C4M - Nailing colours

Having received a number of 'invitations' to nail my colours to the mast regarding the the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) I think I need first to point those asking back to the discussion that was held in this place on the 25th February following my agreement to post on it. In addition to this there was the attempt at discussing a 'middle ground' approach (October and November 2011) which sought to establish a place whereby the world might live together over this subject (which sadly drew so much fire that it crashed and burned). There have been other posts which have related to the C4M issue and now, it seems that I am in a place where I have three choices:

1. To ignore the calls,

2. To fudge the issue, or

3. State my views (which I thought I always did anyway) and take (and make) my position clear.

Seems to me that the C4M petition calls upon the current definition of marriage to be left as it is* and I would have to say that I don't see any reason to do anything other than this on the basis that:

When the civil partnership was first enacted it was obviously regarded as by some to be 'gay marriage'. The civil partnership gives the same legal rights and privileges as those afforded to the parties in a 'marriage' and so, especially where any modified 'marriage' would be in a civil setting, I see no need to change.

There is the issue of the 'God' bit, the very thing that makes the difference between civil and church marriage but this hasn't been the desire of some of the homosexuals I have dialogued with, they merely wanted the word 'marriage' to apply to them. Mind you, as they used the term anyway I don't see what difference legislation would make anyway and can think of may better ways of engaging in dialogue and spending government money.

So there you have it. There will always be people who will defy the Church of England ruling and offer 'marriage' or bless civil partnerships because they choose to ignore the rules. there will always be people who will lash out and attack others because of their mistaken belief in 'righteous anger' (rarely righteous and usually more like wickedness).

I am disturbed that the ASA might be acting against people for putting up an advert which seeks to support the law as it stands and in fact think this is an heterophobic or christophobic act (after all, any disapproval of the homosexual position draws the homophobic label quickly enough so why not use the same mechanism?).

I have to add that the many people that I know wh were not married in church but in a civil ceremony consider themselves married and as many seek the ceremony outside of church I see this as being something that is more about church that the label - but that's for another day!

So there you have it - you have asked and I have answered and I'm sure some will not like it, but that's life I guess, you just can't please everyone and as a Christian I seek to please one more than the rest.

I'll leave the last word to someone for whom this is an everyday reality



Pax

*The petition states ‘I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.’