Tuesday, 29 January 2013

A letter to my MP about SSM

Yesterday morning I posted the following letter to Martin Horwood, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, in response to his detailed statement of support for same-sex "marriage" which I published in my previous post.

I felt it was important to keep to one side of A4. Within this constraint, I may have omitted things you would have included.  I may also have said things you would not have said.  If there are any points I have missed, I trust that others will have included them in their own letters, thus ensuring that everything that matters has been covered.

...............................

Access to marriage by same-sex couples

Thank you for your courteous and detailed letter setting out your views on same-sex marriage.

I understand that in English law there is no distinction between civil and religious marriage, provided the legalities are complied with. My letter proceeds on that understanding.

Having studied your letter, including its theme of equality of love, I have to say that the opposition to the proposed legislation is based on the actual nature of marriage. At the core of marriage is the act of sexual intercourse. Whether or not it results in the conception of a child, it makes the marriage real in a way that the ceremony alone does not. In its absence, the marriage can be declared invalid. Since couples of the same sex are physically incapable of this act, they cannot accomplish this essential element of marriage.

Given that consummation by sexual intercourse is inherent to marriage, if Parliament legislates to remove this requirement, the words of removal can logically have no basis in reality, if marriage is to remain marriage. Or else, they will have the effect of abolishing marriage as we have known it up to the present time, for all citizens, including the heterosexual majority. Marriage will be replaced by an institution which the law calls marriage but is not marriage. I have no doubt that others will explain this more fully to you and your fellow MPs.

Your letter includes a number of supportive views expressed by various clergy and laypeople. In contrast to these personal opinions must be placed the orthodox teachings of the major religions. Whatever the civil law may state, these organisations will require their clergy and teachers to inform their congregations and their school-pupils, not merely that “our religion teaches this, and others believe that”, in a morally equivalent and neutral manner. They will be obliged to explain, with reasons, that “our religion’s teaching is true; the law of the land is based on an erroneous understanding; and same-sex marriage is not in fact marriage.” This firm stand will be shared by many other citizens in the general community, who will continue to give witness to what they steadfastly believe to be unchangeable.

I have mentioned just a few points in this letter. I urge you to consider that there are other factors to be taken into account, other implications, unforeseen consequences and unintended ramifications, before you commit yourself to voting in favour of same-sex marriage.

7 comments:

EFpastor emeritus said...

Excellent, thanks you

Mike Cliffson said...

I would not wish you to amend your letter,I have no discernment about how to do this sort of thing.
Also,a point of mine below is to some extant sidetracking.cf Legalizing abortion - the thing is total repeal, because of the total evil - conscience exemption clauses a reargard skirmish after the battle is lost.
Nonetheless, in your MPs letter below there are a number of guarantees he reports about, eg assurances to him that churches will not be abliged by the European court etc etc .
He personally may well be sincere in believing such - my experience after 6o-odd years on this planet is that such assurances last minutes, days , week or months , in some few cases years or even decades, but end up falling. I am sure I need not go into detail.
It would be a good thing for politicians to realize just HOW much such betrayals have sapped social morality and their own Moral authority- if I had any recipe for so convincing them Id be doing it, Instead of justr adding my name or form letters to every iniciative going- whereas, at least no rosary, public or private, is wasted. But we are commanded to be cunning as serpeants as well, so given the Holy spirit's aid, Jesus only tells us to do the possible.
God bless

On the side of the angels said...

Remember that the proposed legislation has two separate entities - one set of criteria and conditionals for heterosexual marriage and another for same-sex unions. The former containing consummation/annulment/divorce on grounds of adultery; the latter having none of these but an additional 'joint parental right' over any child. Once the 'inequality/discrimination' fights proceed through the courts all these differences will be abolished and the resultant entity will be a universalised civil partnership - and the entity once known as marriage will be abolished. And here's the crux - given the intrinsically unjust nature of this 'new marriage' entity - will we be allowed to participate in it? [Evangelium Vitae 73 74] Formal and Proximate material co-operation in that which promotes living in sin and invalidates the union of the baptised? It's a grave consideration.

Dorothy B said...

Thank you for your comments, Pastor and Mike. Yes, Mike, I agree about the assurances. However sincerely a particular MP may convey them to us, the record shows that they are very easily breakable.

Dorothy B said...

Thanks, OTSOTA. Absolutely right. It is an extraordinary feature of the present time that the courts seem to make the law in so many ways.

EFpastor emeritus said...

A VERY HAPPY FEASTDAY TO YOU TODAY

Dorothy B said...

Thank you, Father - very kind!