Summers apparently had the audacity to think that touching marriage meant touching family and this would hit at the very heart of God and this was something she had 'an enormous problem' with.
Seems to me that anyone who thinks the Green Party is a party that supports equality and diversity needs to think again, for you'd have to be green to believe that this party is in any way moderate, balanced or tolerant (well they are tolerant of what they believe I guess). Still the prize has to go to the Greens own spokesman (shouldn't that be spokesperson?) with the witterance:
“Councillor Summers has a long standing position of conscience about religious marriage based on her faith. Greens believe she is entitled to hold her view but this does not reflect the position, spirit and track record of the Green Party in extending human and civil rights for all social groups irrespective of sexual orientation or on other grounds."
So they've thrown her out because Greens obviously do not believe that she is entitled to hold her views!
Perhaps Ms Summers would do better if she decided to join another party. Perhaps she could join the LibDems, after all they stand for equality and diversity and the right of the individual to have different viewpoints. Surely they'd support her right to have her views?
What's that Sooty, what's the BBC saying?
"Nick Clegg has withdrawn comments about opponents of gay marriage in which he called them "bigots". The deputy PM was expected to launch an attack on those against the policy - which include some Tory MPs - in a speech at a reception later. But the wording of extracts released to the media has been changed. Sources close to Mr Clegg said the "bigot" claim was "a mistake" in an early draft of the speech which should not have been released to the press."
Of course it shouldn't, Clegg and his bunch of Muppets are like so many others who value diversity and personal integrity - it's OK as long as it's the same brand of opinion as theirs.
Seems the fascist thought-police are running the show and those who seek to maintain their personal integrity by standing for what they believe are to be hounded out, pilloried and sorely treated. Of course they are - it's the way of the liberal. Bigots? They certainly are!
As for Clegg - here's the front cover of that most essential of reading matter, 'Private Eye', which sums it up nicely:
5 comments:
Acting as you wish is your right.
Choosing to disagree with people doing as they wish is bigotry.
Denying those with whom you disagree is a right.
Standing as a Christian is obviously a wrong
In a world which claims to support diversity and regard all as equal it appears that some are more equal than others. Not only that but those who think differently are not welcome to do so.
The liberal mantra is, sadly, more akin to the fascists who stomped the earth in the thirties (and we know where that led) than the supposedly open-minded people they claim to be.
:-(
I am a member of the Green Party, which doesn't mean that I accept everything that they say or do.
In general, their policies are socialist, but with an element of hope. I have been disappointed with the way that they have treated Ms Summers. What I find more disturbing is that the chair of the panel is a practising Roman Catholic who said that his faith didn't inform his political views? What's that about.
I don't have to agree with all green policies, I'm not planning to run for office or to be an activist of the sort they want me to be. I've pointed this out to our local Party Organiser and told him that if passive support is acceptable, than that will be my limit. I've to much else on to be heavily involved.
In the end, this will probably be dragged through the courts and to be honest, the Green Party will probably have to back down. They don't have the financial clout or resources to fight a protracted legal battle against a well resourced Christian Legal advocate, who is allegedly funded by Right Wing Evangelicals in the USA.
While I might not see eye to eye with Miss Summers views on Gay Marriage, I respect her right to hold them and to vote in line with her conscience.
I have been discussing a similar issue with our teenage daughter, whose friends are willing to debate just about any subject until she raises her Christian belief. Her opinions are then simply ignored or dismissed as 'irrational' or irrelevant. If she was to apply the same standard to someone else because of their race, colour, gender, sexuality, or because they have no faith, she would be pilloried (and rightly so). It seems that intolerance and bigotry are perfectly acceptable when applied to a person of faith (any faith! )
What is the point in taking a vote, if those voting in one direction are then punished? That isn't democracy! Either the vote should have been private or the Greens should have simply stated their position and allowed those who disagreed to follow their own conscience (which might have led to them leaving the party anyway).
A vote implies an element of choice. the Greens have removed that choice from Ms Summers - so why not just admit that there is none?
Post a Comment