Christian Concern is calling on its supporters to respond to the Government’s consultation on redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, said:
“The Government’s plans are a radical social experiment which will have huge consequences for our nation. Marriage and the family are the primary building block of society, and to redefine marriage away from its biblical understanding will have enormous repercussions for us all.
“The Government has released a consultation on the issue and we urge each and every one of you to respond. Let’s fight to preserve marriage for future generations in this nation.”
Online Form
Christian Concern has prepared a super fast online form that submits consultation answers directly to the Government. The form should take approximately 2 minutes.
Respond to consultation here >
Have you already responded? If so, please use this tool to encourage your friends to respond also >
Key Concerns
- Same-sex ‘marriage’ is not geared towards children:
Heterosexual marriage is a life-time commitment between a man and a woman. It is geared towards procreation and is the best environment for raising children.
Two men or two women cannot create a child. Any such union will always deny a child either a mother or a father and this can never be in the best interests of a child. Therefore such relationships do not benefit society in the same way and should not be given the same backing from the State or the same name (‘marriage’) or legal rights.
The Government itself has stated that children do best when raised by “both birth parents”.
Many studies have shown that children do best with a married mother and father, but those with homosexual parents suffer negative outcomes including higher reports of gender confusion.
- Same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a Human Right:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently ruled that governments are not required to legislate for same-sex marriage as “the protection of family in the traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and legitimate reason which might justify a difference in treatment.” (Gas and Dubois v. France, March 2012 (no. 25951/07)).
Civil Partnerships provide virtually the same legal rights as marriage, so there is no need to legislate for same-sex marriage as a matter of ‘equality’.
- Same-sex ‘marriage’ is opposed by the public:
Marriage is an institution that affects everybody. Redefining it without any democratic mandate is profoundly illiberal. According to a recent ComRes poll, 70% of people in Britain believe that marriage should remain an “exclusive commitment between a man and a woman.”
These proposals were not in any election manifesto and are opposed by members of the public, MPs and religious leaders across the board. Almost half a million people have signed a petition to say that marriage should not be redefined.
- Same-sex ‘marriage’ threatens religious freedom:
Any Government restriction of same-sex ‘marriage’ to civil premises may well be overturned by the ECHR, threatening religious freedom.
The Government claims that same-sex marriage will only affect ‘civil marriages’ yet this distinction is false since there is only one form of marriage, namely “legal” marriage.
If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, then, as a starting point, they will be entitled to the same rights, including the right to have their ceremonies conducted on religious premises.
The ECHR recently quoted a non-binding resolution by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe which said that, should same-sex marriages be legalised, it will place the State under an obligation to “ensure that [the] rights and obligations [of homosexual couples] are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation” (Gas and Dubois v. France, March 2012 (no. 25951/07)).
Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, unlawful discrimination occurs when persons in similar situations are treated differently without an objective and reasonable justification.
It will be difficult for the Government to argue that there is a reasonable justification for allowing heterosexual couples to marry in churches and not same-sex couples.
Therefore, Government assurances regarding religious freedom on this issue cannot be given with any certainty, and are essentially misleading.
In addition, should same-sex marriage be allowed on civil premises, there will then be a huge push for such ceremonies to also be made available in churches. Civil Partnership ceremonies were initially only allowed on civil premises, but they are now allowed on religious premises. The same is likely to happen with same-sex marriage ceremonies.
If same-sex marriage is allowed in churches then for the same reasons above, churches could be sued for not providing such ceremonies, regardless of any statutory protections.
Sources