Round-up of recent news on same-sex marriage

There is a great deal of press reporting and comment on the government's iniquitous proposals to legalize same-sex marriage - proposals they did not dare to put to the British electorate at the general election.

Without implying approval for any of the content of stories/articles/papers at the links below, I reproduce for your information, some of the main stories which have appeared today and over the weekend concerning the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) bill.

Church of England briefing for 2^nd reading

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1657614/ssmarriagebillbriefing.pdf

Tory MP Caroline Dinenage: Banning gay couples from marrying ‘takes nothing away from their relationship’

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/04/tory-mp-caroline-dinenage-banning-gay-couples-from-marrying-takes-nothing-away-from-their-relationship/

Michael Gove op-ed supporting gay marriage

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272531/Michael-Gove-Denying-gay-men-women-wrong.html#axzz2JvU3vYkw

The blogger Cranmer on “Cameron’s gay marriage hypocrisy”

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/camerons-gay-marriage-hypocrisy.html

French National Assembly votes for gay marriage 249-97 in initial vote

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16969

Tory waverers press-ganged to back Cameron on gay marriage vote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-waverers-pressganged-to-back-cameron-on-gay-marriage-vote-8478712.html

Important essay by philosopher Roger Scruton and policy thinker Philip Blond against gay marriage

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/02/04/3682721.htm

Telegraph editorial criticising David Cameron

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9846189/Mr-Cameron-needs-a-more-civil-partnership.html

Grassroots Tories 'betrayed' by David Cameron over same-sex marriage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9845610/Grassroots-Tories-betrayed-by-David-Cameron-over-same-sex-marriage.html

New Archbishop of Canterbury challenges David Cameron on gay marriage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9846004/New-Archbishop-of-Canterbury-challenges-David-Cameron-on-gay-marriage.html

Two-thirds of Tory MPs could refuse to back gay marriage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9840756/Two-thirds-of-Tory-MPs-could-refuse-to-back-gay-marriage.html

Former Telegraph editor Charles Moore: “This Equality obsession is mad, bad and very dangerous”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9842384/This-Equality-obsession-is-mad-bad-and-very-dangerous.html

Cameron makes last-ditch push for same-sex marriage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9846639/Cameron-makes-last-ditch-push-for-same-sex-marriage.html

Only one voter in 14 says gay marriage is a priority issue that would be important in deciding next election

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/textbased/news/text-2273055/Only-voter-14-says-gay-marriage-priority-issue-important-deciding-election.html

Melanie Phillips  Why failing to stand up for marriage is the reason Tories are always in crisis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/textbased/debate/text-2272935/Why-failing-stand-marriage-reason-Tories-crisis.html

Coalition for Marriage: Broken promises: Cameron said he had ‘no plans’ to redefine marriage

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/01/31/broken-promises-cameron-said-he-had-%E2%80%98no-plans%E2%80%99-to-redefine-marriage/

Coalition for Marriage 2^nd reading briefing

http://c4m.org.uk/downloads/secondreadingbriefing.pdf

Tobias Ellswood MP: I’m a ‘progressive Conservative’ but I will vote against gays marrying

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/02/tobias-ellswood-mp-im-a-progressive-conservative-but-i-will-vote-against-gays-marrying

Norman Tebbit: The same-sex marriage folly is symptomatic of the Coalition's inability to manage its affairs

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100201058/the-same-sex-marriage-folly-is-symptomatic-of-the-coalitions-inability-to-manage-its-affairs/

Teachers free to speak out against same-sex marriage, insists Gove

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article3677050.ece

40,000 TEACHERS RISK JOBS OVER GAY ROW

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/375219/40-000-teachers-risk-jobs-over-gay-row

Rebels line up to jilt Dave at the gay altar

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2272483/Rebels-line-jilt-Dave-gay-altar.html

Conservative party ripped apart by gay marriage vote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9844514/Conservative-party-ripped-apart-by-gay-marriage-vote.html

Gay voters have described David Cameron’s support for same-sex marriage as a ‘cynical political stunt’.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/02/02/gays-reject-coalitions-stunt/

Final plea by Maria Miller to MPs to vote for gay marriage

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/04/maria-miller-voting-for-same-sex-marriage-will-promote-stability-responsibility-and-pride

Ex-MP Paul Goodman: The same-sex marriage bill - and why I'm cutting the money I give to the Party

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/02/same-sex-marriage-and-why-im-cutting-the-money-i-give-to-the-party.html

David Burrowes MP in Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-burrowes-mp/gay-marriage-time-to-stand-up-for-the-progressive-and-conservative-institution-of-marriage_b_2612180.html

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Don't fall for David Cameron's pitch on abortion time limit

David Cameron, the Conservative party leader, has responded to questions from readers of The Catholic Herald on several pro-life and pro-family issues. Mr Cameron was asked:

"Will you press for a reduction in the month for which abortion is allowed?"

Mr Cameron replied:

"My own view is that we do need to review the abortion limit. I think that the way medical science and technology have developed in the past few decades does mean that an upper limit of 20 or 22 weeks would be sensible. So I supported the two amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which would have changed this and I’ll continue to support a modest reduction in the abortion limit. But what’s really important here is that Members of Parliament are always allowed a free vote on this issue. This is an issue of conscience, so it would be wrong to put pressure on Parliamentary colleagues when it comes to voting on this."

It should be noted that:

• by "abortion limit", Mr Cameron only means the 24-week limit for abortions done on social grounds. As he made clear in August 2008, he wants abortion up to birth on disabled children to remain available.
• Mr Cameron and Andrew Lansley, the Conservative party health spokesman, have made clear that they support wider access to abortion in various ways. If there is a free vote by MPs, as promised by Mr Cameron, it will provide the pro-abortion lobby with an opportunity to increase the numbers of abortions, as happened under the Conservative administration under Margaret Thatcher.
• Mr Cameron is only endorsing a reduction of two to four weeks (and for social abortions only). This ignores the vast majority (87% or more) of abortions which are performed before 12 weeks. Only one to two per cent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks. There is a serious danger of MPs who back a cosmetic lowering of the upper time-limit for social abortions of voting in favour of wider access to social abortions earlier in pregnancy.

Nadine Dorries, the leading advocate within the Conservative party of reducing the 24-week social abortion limit, has made her pro-abortion position clear:

"I should like to make my personal position clear, because it has been misrepresented in the past few days. I am pro-choice. I support a woman’s right to abortion—to faster, safer and quicker abortion than is available at the moment, particularly in the first trimester. That is my position ... [O]ne of the main problems is that many young women who present at a hospital or at a doctor’s are made to wait two to four weeks before a termination. I want to make my position clear: I am not against abortion per se. Actually, I would go further: I would like the morning-after pill to be available from every school nurse and in every supermarket pharmacy—and it should be free for young girls, and not £25 at the chemist’s, as it is at the moment." (Hansard, 20 May 2008)

"I have no issue with abortion at the right time." [Daily Mail, 6 March 2008]

She introduced a 10-minute rule bill in 2006 which included a provision to fast-track abortion once the final consent had been given. This provision, if the bill had succeeded, could have led to even more resources being spent on killing the unborn.

There is no reason to believe that the new parliament will be significantly less pro-abortion than the old one. Before the votes on abortion in 2008, advocates of reducing the upper time limit for social abortions had claimed they there had been a sea-change in parliamentary opinion in favour of such a reduction. Yet all the amendments calling for reductions in the upper time limit for social abortions were rejected by large majorities, with the number of MPs voting with the pro-abortion lobby exceeding 390. This sea-change was revealed to be wishful thinking stoked by media hype. With the numbers in parliament stacked against the pro-life movement, it makes no sense at all to add to the calls of the pro-abortion lobby for Parliament to amend the abortion law.

Some observers predict an influx into the new parliament of the so-called Notting Hill Set, socially liberal Tory party candidates with similar views to David Cameron. If so, the result may well be increased pressure to remove restrictions on abortion on demand in early pregnancy and allow nurses to perform certain types of abortion. Most MPs will only accept restrictions on late-term abortions in return for measures making abortion more easily available in other ways. Also, negotiating any lower limit is likely to involve a trade-off with more exceptions being allowed beyond the 24-week limit – up to birth. The number of abortions resulting from these changes would exceed the small number (about 750) of social abortions after 20 or 22 weeks. In any case, those doctors who want to do late abortions can simply get around any lower time-limit, by falsifying gestational age and/or fudging the grounds. As David Steel, the author of the Abortion Act 1967, has said:

"Putting an upper limit on abortions deemed to be done for "social reasons" would have negligible impact on either ease of access for concerned women or current medical practice."

It should also be noted that:

• It was under a Conservative government that parliament voted for abortion up to birth.
• It was also under a Conservative government that the upper limit for abortions was raised for abortions generally. People mistakenly claim that the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks by the Conservative government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. However, because of amendments to the law made by the 1990 Act, the previous limit, which was based on the capability of the baby to be born alive – not a fixed number of weeks (28) – was abolished and a 24 week time limit was introduced but only for certain cases. In other cases (including where the abortion is carried out on the grounds of disability) abortions can be and are now carried out right up to the time of birth. Every child who had reached the stage of development of being “capable of being born alive” was protected by the pre-1990 law. Since 1990 that protection has been removed. So the effect of the 1990 Act was to increase the time limit for abortion in most instances and in many cases right up to birth.
• It was pro-lifers who pressed for the 1990 Act to contain provisions relating to abortion, in the hope of being able to insert some restrictions, particularly early time limits. Sadly this tactic backfired, resulting in a less, not more, restrictive abortion law.

Elsewhere in the interview, David Cameron answers questions on sex education. His answers, and the Conservative policy positions on them, are partly good, partly bad and partly mistaken.

SPUC is political, not party political. Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, the leaders of the other two main parties, share David Cameron's pro-abortion record and position. My critique of David Cameron's answer on abortion is motivated purely by a desire to protect unborn children and their mothers from abortion. The issue of the upper time limit for social abortions is at best a dangerous distraction. At worst, it will entrench discrimination against disabled children and set the scene for an expansion of abortion.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

David Cameron confirms he backs discrimination against unborn disabled babies (and Brown voted for it in 1990)

David Cameron confirmed this evening that he would not vote to reverse current discrimination against unborn disabled babies who can be aborted right up to birth since the law was changed by Parliament in 1990. Mr Cameron made a similar commitment in a Daily Mail interview earlier this year on which I blogged at the time.

I heard this news from Rachel and Bill Peck who attended a "Cameron Direct" Question and Answer Session this evening in Barrow-in-Furness. Rachel asked David Cameron. the Conservative leader, the following question: "In 1990 when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act discriminated against the disabled by allowing disabled babies for the very first time to be aborted right up to full term. My question is: If in power would you favour measures to reverse this discrimination by giving unborn children who are disabled the same protection under the law as currently enjoyed by all other children?"

David Cameron answered: "A short answer first then a longer one. My personal view about that is no. I think abortion votes, and votes on embryology, and votes on all of those things should be free votes. They are matters of conscience and on the last embryology bill we’ve just had I pushed very hard (if you remember, the Prime Minister wanted to have whipped votes like they had whipped votes in the House of Lords) and I said this is wrong; this is a conscience issue; this is one where MP’s have got to examine their consciences, listen to their constituents, and explain their positions and it should always be a free vote. So it should always be a free vote. My own view is yes, I think that we should change the abortion limit down from 24 towards 20 weeks; I voted that way and I think it would be right to do that. But in the case of parents who have medical evidence that they may have a very disabled child, I would not want to change that. And I speak as someone, I mean, I’ve got a six year old boy who is severely disabled has cerebral palsy and is quadriplegic and he’s a sweet boy, he’s a lovely boy Ivan, and, you know, it is though incredibly tough bringing up disabled children and I don’t want to kind of put myself in the position of saying to other parents you’ve got to go ahead and have that child or you can’t have an abortion or you can do this or you can’t do that. Personally Ivan, he’s brought incredible things to my life but it is an enormous challenge and I don’t think it’s right to sort of tell other parents if you hear that you’ve got a very disabled child on the way, that actually doing something about it isn’t an option. That’s my view.”

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, of course, voted three times for this discriminatory legislation in 1990. David Cameron was first elected to Parliament in June 2001.

Family campaigners worldwide must protest against Cameron’s plan to export same-sex marriage

SPUC is calling upon family campaigners worldwide to protest against the British prime minister’s plan to export same-sex marriage, following David Cameron’s speech (see notes 1 & 2 below for extracts) last night at a reception at No. 10 Downing Street, the prime ministerial residence, to thank those who had engineered the rail-roading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act through Parliament.

We are calling for international resistance to the British prime minister’s global plans to impose sexual licence on children and poor families. SPUC will be contacting church leaders, politicians and family campaigners worldwide to alert them to this threat by the British government, asking them to protest to the British embassies in their countries. Same-sex marriage is a counterfeit version of marriage and thus undermines real marriage, which is the best protector of children, both born and unborn.

From the very start of his prime ministership, Mr Cameron and his government have been obsessed with promoting the culture of death around the world. This includes spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the promotion of abortion and contraception. People anxious to defend life and family in their countries must warn their fellow citizens about these insidious activities of British government officials.

Antonia Tully, national coordinator of SPUC’s Safe at School campaign, commented:

"Mr Cameron’s comments about children (see note 2 below) is yet more evidence that legalising same-sex marriage will lead to the promotion of homosexuality in schools. The real scourge in schools is the sexualisation of children, not least through the material which homosexual groups use to target children.”

SPUC has published a position paper on same-sex marriage explaining why SPUC campaigns for real marriage, and a background paper to be read in conjunction with the position paper and which provides some additional references and reflections.

Notes:

1) Mr Cameron thanked ministers and officials (known as the ‘bill team’), saying:

"I’ve told the bill team I’m now going to reassign them because, of course, all over the world people would have been watching this piece of legislation and we’ve set something, I think, of an example of how to pass good legislation in good time. Many other countries are going to want to copy this. And, as you know, I talk about the global race, about how we’ve got to export more and sell more so I’m going to export the bill team. I think they can be part of this global race and take it around the world."

Mr Cameron also said:

“There’s a lot more work to be done as Britain in the Commonwealth, talking to our Commonwealth partners about decriminalising homosexuality in various countries.”

2) In clear references to how the same-sex marriage law will provide momentum to promoting homosexuality in schools, Mr Cameron said:

"I think of young children growing up at school, who might be uncertain about their sexuality, knowing that now, in the highest place in the land – in Parliament – we’ve passed this law that says that marriage is for you, whether you’re gay or whether you’re straight. And I think that is so important to young people growing up."

and

"There’s a lot of work to be done on homophobic bullying in schools, which is still a scourge in our country. There’s a lot of work to be done in terms of hate crimes and how we stop and stamp that out in our society."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time

SPUC has responded to David Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph this morning  in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015.

As I told the media this morning, there are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies.

Mr Cameron's speech reveals that his understanding of marriage and religion is woefully simplistic and ignorant. His mantra of 'equality' totally ignores the nature, history and role of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman ordered towards the procreation of children.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is outside Mr Cameron's remit as a political leader. The family - not the government - is the first and vital cell and source of human society, and is therefore a pre-political institution. By seeking to redefine marriage, Mr Cameron is also seeking to redefine the family, which is based upon marriage between one man and one woman. Mr Cameron is clearly doing his best to copy Tony Blair as a social engineering guru.

SPUC's position paper on same-sex marriage explains why SPUC, as a pro-life campaigning organisation, campaigns against same-sex unions.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

David Cameron backs wider access to abortion

The office of David Cameron, the leader of the Opposition, has written to SPUC, saying that Mr Cameron regards current proposals for wider access to abortion as "practical and sensible". The relevant section of the letter from Mr Cameron's letter starts by noting that Mr Cameron voted for a “modest” reduction in the the 24 week limit for 'social' abortions. The letter goes on to say:

"David is aware of the comments made by the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley MP, in the House on the 12 May. Andrew was advocating that early, medical abortions are preferable to late, surgical ones. Therefore, Andrew was in favour of amending the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion being performed and for reviewing the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions. As David is in favour of allowing women to have abortions, but supports a reduction to the abortion limit, he thinks that this is a practical and sensible proposal. However, it must be emphasized that this is currently a free vote issue."

I warned recently that certain Conservative parliamentarians prominent in the recent abortion debates see wider access to abortion and reducing the 24 week limit for 'social' abortions as two sides of the same coin.

Amendments to enact proposals for wider access to abortion could be tabled at the next stage (the ‘Report’ stage) of the government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, expected early in July.

If your MP is a Conservative, please write to him/her to say that the support by Mr Cameron and Mr Lansley for wider access to abortion does no credit to the Conservative party. Other points you can make to your MP can be found on our new leaflet "No to more abortion" http://www.spuc.org.uk/hfeabort.pdf You can contact your MP (and find out your MP's name) via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps or by writing to your MP at the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. Please remember to copy any replies you receive to Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, by email at political@spuc.org.uk or by post to SPUC.

Please order a quantity of our new leaflet "No to more abortion" http://www.spuc.org.uk/hfeabort.pdf and distribute them door-to-door, in the street and at churches. You can order a quantity of leaflets by emailing lizfoody@spuc.org.uk or by telephoning SPUC on 020 7091 7091.

History exposes the Government's empty assurances on same-sex marriage and schools

Maria Miller, the government's equalities minister, blogged on Friday on the government's assurances regarding conscientious objection to same-sex marriage. Here is what she wrote about schools:

"There has been some debate about how this Bill will affect teachers and teaching about marriage in schools. Let me make it absolutely clear, that teachers will continue to have the clear right to express in a professional way their own beliefs, or that of their faith, such as that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs. As with any area of the curriculum, teachers will of course be required to teach the factual position that under the law, marriage can be between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. But, of course they will not be required to promote same-sex marriage, and neither will we be bringing in new powers to sack teachers who disagree with same-sex marriage. There are already many subjects which need to be taught carefully, particularly in faith schools – divorce, for example. The guidance governing these issues is the same guidance that will govern how same sex-marriage is handled. And equally, parents will continue to have the right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons that they do not consider appropriate."

SPUC is continuing to respond to the detail of the government's assurances, such as in our letter to headteachers and in forthcoming documents. What is also needed, however, is a historical perspective on the reliability of assurances given to Parliament. Here are but three examples:

• In 1967, Parliament was told that the Abortion Act would not lead to mass abortion or to abortion on demand. Today, there are 200,000 abortions annually, almost all authorised with little or no question.
• In 1990, Parliament was told that an abortion on the grounds that the unborn child had a cleft palate would never be allowed. Today abortions on that ground are performed every year.
• In 1994, the Sunday Trading Act was passed following assurances that no one would be forced to work on a Sunday. Last month the High Court ruled that Christians have no right to refuse to work on Sundays.

Now let us look at what the senior figures of the three main parties have said in the recent past about homosexuality and schools. Here is what David Cameron, now Prime Minister but then Leader of the Opposition, said during an interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight on 23 April 2010:

Paxman: "You're in favour of faith schools being able to teach sex education as they like".

Cameron:"Not as they like. That's not right. What we voted for was what the government suggested in the end, which is proper sex education..."

Paxman: "Should they be free to teach that homosexuality is wrong, abortion is wrong, contraception is wrong?"

Cameron: "No, and the government discussed this and came up with a good idea, which is to say that we wanted a clearer path of sexual education across all schools, but faith schools were not given any exemption but they were able to reflect some of their own faith in the way that this was taught. But no, you must teach proper lessons in terms of gay equality and also combat homophobic bullying in schools, I think that's extremely important."

Mr Cameron is the most high-profile and powerful politician to make clear that same-sex marriage is essential for 'gay equality'. Therefore it is clear that, for Mr Cameron, "proper sex education" and "proper lessons in terms of gay equality" means forbidding schools from teaching that homosexual marriage is wrong, including because homosexuality is wrong.

Nick Clegg, then only leader of the Liberal Democrats but now also Deputy Prime Minister, was reported by The Independent newspaper on 13 January 2010 to have told Attitude, the homosexual magazine, that all schools, including faith schools, should be forced to teach that homosexuality is "normal and harmless". Interestingly, The Independent also reported that:

"the Tories are unlikely to give full marital rights to gay couples."

And if the Labour party were to lead the government after the 2015 election, we have an indication of what will happen from the comments of Ed Balls, then Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families:

Telegraph, 23 Jan. 2010:

"... Does [Mr Balls] agree with Nick Clegg that faith schools should be forced to teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless? The answer is yes."
[Balls]: "If their faith has a view in scripture, they can inform pupils of that. What they must not do is teach discrimination. They must be absolutely clear about the importance of civil partnerships [and that] bullying of homosexuals is wrong ..." .

Today programme, 23 February 2010:

"[S]chools cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument. They also have to teach that there are different views on homosexuality. They cannot teach homophobia. They must explain civil partnership ... [Catholic schools] cannot teach that homosexuality is wrong and that therefore it is OK to discriminate on homosexuality ..."

Letter to The Times, 23 February 2010:

"[S]tatutory lessons on sex and relationship education...includes education about contraception and the importance of stable relationships, including marriage and civil partnerships. It will not allow the teaching of homophobia. All maintained schools and academies will be required to teach the full programmes of study. This includes promoting equality and encouraging acceptance of diversity ... The bottom line is that...discrimination is prevented in all schools."

Thus we know what our political leaders want and where they are leading us. The Government's latest assurances regarding same-sex marriage are empty.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

SPUC comments on British PM's pub meeting with gay activist comedian

location of Cameron & Fry meeting

Top story:

SPUC comments on British PM's pub meeting with gay activist comedian
SPUC has commented on the meeting between David Cameron, the British prime minister, and Stephen Fry, the homosexual activist and comedian. The two were invited to meet by Evgeny Lebedev, the owner of the pro-homosexual London Evening Standard newspaper, at a London pub owned jointly by Lebedev and Sir Ian McKellen, the homosexual activist and actor. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the UK's response to Russia's laws on homosexuality. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told LifeSiteNews.com: "David Cameron's pub meeting suggests that he is now an actual leader of the homosexualist lobby, and that he prefers the company of his party's left-wing opponents to its own traditional supporters. One suspects that Mr Cameron is privately pleased that huge numbers of pro-family Tories are fleeing from the Conservative party. All prime ministers are desperate to leave their mark on history, and Mr Cameron is delighted to leave the destruction of true marriage as his legacy. The cost, of course, will be be paid by future generations, especially children both born and unborn." [LifeSiteNews.com, 19 August]

Other stories:

Abortion

• Abortion doesn’t kill babies, abortionists do [SPUC youth blog, 20 August]
• Abortion rates rising in Wigan, north-west England [Wigan Today, 19 August]
• Hard working abortionists should motivate us [SPUC youth blog, 13 August]

Embryology

• 3.8 million human embryos created to produce 122,000 live births – success rate of 3.2%  [Peter Saunders, 18 August]
• At 60, Britain's oldest mum of IVF twins finally admits: I wish I had a man to help me [Mail, 15 August]

Euthanasia

• Rugby star with motor neurone disease says he's "very positive, very happy" [BBC, 20 August]
• Shape up or close down, 800 care homes are told [Times, 20 August]
• Euthanasia fears as Irish government introduces mental incapacity bill [Pat Buckley, 19 August]
• Neighbour tells mother to "Do the right thing and…euthanize" autistic 13-year-old son [LifeSiteNews.com, 19 August]
• English pair arrested over assisted death claim [BBC, 18 August]
• Eleven arrests over care home death [Telegraph, 13 August]

Sexual ethics

• Outgoing Chief Rabbi accused British PM of failing stay-at-home mothers [Telegraph, 19 August]
• Leading Catholic academic shows why Catholics may not support civil partnerships [John Smeaton, 13 August]

General

• Hard working pro-life volunteers should motivate us too! [SPUC youth blog, 19 August]
• Alfred Rosenberg and Nazi racial theory [SPUC youth blog, 14 August]

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

Calls for an upper limit bill on abortion remind me of Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I hope and pray that Jim Dobbin MP can be swiftly persuaded to back off from comments he's reported to have made yesterday that he is seeking an MP to table a private member's Bill to push for another vote in Parliament on the abortion time limit.

Jim Dobbin should be reminded that it's less than two years since the last push for an upper limit bill was stopped at the last ditch, after a united pro-life campaign, from resulting in a massive expansion of the abortion law. At that time a number of pro-life groups joined SPUC's campaign against proposed extreme pro-abortion amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill.

We must remind Members of Parliament that the main threat of creating in Britain a legal "right" to an abortion comes, perversely, from abortion time limit bills, often misguidedly promoted by sincere pro-life individuals and groups. The threat consists in that such proposals give the pro-abortion lobby the chance to argue that “early abortions are better than late abortions.” They argue that in order to ensure that women can get early “safe” abortions the obstacles must be removed, i.e. the medical grounds required for a legal abortion must be abolished. This would achieve a major objective of the pro-abortion lobby, arguably creating a right to abortion not currently in English (or Scottish) abortion law.

SPUC has written to MPs urging them not to support upper limit legislation. Here's why:

It was pro-lifers who pressed for the 1990 Act to contain provisions relating to abortion, in the hope of being able to insert some restrictions, particularly early time limits. Sadly this tactic backfired, resulting in a less, not more, restrictive abortion law.

SPUC said at the time: “… Kenneth Clarke [the secretary of state for health] was … responsible for giving MPs a misleading concept of the clause allowing abortion up to birth when it was debated at the Report Stage of the Bill on 21st June [1990] … He informed the House ‘the doctor will terminate a pregnancy while attempting to save the life of the baby if he can’. However, termination in such circumstances has always been allowed but previously it has been described as ‘induced birth’. For the first time it can be legally categorised as abortion, and, whatever the claims of Mr Clarke, there is now no law compelling a doctor to save the life of the child.” (Human Concern, summer 1990)

Both David Cameron, the prime minister, and Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health, have made clear that they support wider access to abortion in various ways. If there is a free vote by MPs, as was promised by Mr Cameron, it will provide the pro-abortion lobby with an opportunity to increase the numbers of abortions, as happened under the Conservative administration under Margaret Thatcher.

It's therefore all the more perplexing that Jim Dobbin should be reported to be saying: “David Cameron's leadership on this issue is important and could help to sway opinion.”

Finally, David Cameron supports the genocidal treatment of disabled children in the womb. He confirmed during a "Cameron-Direct" session in Barrow-in-Furness that he would not vote to reverse the current discrimination against unborn disabled babies who can be aborted right up to birth since the law was changed by Parliament in 1990.  He made a similar comment in a Daily Mail interview on which I blogged at the time. Tragically, at this point in history, there is every sign that Parliament would confirm this genocidal treatment of the disabled before birth in any vote on the upper limit to abortion - which serves to underline this gravely ethically flawed and totally discredited approach to reform of the British abortion law.

For a fuller history of this whole issue, read my previous posts.



Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

British government is afraid of the homosexual lobby

Dr John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, (pictured) has told David Cameron, the prime minister, not to legalize gay marriage*. He said (in an interview in the Telegraph yesterday):

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman ... I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are ... We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way ... "

Dr Sentamu rightly alludes to the actions of "dictators" when referring to David Cameron's plans, for the following reasons:

Firstly, consider the enormity of what the government intends to bring about. David Cameron and his government intend to re-define marriage: a fundamental good of human beings, the first and vital cell and source of human society, which is upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the following terms: “Men and women of full age ... have the right to marry and to found a family. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

As Mario Conti, the Catholic archbishop of Glasgow, put it (in the context of the Scottish government's plans): 9 Oct. 2011:

"Those in Government need to be respectfully reminded that a mandate to govern does not include a mandate to reconstruct society on ideological grounds, nor to undermine the very institution which, from the beginning, has been universally acknowledged as of the natural order and the bedrock of society, namely marriage and the family. In terms of law, its support and defence have been on a par with the defence of life itself. We weaken it at our peril."

Secondly, David Cameron and his government are intending intend to redefine marriage without even the fig leaf of an electoral mandate.

Prior to the election neither of the parties now in the Coalition Government made any reference to changing the law in this area in their manifestos.

Moreover,the coalition agreement does not make any reference to changing the law in this area. (The Coalition: our programme for government, May 2010)

Yet Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, has told Archbishop Peter Smith, the Catholic archbishop of Southwark, "that the Government intended to introduce same-sex marriage and that the consultation was merely to help with the 'nuts and bolts' of the legislation".

Clearly, the government is refusing a consultation on the principle of gay marriage because they're afraid of the homosexual lobby** and because they're afraid that public opinion is being mobilised in defence of marriage and the family.

It's essential that British citizens, of all faiths and none, show no fear in opposing the government's plans. Let's keep the following key points in mind:

• The fundamental group unit of society is not the State; it is the family based upon the marriage of a man and a woman.
• Marriage is not the monopoly of Christians or of any particular faith group. As SPUC puts it in our position paper on same-sex marriage: "Marriage is a fundamental good of human beings and a natural institution. While different religions honour marriage and some raise it to a sacrament, they do not thereby deny that it is an institution natural to human beings – a basic human good. People of faith and those of no faith can and do agree on this."
• It's essential, in opposing the redefinition of marriage, to do so without prejudice to our opposition to civil partnerships in the UK which were in effect designed as, and are seen by many, as quasi-marriages, as leading homosexual activists have made clear (See SPUC's position paper on same-sex marriage and its accompanying background paper).
• To defend man-woman marriage is in no way to denigrate homosexual people, as is sometimes wrongly claimed. Rather, it is simply to defend a vital social institution which protects children born and unborn - and indeed, protects society as a whole. All of us, whatever our personal background, have an interest in supporting this vital, pre-political institution. It is part of the heritage of humanity.

*SPUC's national council, which is SPUC's policy-making body, elected by its grassroots volunteers, last month passed the following resolution to defend marriage:

"That the Council of SPUC, noting the various proposals currently being made by the present Government and others in regard to the status and standing of marriage and its consequent effect upon family life; and further noting the higher proportionate incidence of abortion in unmarried women compared to married women, resolves to do its utmost to fight for the retention of the traditional understanding of marriage in the history, culture and law of the United Kingdom, namely the exclusive union of one man with one woman for life; and accordingly instructs its officers and executive committee to conduct a major campaign to this end, to co-operate with other persons and societies in so doing and specifically to target the Government's consultation period starting in March, 2012, in regard to (so-called) same sex marriage."

**Why is homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 25 July

Top story:

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time
MPs who vote for David Cameron's gay marriage pledge will be punished at the general election, says SPUC. SPUC was responding to Mr Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph http://goo.gl/fNQJn in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015. John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive, commented: "There are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies." [SPUC, 25 July]

Other stories:

Abortion

• Disability no longer to be legal ground for abortion, announces Spanish government [ThinkSpain, 22 July]

Sexual ethics

• Scottish government to introduce same-sex marriage bill [Scottish Government, 25 July]
• Teenage births in Wales fall by 11.5% in one year, according to report [Wales Online, 25 July]
• Czech pro-life groups organize counter-protests to upcoming Prague ‘gay pride’ event [LifeSiteNews.com, 24 July]

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Same-sex marriage bill imminent - SPUC warns government MPs

Following indications that the Cameron government plans to launch its bill for same-sex marriage next week, SPUC has written to government MPs warning them against the move.

The letter slams the government's railroading of its proposals as "dishonest", "high-handed" and "shoddy". SPUC points out that the family based on real (i.e heterosexual) marriage is the safest place for children both born and unborn. The letter ends by warning that at the next general election SPUC will highlight MPs' voting records on same-sex marriage.

The full text of SPUC's letter to MPs is below.

SPUC's position paper on the same-sex marriage issue can be read at http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/ssm201201

Letter to government MPs regarding same-sex marriage, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), 5 December 2012

"Dear [name of government MP],

I write regarding a story that the Government plans to launch its bill for same‐sex marriage next week.

If the story is correct, it is consistent with the thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable way the government and its allies have attacked real marriage. In the marriage consultation exercise earlier this year, Mr Cameron sought in a high‐handed manner to discuss only “how” to achieve his aims, and not to consider whether they have merit or public support. To hang his proposals on a non‐manifesto plan to “consider the case for changing the law” on civil partnerships is another shoddy manoeuvre.

Marriage is embedded in the fabric of society. Marriage is unquestionably the best setting for children to be conceived, born and raised and to receive their first education. The marriage‐based family is also (and critically for us who defend unborn children) the safest social context for new life.

Contributors to the consultation exercise drew attention to the evidence of the benefits of real marriage, the support for it, its ancient pre‐political heritage, its worldwide status, and the approach of mainstream religions. However, drawing attention to the enormity of his folly only seems to have made Mr Cameron more determined.

We will continue to point out the hypocrisy of asserting that “equal marriage” will not interfere with church weddings. Those planning the legislation know full well that churches which refuse to co‐operate will be denied civil recognition of their marriage rites or face worse persecution.

The recent by‐election results have proven disappointing for both Conservative and Lib‐Dem parties. This is not surprising, given the usual run of mid‐term contests. What was most notable was the strong showing by UKIP, which broadly supports real marriage. SPUC has never taken a party political line, but we do tell people where individual election candidates stand, and our activists have highlighted the position of UKIP candidates alongside others in these contests. We will continue to inform electors of candidates’ voting records and voting intentions on a wide range of issues in future elections.

I urge you to ask Mr Cameron to reconsider and to withdraw his plan.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Tully
General Secretary
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC)
London"

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Civil partnerships have same value as marriage says David Cameron

According to the Daily Telegraph this morning, David Cameron (pictured), the leader of the Conservative party has said regarding sex education for schoolchildren:

“Should we teach them about civil partnerships being a way of same-sex couples showing commitment just as married couples show commitment? Yes we should.”

He apparently made it clear at a Cameron Direct meeting that this should be embedded "in the ethos of our education".

Last week I reported that Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, agrees with Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, that faith schools must teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless.

It appears, then, that the three major party leaders are in step with each other on this issue. All of this, of course, is in the context of the Government's Children, Schools and Families bill currently being considered by the Public Bill Committee in Parliament. This bill would make sex education compulsory in all state schools, including faith schools, from ages 5-16.

The first consequence of this rare agreement between party leaders is that concerned citizens must ensure that they don't vote along party political lines, but reflect on the voting intentions and voting record of individual parliamentary candidates.

It's important to remember, as the general election approaches, that David Cameron is on record as backing wider access to abortion and that all three party leaders voted in support of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, a law designed to kill countless human beings who are deliberately created never to be born.

The second consequence of the major party leaders' consensus on civil partnerships is that concerned citizens should make it clear that they refuse to allow their children to be taught in such a way at any stage in their education. As Catholics and pro-lifers, my wife and I have always taken this stand. We must never forget in this connection the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 97. He said that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

We must begin to organize more effectively to resist, peacefully and firmly, the State's attacks on the moral welfare of our children. In addition, Catholic parents and young people must also resist, peacefully and firmly, Catholic episcopal policy in England and Wales (on the government's sex education plans), which is contrary to Catholic teaching, undermines the culture of life, and betrays our children and unborn children by delivering them to the abortionists.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

More abortion won't mend our "broken society"

In the past 6 days, pro-abortion MPs have tabled about a dozen new amendments to the Abortion Act 1967 via the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill, to be debated on Monday. More amendments may be tabled in the next few days. Among the latest amendments, one tabled by Labour MP Frank Field would produce a sliding scale for the number of doctors who must authorise any abortion: one doctor for less than 13 weeks, two doctors for between 13 and 24 weeks, and three doctors for greater than 24 weeks. Given that over 90% of abortions occur before 13 weeks, most abortions will no longer be subject to the two-doctor rule. The effect of the amendment is primarily to streamline the majority of abortions taking place under 13 weeks gestation, possibly leading to more abortions.

The Telegraph reports that the amendment has the support of David Cameron, the leader of the Opposition.

David Cameron has been in the headlines today, calling for firm action to mend our "broken society". Mr Cameron said in a speech:

"[W]e're going to be uncompromising in taking on any vested interests or establishment cultural attitudes that stand in our way. ... Social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make. ... [C]hildren are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them."

So Mr Cameron, why are you compromising with the vested interests and establishment cultural attitudes which promote easy abortion? What about the social problems which are the consequence of abortion - psychological and emotional trauma, relationship breakdowns, suicide and substance abuse? What are you doing to stop secret abortions for children as young as eleven, which parents are powerless to stop?

Cameron's cabinet should be viewed realistically

David Cameron, the new prime minister, has announced a number of new cabinet and other ministerial appointments. SPUC's initial assessment is as follows:

More likely than not to obstruct the pro-life cause:

• David Cameron, prime minister
• Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister
• George Osborne, chancellor
• Chris Huhne, energy secretary
• Andrew Lansley, health secretary
• Andrew Mitchell, international development secretary
• Ken Clarke, justice secretary (as health minister in the Thatcher government, he helped ensure the success of pro-abortion amendments and the defeat of anti-abortion amendments to the HFE Act 1990)
• Danny Alexander, Scottish secretary
• David Laws, chief secretary to the treasury (cf. House of Commons, 28 Jan 2010)
• Cheryl Gillan, Welsh secretary
• Sir George Young, leader of the Commons

More likely that not to be helpful or unobstructive to the pro-life cause:

• Theresa May, home secretary
• William Hague, foreign secretary
• Eric Pickles, communities secretary
• Baroness Warsi, Conservative party co-chairman
• Dr Liam Fox, defence secretary
• Michael Gove, education secretary
• Caroline Spelman, environment secretary
• Owen Paterson, Northern Ireland secretary
• Philip Hammond, transport secretary
• Iain Duncan Smith, work and pensions secretary
• Damian Green, immigration minister
• David Willetts, university, science and skills minister

Could go either way, depending on the issue:

• Vince Cable, business secretary
• Jeremy Hunt, culture secretary
• Lord Strathclyde, leader of the Lords
• Francis Maude, cabinet office minister
• Nick Herbert, policing reform minister
• Oliver Letwin, cabinet office minister
• Greg Clark, communities minister
• Grant Shapps, housing minister

David Cameron and Andrew Lansley, the new health secretary, have made clear their support for wider access to abortion, under their guise of support for reducing the upper time-limit for social abortions. Now is the time, not for some headlong rush at abortion law reform, but rather for strong representations to ministers and MPs not to take up the previous government's plans to impose anti-life sex education on schools.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Cameron says government responsible for quangos' actions

The battle continues over abortion advertising on TV and radio. The Advertising Standards Authority's public consultation is closed, but Ofcom, the statutory regulator for broadcasting, makes the final decision – or does it?

In another context, David Cameron, the Conservative leader (who’s no friend of the pro-life movement), says that Ofcom “shouldn’t be making policy”. He adds:

"Too many state actions, services and decisions are carried out by people who cannot be voted out by the public, by organisations that feel no pressure to answer for what happens – in a way that is completely unaccountable.”

Mr Cameron concludes:

“Even when power is delegated to a quango, the minister remains responsible for the outcome.”

In other words, according to David Cameron’s theory, the government will be responsible if Ofcom authorises abortion agencies to advertise on radio and TV. Lord Carter, the Government’s broadcasting minister, in a letter received by an SPUC supporter, has written in a way that seems sympathetic to abortion advertising on the broadcast media.

SPUC is non party-political and no-one knows where the Tories or other parties stand on this issue, the outcome of which will have a profound impact on the welfare of women and on unborn children. Let’s not forget:

• The Advertising Standards Authority’s proposal threatens to further commercialise the killing of unborn children.
• It would completely disregard the adverse effect of abortion on women's health.
• Abortion remains a criminal offence on the statute book. Advertising of illegal procedures is contrary to the public interest, advertising codes, and the law.
• Only those agencies with sufficient financial resources would be able to advertise. Abortion providers can generate financial resources for advertising by charging more for abortions, whereas most pro-life advice services do not charge clients (or the NHS) for their services. Thus there will be a disproportionate opportunity for abortion providers to advance their cause.
• The predominant wish in the community is for the numbers of abortions to decrease, not increase. However, advertising of abortion services would promote abortion, increase its incidence and thereby increase the harm to all involved.

Please join me in writing now to our MPs, to the prime minister and to party political leaders to oppose lifting the ban on abortion agencies advertising through the broadcast media. You can email your MP from here and contact Mr Brown here. SPUC's submission on the proposed changes in relation to abortion is here.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Lord Carey's trumpet call to Britons

Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, sounded a trumpet call yesterday which must resound in all sections of society, throughout Britain. He wrote in the Daily Mail:

"As David Cameron knows, I am very suspicious that behind the [legislative] plans to change the nature of marriage, which come before the House of Lords soon, there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society together for time immemorial."

Lord Carey went on to say that the Government threatens:

" ... to empty marriage of its fundamental religious and civic meaning as an institution orientated towards the upbringing of children.

"If this is not enough, the legislation fails to provide any protection for religious believers in employment who cannot subscribe to the new meaning of marriage. There will be no exemptions for believers who are registrars. They can expect to be sacked if they cannot, in all conscience, support same-sex marriage.

"Strong legal opinion also suggests that Christian teachers, who are required to teach about marriage, may face disciplinary action if they cannot express agreement with the new politically-correct orthodoxy ... "

May Lord Carey's trumpet sound in the hearts of fellow bishops, Anglican and Catholic, to whom we look to lead Christians and the people of Britain against same-sex legislation which discriminates against children by institutionalising motherless and fatherless families.

May Lord Carey's trumpet sound in the hearts of teachers, headteachers, school governors, and parents who must fight for their fundamental right to teach children about the unchanging nature of marriage as the permanent exclusive union of one man and one woman, a right that threatens to be destroyed by Cameron's legislation.

May Lord Carey's trumpet sound in the hearts of time-serving "Catholic" politicians who are prepared to betray families and children for generations to come for their short-term political advantage - and to betray the founder of their faith, Jesus Christ, who said: ""Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife and the two shall become one ... "

May Lord Carey's trumpet sound, above all, in the hearts of the ordinary citizens of this country. There is one thing which can beat Cameron and his plan to destroy the family: and that's local leadership. The fundamental group unit of society is not the State; it's not Her Majesty's Government - which has no right to redefine marriage. . The fundamental group unit is the family based upon the marriage of a man and a woman. The State has a duty to serve and protect natural marriage and recognise its primacy, not redefine it.

SPUC and the Coalition for Marriage can beat their drums; we can win the arguments in our briefings, in our public meetings, and in the growing scholarly evidence that same-sex marriage destabilises marriage and family life. But what we need now is local leadership in the towns and villages and cities of Britain, local leaders who will take the message about the terrible threat to marriage and the family to their fellow citizens. Without such local leadership we are wasting our sweetness on the desert air.

SPUC needs leaders to organize leafleting in 120 targeted constituencies. Please pass this message on, sound Lord Carey's trumpet, and let us know if you will help - by leafleting homes, door-to-door, in targeted areas close to you.

For some reason, this Easter weekend, my SPUC email isn't working - so please write to me at johnjsmeaton@gmail.com

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy