The same can be said in America. Despite the droning drumbeat of the mainstream media, nearly two-thirds – 65 percent – of Americans disapprove of redefining marriage.
During the November 2012 elections, true marriage out-polled the Romney campaign in all four states marriage was on the ballot – by double digit margins!
It seems English politicians have already learned what the GOP in America – and all its candidates – need to grasp. Defending marriage as one man and one woman is a winning issue at the polls.
I remember sitting with a co-worker in Washington State this time last year marveling, in a not so good way, that our nation is even having a debate about the nature of marriage. Marriage – the institution that crosses all cultural and historical boundaries – that has literally stood the ultimate test of time – and here we are in the western world thinking, “Maybe we should change it?” It’s crazy sad that we are even having the discussion.
But when we contemplate redefining marriage, we must also contemplate a whole host of consequences. And right now, the Kirk (church) of Scotland is having one of those sad crazy discussions as they consider whether they should stop celebrating wedding ceremonies at all – for straight or gays. The Kirk is deeply concerned that if the Scottish government redefines marriage they will have no choice but to stop performing them altogether.
Before you think this is just fear-mongering, remember that in England, a same-sex couple is already suing the Church of England because the church won’t marry them. Or as one of the men said, “I’m not getting what I want.” So I’ll sue Christians.
It is crazy sad that churches have to have these discussions. But when we redefine marriage there are a myriad of known and unknown consequences that we will have to deal with.
Frankly the only answer is to not redefine marriage in the first place.
Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, the new Chief Rabbi of Britain, laid out the distinct differences between men and woman in an interview with the BBC this past weekend. Rabbi Mirvis also affirmed traditional Jewish values by promoting natural marriage as the foundation for strengthening families:
“We have a clear Biblical definition of marriage which is the union of one man and one woman and through that we value traditional family life," Rabbi Mirvis told the BBC in an interview before Sunday’s installation ceremony.
“But I would like to reiterate our genuine sentiment to every single Jewish man and woman: you have a home in our synagogue and we will make you feel comfortable regardless of who you are.”
He added that while he wanted to offer women a greater role in Orthodox Judaism, he opposed female ordination. "Equality is what we strive for but when we talk about equality, it is not uniformity."
“When we talk for example of men and women and the opportunity within synagogues and within community life there are clear roles that different people can play and in that way each of us can achieve his or her own amazing potential,” he explained. -LifeSite
Scotland for Marriage has gathered more than 50,000 signatures for their petition in support of retaining the current definition of marriage between one man and one woman. According to the group, that's more supporters than the combined paid membership of all the main political parties in Scotland.
The 50,000th signatory is 20-year-old Iain Donoghue, a third-year student from Falkirk.
He said: “I feel that it is entirely unnecessary to change the existing law. Marriage is between one man and one woman to the exclusion of others with a view to the procreation of children.”
He added: “The opinion polls are very clear on the issue and show widespread support for the existing law and suggest that two-thirds of people are in favour of maintaining the status quo.”
A Scotland for Marriage spokesman said the group intends to put pressure on politicians about the plans. -Christian Institute
Whenever we talk about the effects of redefining marriage -- the normalization and legalization of polygamy, threats to religious liberty, lawsuits against small business owners, etc. -- same-sex marriage advocates counter by insisting these threats aren't real. They claim we're overreacting so that they can falsely assuage the legitimate concerns of Americans who value their first amendment rights. But the truth is, most SSM activists know exactly what's in the cards once marriage is redefined.
The ink is not yet dry on David Cameron's gay marriage Bill and already two stories in the news this week show that the Bill's critics have been proved right. A wealthy gay couple say they "have launched" legal action to force gay weddings on the Church of England; and the BBC is cheerleading for polyamory (mutiple-partner relationships).
...During the passage of the gay marriage Bill, I was one of those saying that the Church would face litigation. I was accused of scaremongering and of whipping up hysteria. It'll never happen, they said with a straight face. Perhaps they meant it. Perhaps they honestly couldn't see the danger. Perhaps, but I doubt it. The thing is, many people could see the risk, including the Church itself (initially) and leading human rights lawyers.
A same-sex couple in the UK made headlines earlier this month after vowing to sue the Church of England to force the Church into hosting their same-sex wedding. As of today, legal proceedings have officially begun. This case is the ultimate proof that same-sex 'marriage' is truly about the desires of adults. Mr. Drewitt-Barlow's cry, "I am still not getting what I want" is his motivation for suing Christians in order to force them to recognize his 'marriage.'
Millionaire gay couple, the Drewitt-Barlows, have confirmed they have “launched” a legal challenge to the right of churches to opt out of gay weddings.
[Barrie Drewitt-Barlow] said: “We’ve launched a challenge to the Government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.
“We feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilise the church we attend to get married.”
Earlier this month, Mr Drewitt-Barlow said he and his civil partner, Tony, would go to court to force gay weddings on churches.
He added: “It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away.
“As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.” -The Christian Institute
Wealthy gay dad, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, says he and his civil partner Tony will go to court to force churches to host gay weddings.
He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”.
A Government Bill legalising gay marriage passed Parliament recently but it included measures to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.
Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.
“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.”
He added: “It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away.
“As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.”
The use of open intimidation against those who defend marriage as one man and one woman is more common than ever before. In fact, we see examples of this every day. But what happens when that intimidation poisons the entire democratic process, forcing elected officials to support bills they disagree with.
Ministers warned backbenchers that their careers would be ruined if they did not support gay marriage, it was claimed last night.
Angry MPs have written to members of the House of Lords, telling them that the House of Commons did not have a truly free vote last week and that many felt coerced into the decision.
Conservative backbenchers are furious at the pressure exerted by Number 10, ministers and whips to back the legalisation of same sex marriage - which sailed through its third reading thanks to the support from Labour.
A letter signed by 15 Tory MPs said: ‘The main parties announced a free vote but we saw varying degrees of coercion, with threats made, for example, to an MP’s future political career or withdrawal of party support at future elections.’
The letter adds: ‘Regrettably our ability as MPs to oppose, amend or scrutinise this Bill was heavily constrained.
‘The Government presses on without any mandate from a party manifesto. We are all elected representatives by none of us was elected on a platform to redefine marriage.
British Prime Minister David Cameron is apparently not content with having spearheaded the passage of same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom; he now wants to spread it across the globe! In a recent speech, Cameron said, “I want to export gay marriage around the world…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.”
The Telegraph points out that the ebullient Cameron four times stated his pride in the legislation’s passage during his talk, saying on one occasion: “I’m personally proud of this. I think I’m probably the only Conservative Prime Minister who’s taken this step, but I’m very proud to have taken it.”
You can read about Cameron’s grandiose plan for global marriage redefinition here.
The Washington Post reports that Queen Elizabeth II has given “royal assent” to a same-sex marriage bill that has recently passed in both of Great Britain’s legislative houses. This assent comes despite the fact that the Queen is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which opposes same-sex marriage.
The bill had the full support of Prime Minister David Cameron, despite strong opposition by his Conservative Party. Cameron’s support appears to have come at a high political price with the article noting that, “some political commentators predict Cameron’s gay-friendly attitudes will cost him at the next election in 2015.”
The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales also fought the bill and quickly condemned its passage: “With this new legislation, marriage has now become an institution in which openness to children, and with it the responsibility on fathers and mothers to remain together to care for children born into their family unit, are no longer central. That is why we were opposed to this legislation on principle.”
Another British Catholic adoption agency is being threatened with closure by the government for refusing to toe the government’s line of support for the homosexualist political agenda.
St. Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society, associated with the Catholic archdiocese of Glasgow, has lost a ruling in its argument with the Scottish government’s charity regulator, which is demanding the charity drop its policy of adopting only to mothers and fathers who have been married for at least two years.
The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) has found St. Margaret’s in violation of the Equality Act 2010, saying that its policy "discriminated unlawfully" against same-sex couples. St. Margaret’s is remaining defiant, however, saying that they will fight the decision.
The Christian Institute campaign group quoted a St. Margaret’s board member saying, “The ultimate irony is that apparently in the name of tolerance, societies such as Saint Margaret’s are no longer to be tolerated.”
Peers from all main political parties are expected to oppose same-sex marriage in the House of Lords on Monday, with a vote described as “too close to call”.
Crossbench Peer Lord Dear, a former HM Inspector of Constabulary, is leading the opposition to the Bill and said about half of Peers who are speaking during the second reading debate are against gay marriage.
Senior Tory Baroness Warsi, a practising Muslim, refused to steer the proposals through the House of Lords, according to The Sunday Telegraph.
And Lord Luce, who served as a minister in Margaret Thatcher’s government, said the issue has been handled in a “careless manner” with “little consultation” and “little thought”.
Last week MPs voted in favour of the legislation but it has now gone to the House of Lords where Peers will debate and vote on the proposals.
So far, at least 75 Peers have asked to speak on Monday, which could mean the vote takes place late in the day. (UK Christian Institute)
After an election which saw the UK Independence Party go from 7 seats to 147, most at the expense of the Conservative Party, PM David Cameron is being urged to ditch his advocacy of redefining marriage:
He was warned that if he did not take urgent action to protect traditional Tory values, members of his own party would desert him for Nigel Farage.
Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister, said his constituents were "fed up to the back teeth" because the Government failed to deliver on promises.
He challenged Mr Cameron to adopt a plan which includes scrapping the gay marriage Bill, freezing the overseas aid budget, opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights, cutting immigration and holding a prompt EU referendum, The Times reported.
... Peter Bone, the Wellingborough MP, said Mr Cameron should halt the gay marriage Bill, currently going through Parliament, and cut overseas aid. "Those are things that Conservatives want and that's what Ukip voters want."
The Christian Institute reports that the Conservative Party in the UK is potentially facing huge losses in tomorrow's elections due to the Prime Minister's policies pushing same-sex marriage:
The ComRes poll, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, reveals that one in four of those who voted Conservative in 2010 say the policy is putting them off voting for the Party again.
Asked, “Does the Coalition Government’s plans to legalise same sex marriage make you more or less likely to vote for each of these parties in next week’s local elections?” 26 per cent of Conservative 2010 voters say less likely.
Fewer than one in ten (nine per cent) say they are more likely to vote Tory again because of gay marriage.
And 22 per cent of those polled said they were planning to vote for UKIP, which opposes gay marriage.
A video produced by the UK Coalition for Marriage shows the many protesters that came out to stand against Prime Minister David Cameron's plans to redefine marriage:
In addition to this great show of support, a petition being run by the Coalition for Marriage has already gleaned over half a million signatures!
The same can be said in America. Despite the droning drumbeat of the mainstream media, nearly two-thirds – 65 percent – of Americans disapprove of redefining marriage.
But when we contemplate redefining marriage, we must also contemplate a whole host of consequences. And right now, the 
“We have a clear Biblical definition of marriage which is the union of one man and one woman and through that we value traditional family life," Rabbi Mirvis told the BBC in an interview before Sunday’s installation ceremony.
The ink is not yet dry on David Cameron's gay marriage Bill and already two stories in the news this week show that the Bill's critics have been proved right. A wealthy gay couple say they "
Millionaire gay couple, the Drewitt-Barlows, have confirmed they have “launched” a legal challenge to the right of churches to opt out of gay weddings.
He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”.
Ministers warned backbenchers that their careers would be ruined if they did not support gay marriage, it was claimed last night.
The bill had the full support of Prime Minister David Cameron, despite strong opposition by his Conservative Party. Cameron’s support appears to have come at a high political price with the article noting that, “some political commentators predict Cameron’s gay-friendly attitudes will cost him at the next election in 2015.”
Another British Catholic adoption agency is being threatened with closure by the government for refusing to toe the government’s line of support for the homosexualist political agenda.
The ComRes poll, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, reveals that one in four of those who voted Conservative in 2010 say the policy is putting them off voting for the Party again.
