it illegal in public places for the benefit of a perceived 'health-conscious' majority.  It wasn't about health. It was about the State flexing its muscles over its own citizens. It was primarily about the State telling its own citizens, 'YOU CAN NO LONGER SMOKE IN PUBLIC PLACES'. It was about social control. And my, how we all rolled over to have our tummies tickled by the State. Not for us Brits to light up and stick two fingers up at the CCTV cameras. Not for us to tell train station attendants to kiss our behinds if we're going to put out our fags on this station when only fresh air surrounds us! If only! No, we do just as we are told!

Likewise, 'gay marriage' is not primarily about the State's recognition of the injustice perceived, this time, against a small minority of its citizens - namely homosexuals and lesbians, since grievances have already been addressed. That's what 'Civil Partnerships' were about, remember, even though at Magisterial level, at least, the Catholic Church condemns them as contrary to the natural law and the law of God. 'Gay marriage' is primarily about the State taking a human institution - marriage - and radically altering and changing in substance its meaning and nature. It means that whether those who defend natural marriage are religious in their view - or indeed not - the fact that this issue is being depicted as the Church Vs the State is merely a side-feature of the main event. The main event concerns the State's relationship with YOU and me, its citizens.

Welcome to your future, United Kingdom
It means that whatever YOU thought marriage was, YOU were wrong. Whoever YOU thought was able to define marriage, YOU were wrong. It is primarily to do with the State's desire to control every aspect of human life. It is now up to the State to decide what marriage IS and what marriage IS NOT. What YOU had thought marriage IS NOT now IS. And conversely, what you had thought marriage IS, it IS NOT. Whatever religion may teach, until now, YOU thought marriage was not something which two men can undertake, whether YOU believed in God, or not.

Whatever religion may teach, until now, YOU thought marriage was something that takes place between a man and a woman, whether YOU believed in God, or not. The most human institution of all, marriage, is now believed by the State to be in the hands of the State. The question is, is it safe in the hands of the State? Is anything so fundamental and integral to the human person and to society safe in the hands of the State? The answer to these questions simply has to be: 'No'. The State has no business in this area of human life. By its very actions, the State is over-reaching its remit and its democratic mandate. Even the very fact that this is under discussion in the media should have bells ringing in the houses of all men and women in the United Kingdom, whether those bells are Church bells, or indeed not. Years of propaganda from the liberal media, Stonewall and its supporters in Parliament and the Press have paved the way for this moment by a process of incrementalism aimed at undermining and destabilising Britain's cultural and moral life subtly, until the 'revolution' could be won.

Gay marriage is not fundamentally about recognising the new rights and freedoms of the homosexual community in the United Kingdom. It is about an institution which is universally recognisable as the most human of all institutions, passing from the ownership of Almighty God and humanity itself, to an Almighty State. Be assured, also, that if marriage is redefined, then the new respectability conferred upon 'gay marriage' will soon result in any opposition to the Brave New World, even opposition to gay religious ceremonies taking place in Churches, being crushed, since the State now decides what marriage is - not the Church and not even the citizens of the United Kingdom.

'Gay marriage' is Orwellian in nature. The Equalities Minister, the Head of the 'Department for Equalities' is Orwellian. The idea that this department is interested in just and fair treatment for its citizens is laughable and ridiculous and the current situation, with Lynne Featherstone telling Churches not to 'polarise the debate' by opposing the Government's plans (in other words, by publicly disagreeing with the Government's plans) is straight out of 'Nineteen Eighty Four'. It is absurd. It is beyond parody. It is living satire.

How can a Government minister for a Department for Equality tell religious 'minority' groups (and the Head of the Established Church, HRH the Queen at that) that it basically doesn't matter what they say or what they believe, this 'gay marriage' proposal will go ahead regardless and that they should, basically, all shut up, including Her Majesty? By virtue of the position she holds as Head of 'Equalities', Lynne Featherstone should, by all accounts, resign, along with Trevor Phillips of the Human Rights and Equalities Commission, because it is blatantly obvious that neither she nor he are capable of being objective, impartial or even vaguely 'equal' in their treatment of the concerns of the homosexual lobby and the Churches - two different minorities with very competing views and interests.

The idea of a Government minister in any other department behaving in such an obviously partial manner towards one lobbyist or interest group or of that Minister demonstrating partisanship in such a public and high-handed manner would draw a barrage of criticism resulting perhaps in that minister's resignation or sacking. Why doesn't she just rename her ministerial role to: 'Minister for the Promotion of Homosexuality to the Detriment of Religious Folk and Others Who Aren't Quite Sure About It'?

Astonishingly, Ms Featherboaconstrictor then goes on to tell us that 'this is the will of the people', which will look even more ironic if she repeats such a statement in Holy Week. Remember, citizens of the United Kingdom, Big Brother knows best what is good for you and knows what you should believe, even if you don't quite believe it! Ms Featherstone has the temerity to suggest that this is the 'will of the people' without even asking what the people actually think. Well, we know that David Cameron is making 'gay marriage' a central issue of his Premiership because Lynne Featherstone has today told us so. However, while David Cameron may be committed to the pink cause now, now indeed, that he is in occupying Number 10 Downing Street, Mr Cameron was a little more coy on this subject in the months before he was elected to be PM. Take a look at how reticent Mr Cameron was to promise to a Gay Times journalist anything other than a free vote for the Conservative Party MPs and MEPs in voting on the proposal that he now presents to us as totally in keeping with Conservative tradition and with such evangelistic zeal.

Mr Cameron knew his own party would see that interview. With the Gay Times journalist he therefore found himself between a rock and a hard place, as he attempted to be 'all things to all men' but with none of the holiness of St Paul. Did you notice, also, the astonishing power and influence that the gay lobby, this time in the form of Martin Popplewell, has over even our Prime Ministers?

"Why," he sneers, "should we (speaking on behalf of all gays) vote for you if you won't vote for us?"

It does not enter into Mr Popplewell's thought processes that this could, you know, be an issue of conscience for Conservative MPs and MEPs and that to whip the party into line might cause, you know, bitter resentment and divisions in the party. For the militant gay community, it's all about them, you see, nobody else. A great question for Mr Popplewell from the hapless Mr Cameron could well have been - indeed should have been: 'Why are you convinced that when you represent about 2% of the entire population of the United Kingdom, I should treat your minority's agenda with greater and more urgent concern than those of the rest of the population at a time of deep economic hardship for the country?'

Still, there we have it. That's the power of the pink vote, seemingly! It is true to say that Mr Cameron did 'modernise' the Conservative Party, but it is also true to say he seems not to be a conviction politician, but just another conviction-less politician in an empty suit courting votes. Now, now indeed that he is in office, it is obvious that nothing short of a supervolcano exploding in St James's Park will stall his desire to abandon natural marriage and to do give way to Stonewall's 'conjugal rights', but is it really as popular as he thinks it is, or is it just the concern of a small and liberal elite? For example, this was not the central issue which won the election for the Conservative Party, yet not outright enough to escape Coalition government. It did not form a central part of Mr Cameron's electoral mandate, so why is he so committed to the 'equality cause' now? Anyone would have thought he was Tony Blair or something! So strange that, is it not, that despite the fact that Mr Blair became a Catholic, we can guess that were he to vote in such a bill, he would vote for Stonewall too. Principles and politicans - not a good mix.

'Equalities' Minsiter: Lynne Featherstone MP
But as Lord Carey points out to Lynne Featherboa, if it is really true that the British understanding of marriage has shifted so dramatically in this the early part of the 21st century, so much so that the vast majority of citizens desire that marriage itself be redefined, then let's give the British population an opportunity for the 'will of the people' to be made manifest through a national referendum. Will this happen? Will the 'will of the people' be requested by Parliament? Will it buggery! Excuse my french.

Just as the Abortion Act (1967) paved the way for personhood itself to be redefined, without a referendum, in the public consciousness and those of every future generation of children, so too will the Same-Sex Marriage Bill of 2012 pave the way for marriage to be redefined, without a referendum, in the public consciousness and those of every future generation of children. Mr Cameron is playing with fire. He can expect to get his fingers burnt - if not in this life - then the next. No, what Lord Carey has suggested will not occur. There will be no referendum on this because Lynne and Dave just instinctively know what British citizens really want - and that's 'gay marriage'.

Such an exercise in democracy as a national referendum on the biggest change to English law for 800 years or more is the last thing - the last thing - the Govenrnment intend to do, because this is not just about marriage, but a cultural revolution echoing that of Chairman Mao of China, in which YOU and YOUR FUTURE CHILDREN are to be told by the State what you believe and think of marriage, not your conscience, not the Church, nor even the cultural prejudices of your own particular social milieu. All that will be swept away. This is about progressives dominating both the left and right of the political spectrum using the tools and frightening power of the State to compel the whole population of the United Kingdom to believe something which has always been held as objectively untrue, to be held as suddenly true - that marriage could be redefined by the State to be between parties other than one man and one woman. Ultimately, this is about the State telling you what to think, and, eventually, about banishing any voices which oppose the 'Brave New World', to the wilderness.

Do you really think that if the Same-Sex Marriage Bill is passed in the Year of Our Lord 2012, that spontaneous parties will erupt all over Great Britain, from Hackney to Heathrow, from Bournmouth to Bristol, from Glasgow to Glamorgan? I somehow doubt it. There will be some, and of course, Brighton will love it, but not everywhere, dear readers, as you know, is like Brighton.  There will be pockets of celebrations in parts of the United Kingdom if this law is passed, but there will be a great many people who will be sitting at home watching TV thinking, 'Gay marriage, eh? Well I never. What has the country come to?' Of course, they'll be allowed to think that...for now...but Heaven help the first British child who stands up in front of the classroom and says, 'But Miss, I believe, and my mummy and daddy believe, that marriage is between men and women because that's how babies are made'. Heaven help that child and Heaven help that child's parents because in 21st century Britain, the State owns marriage and what YOU may or may not think about it.


Anonymous said...

Another great post. I now take the opportunity to say how wonderful it was to have finally met you at Blackfen!!! In case the mind needs refreshing, one refers to hugs and kisses on the day.

God bless and always praying for you, Laurence.


Lynda said...

The primary principle - that homosexual relationships ought not be recognised and given status by the State as being against the Natural Law, objective moral truth and the public interest - has already been contravened by the CPA. That Act created a legal relationship for two persons of the same sex in a sexual relationship. The legal relationship created by that Act was civil marriage by another name for persons in homosexual relationships. It was only less than marriage in that it was much simpler to get in and out of. Neither (thankfully) did adoption legislation allow a couple in a civil partnership to adopt a child. In short, the principle has already been breached (by an invalid law which contravenes the unwritten Constitution of the UK) and the proposed law to allow persons of the same sex to be married in the same way as a man and woman are married under the civil law, is simply an escalation of the principle. It is an extension of the civil partnership to that of marriage - it is not of a different order. Obviously, one of the worst consequences of the proposed law is that any law which permits a civilly married couple, to adopt a child or to become legal parents in any other way, will apply to a same-sex "married" couple. Of course, both the CPA and the proposed law extending civil marriage to same-sex couples are invalid for being against the Natural Law, moral reason. Under the UK's unwritten Constitution, the State is bound by the Rule of Law - it cannot make lawful anything which is naturally against the pre-existing Law.

A Reluctant Sinner said...

Hear, hear!

Well done, again, Laurence.

Nicolas Bellord said...

On BBC breakfast this morning a journalist from the Daily Mail was saying that following the redefinition of marriage there will be (and have already been) calls from heterosexual couples to be allowed to enter into civil partnerships on the grounds of equality i.e. if homos can why not heteros. I suspect he is right and we will then have a sort of three-tier marriage system - CPs, civil marriage and sacramental marriage.

I suspect many Catholics will accept the situation of a three-tier marriage system i.e. CPs and marriage so that they can retreat into saying that sacramental marriage, as the Church has always upheld it, is something for Catholics and some other Christians alone. It is a wonderful recipe for doing nothing. Indeed I already read of this attitude being adopted and I am none too sure it might not be the attitude of some of our Bishops. I look forward to a statement from them proving me wrong.

Anonymous said...

I think you're right. We've moved to a sort of 'soft dictatorship' of the liberals. It's the liberal way or the highway and woe betide anyone who stands in their way. Lynne Featherstones statement is aggressive and manipulative and just draws on emotional blackmail and rhetoric to put her case. What seems to be upsetting her most and the rest of the liberals is that they want to be the infallible ones and other people are saying no. How ironic!!

The liberal revolution is not proceeding using little red books and the army to put down insurrections but uses the 'soft tools' of control of the judiciary (i.e. legislation) and control of th media to get what they want. Somebody has thought this through. Its obvious.


Juventutem London said...

You're on a roll at the moment Laurence. I wonder how we can get these things out to a wider audience...

georgem said...

Another well-argued piece. The aims of the Frankfurt Marxists, and their adoption of tactics by stealth in order to undermine and eradicate the bedrock institutions of society can, in the light of this latest proposition, be considered an unqualified success.

Maggie Sterum said...

The proper place and use of catholic social/moral teaching in society:

Left-footer said...

Brilliantly argued, and puts our Bishops to shame.

This certainly needs wider circulation. Thank you and God bless!

David O'Neill said...

Surely if we have a 'Minister for Homosexuality' then, for the sake of fairness, we should have a 'Minister for Heterosexuality'! Perhaps a referral to the European Court of Human Rights is called for?

For a fairly small minority of the population it seems that homosexuals & lesbians (I refuse to use the term 'gay') has a very loud voice, too loud when it oppresses the feelings of normal citizens.

Mike said...

As far as politicians pursuing the agendas of pressure groups is concerned the Liberal Democrats have become little else. And the more extreme the pressure group is concerned the more they like it. The old cliché of people in sandals and woolly hats was always just that – a cliché – but in the old days they had principles. No they have been taken over by people who are basically just committed to the agendas of particular pressure groups. Another thing to notice about the Lib Dems is that they like to pursue agendas which marginalise religion, except when that religion is Islam and then they can’t be more accommodating if they tried.

blondpidge said...

Juventum. Anyone wanting to get this out to a wider audience, should be prepared to face a vicious mob mentality, the like of which I've never experienced.

3 days after someone copied & pasted an out of context blog response to Laurence addressing the issue of "intrinsically disordered", I continue to receive rape & death threats. As did another Catholic tweeter, one who is 36 weeks pregnant and who ended up in A&E threatening early labour, the violent nature of the nasty sexual threat made, triggering an anxiety attack following a serious sexual assault. Her baby is fortunately alright.

The gay lobby continue to claim that this type of behaviour is justified, that us bigots ought to experience bullying and violence to understand them and ironically display the kind of sanctimonious & bigoted behaviour that would put a Pharisee to shame.

Great post Laurence, we must not be bullied, we must get this out there, but whoever does must have cojones of steel. I've realised that much as I feel that I could put forward a very convincing & persuasive case, my responsibilities to my family must come first. I've had gay activists locally attempting to find out where I live.

It is a diabolical culture in which we live. I don't usually go in for Apocalyptic imagery, but truly at times it feels like the end of days.

Lynda said...

Apologies for error in my earlier rather rushed comment, and delay in getting back to rectify it. I was unable to do so till now. Adoption laws for England and Wales and for Scotland provide for the adoption of a child by a couple who are in a civil partnership. Of course, same-sex couples in "enduring" [!] relationships could adopt in any case in those jurisdictions before civil partnerships were introduced. Although, in purely practical terms, therefore, the CPA may not seem to have significantly changed the adoption laws, it is another of many instances (a most crucial one) of the marriage-like status granted by the law to CPs. The adoption legislation in permitting same sex-couples (quite apart from CPs) to adopt, is of course, not in accordance with the Natural Law, the natural family, motherhood, fatherhood, the child's best interests, and the common good. People are, therefore, obliged by the Natural Law, not to comply with those adoption laws. And, of course, in the same way, Catholics may not cooperate with them.

Naomi King said...

I quote from Pink News this morning-

"On how to promote tolerance and tackle prejudice in younger generations, Peter Tatchell says: “Education against homophobia and all prejudice should be a compulsory subject in every school, from primary level upwards, with no opt-outs for independent and free schools and no right of parents to withdraw their kids. There should be exams in tolerance. “The results should go on pupil’s records and should have to be declared when applying for higher education and jobs.”"

Elton John praises ‘Jesus-like’ Peter Tatchell’s reaction to attacks - 28/02/2012 06:38

Elton John praises ‘Jesus-like’ Peter Tatchell

The Pontificate of Abuse

I have in the past had some experience of abusive relationships. They are profoundly painful even when you love the person involved. It ...