Gay Marriage Could Turn Britain Into Nazi Germany, Lord Carey Tells Rally At Conservative Party Conference
Britain risks becoming a totalitarian state as a result of gay marriage and could go the way of Nazi Germany, Tory opponents of the government's plans have heard.
Addressing an anti-gay marriage rally in Birmingham Town Hall on the fringes of the Tory Party conference on Monday, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said Christians had so far been "too timid" in their opposition to the government's plans.
He also warned that those of faith could even begin to experience the persecution endured by the Jews in Nazi Germany if they dared to speak out if same-sex marriage laws were passed.
"Remember that the Jews in Nazi Germany, what started it against them was when they were called names, that was the first stage towards that totalitarian state," he said.
He added: "It's part of a slippery slope where the unintended consequences could be shocking."
Lord Carey said politicians were trying to "plunder" the institution of marriage. "It's like annexing what was regarded as specific to make and female relationships."
He added: "Same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships and should not be put on the same level."
Along with the other speakers including former shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe and current backbench Tory MP David Burrows, Lord Carey took exception to the 'Coalition4Marriage' campaign being called "bigots".
Nick Clegg caused controversy recently after his office issued, and later retracted, a speech in which opponents of same-sex marriages were called "bigots".
Widdecombe told the sympathetic crowd that while MPs still had freedom of speech "the people they govern are no longer free to speak their minds".
Rallying the crowd with a speech that ended with her arms raised in the style of an American pastor, Widdecome said the restrictions on peoples freedoms that would come from gay marriage were "the hallmark of a totalitarian states down the ages".
She added a direct appeal to David Cameron warning him he had done a "lot of damage to the party" and to "drop this measure now".
Widdecome told The Huffingtonpost UK that the campaign was not "anti-gay" and said many gay people were opposed to the coalition's plans as it was creating divisions in the country.
"In the end people who believe in traditional marriage are not going to be able to participate in such a wide range of professions and jobs that they're actually going to be come social outcasts, I don't mean in the sense that no one will have anything to do with them, but they will find it very hard to function in the mainstream.
The former shadow home secretary dismissed the concerns of the protesters outside the event who had greeted guests with shouts of: "You say Tory, we say bigots" and "You're son might be gay - and that's OK".
"I gather they think we're bigots," she said of the protesters. "Its not anti-gay, there is no one right which you're giving to gays which they don't already have under civil partnerships.
"You're taking it away from heterosexuals but your not giving anything to the gays.
"It will leave gay rights completely unaffected which is why so many gay people are against this they know they have got full rights, what they don't want to do is to divide society on something as big as this."
However the loud protesters outside the hall were equally damning of the language used by religious opponents of same-sex marriage.
Laura, who was part of the demonstration, told HuffPost that the supporters of gay marriage did "not want to interfere in religious
ceremonies" buy simply wanted the right to call their unions marriages.
Another protester lamented the way opponents of gay marriage spoke about the government's plans: "It's the language they use".
Gay marriage may be creating divisions in the country but it is also a source of deep divisions within the Conservative Party, whose leadership has sought to embrace its gay members and shake off the legacy of Section 28, and other pieces of legislation viewed as anti-gay.
Senior Tories including Cameron and George Osborne have forcefully set out the case for gay marriage, however opponents have been very vocal at the Conservative's conference and a poll of local Tory chairman showed that 71% oppose the plans.
The split within the party on the issue is laid bare on the conference floor, the Coalition 4 Marriage stall is only a few meters away from the LGBT Tory stand - if carefully not in line of sight.
One Tory party member in his 20s, who said he was heterosexual, told HuffPostUK that he could not believe the "bonkers" anti-gay marriage voices he heard around the conference centre.
But another attending the rally in the Town Hall repeatedly ordered this reporter to write down the strongest anti-gay marriage lines "in capitals".
Yeah, and Religion diddling in politics is what you might call____________?
Well then, start saluting "Heil," because gay marriage is coming.
They do realize that the Nazi's sent gays to concentration camps along with Jews right?
r3, they have published extensively that gays were Nazis and had a heavy hand in the Holocaust.
Are you familiar with "The Pink Swastika"? It's the gay "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
Think of closeted gay Nazis in Germany to gay Republicans in America. That's the way they've put it. Self-loathing gays killed everyone, including their own kind.
"The Hidden Hitler" is another more mainstream volume, that tries to make the case that Adolf was gay.
Remember, gays also control the weather.
The right always uses a certain 'gay' Nazi as the poster child of Nazi Germany. I can't remember his name. He was caught in bed with a young boy, so they say.
I'm sure there were gay Nazis. There would have had to have been. That doesn't mean that Nazism was some sort of gay movement. German men were made to repopulate the race. Lesbians were treated a bit better since they were seen as breeding material.
All of this is irrelevant though. This is about gay marriage. How the fuck gay marriage ties into Nazi Germany is beyond me.
Under Nazi rule, gays would be put into camps.
Remember, Nazism is a far-right philosophy, and this man is obviously far-right. Pot meet kettle.
[quote]Nick Clegg caused controversy recently after his office issued, and later retracted, a speech in which opponents of same-sex marriages were called "bigots".
Please. That is precisely what they are.
And the nonsense about Nazi Germany is nothing but overwrought hysterics without any basis in fact. Moreover, it completely lacks any logical connection to reality. Look at the states in the USA that have extended marriage equality to gays and lesbians. Precisely what kind of Nazi problems have they encountered? Right. None.
Glenn never did a Holocaust film did she? That's why she has no Oscars.
[quote]In the end people who believe in traditional marriage are not going to be able to participate in such a wide range of professions and jobs that they're actually going to be come social outcasts, I don't mean in the sense that no one will have anything to do with them, but they will find it very hard to function in the mainstream.
[quote]The right always uses a certain 'gay' Nazi as the poster child of Nazi Germany. I can't remember his name. He was caught in bed with a young boy, so they say.
Ernst Röhm. And look what happened to him.
R4 - it's about making associations, no matter how absurd or wrong. Ultimately, his followers are going to just believe that gay people are as bad as Nazis, which is a disservice to people who lived through or were/are affected by the Holocaust. It's low and it's cheap, and he should be ashamed of himself.
Goebbels would be proud of this dunce: if you're going to tell a lie, tell a really big one.
The conflation of gays with Nazis reeks of absolute desperation. Carey talks of name-calling and persecution; if he cared about that beyond shameful rhetoric he would have (Christian) sympathy for what gays have endured for decades.
Gay people who want to marry in church will always be a minority, and obviously a minority that wants to support the church. How does that undermine the heterosexual majority, half of whom divorce anyway?
Carey should welcome the interest. It isn't gays who challenge the legitimacy of the church, but forceful atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens.
Given Carey's intellectual disgrace, it's no wonder that famous atheists barely contain their contempt when discussing religious 'thought.'
How I wish Hitchens was here to demolish Carey in a piece that goes viral. Maybe Dawkins will oblige.
What r10 said.
Where is the organized marriage equality movement in the UK? They seem awfully quiet angel cavalier while the opposition is very vocal and organized.
Well of course. I mean, whenever I hear "Nazi Germany" I immediately think "gay marriage."
"Think of closeted gay Nazis in Germany to gay Republicans in America. That's the way they've put it. Self-loathing gays killed everyone, including their own kind."
Self-loathing gays, whether Republicans or Nazis, don't support gay rights, let alone gay marriage. Rather, they, like Lord Carey, oppose them.
Nick Clegg is useless
The UK must have the most sluggish gay rights movement in the Western World. Do they even have gay rights marches and rallies there? Where are the organized pro-gay voices in this marriage debate?
In a better world, Lord Carey would be put in an asylum.
Hmmm - concentration camps for bigots.
They put people who attack children in asylums, why not include people who attack others period.
Ann "The Black Widow" Widdicombe (she's never been married - she's just venomous) left the Anglican Church for those cuddly Catholics because the CoE let women become priests.
100 years ago, women couldn't become MPs. Strange that she doesn't clink her clit for that PARTICULAR era.
Does Prince Harry support us?
R3--Are you familiar with The Night of the Long Knives?
[quote] [R3]--Are you familiar with The Night of the Long Knives?
That's from Bel Ami, yes?
He's always been a poisonous old cunt. Makes my blood boil even to think of what an enormously hateful shit he is.
Nazis? Ha! He should look in the mirror.
God save us from the evangelicals.
WHY WE'RE NOT GAY
6 posts by 6 authors in alt.politics.homosexuality
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:13:15 -0700, cattlovrr
Many homosexuals have asked us the following question: "Would you please
consider becoming gay."
As is our wont, we respect every man, woman and transsexual’s right to
query us on trendy political and sexual matters of our time.
However, after much forethought and serious consideration, must
reluctantly announce that we will not become a homosexual.
Why not, you may inquire. Why wouldn’t we embrace a culture which
offers up such theatrical characters as frontiersman Matthew Shepherd
and the inversely-titted Anne Heche?
We realize we can never be gay. That’s because we don’t go around
humming show tunes from "Oklahoma!" Plus, we don’t own a single potted
fern. And because we think "fisting" is better done in a boxing ring
than in a bedroom.
In all candor, we find the prospect of Ellen DeGeneres rubbing away
furiously at our vulva a bit off-putting, and not in a good way. (As a
side note, Lassie was a lesbian, but the studio kept it all hush-hush.)
Some say we could we should at least become a part-time gay...sort of
like those B-list and has-been celebrities who probably aren’t gay, but
might as well be. Like Alan Alda. Or all the male actors on "Dawson’s
Creek." But being half gay would technically mean we were bisexual-and
the U.S. women’s soccer team is already the title holder in that
Still, we must admit openly that there are some things that do actually
appeal to us about being gay. Like the chance to actually give Richard
Simmons a communicable fatal disease so that the annoying little faggot
finally stops "sweating to the Oldies"--and everything else for that
If we were gay, there’d also at least be a 50-50 possibility of being
invited as a guest on the "Rosie O’Donnell Show," where we’d answer
every one of Rosie’s inane questions, with the well-known lesbian phrase
"You go, girl!" until the entire Viewing Nation does a giant chunky
While it is certainly trendy to become gay in 1999, it just isnt our
cup of Chamomile tea. It isn’t our plate of free-range tofu.
Can’t you see that we prefer Nathan Hale over Hathan Lane? Marilyn
Monroe over Marilyn Manson? J.D. Salinger over K.D. Lang? John Wayne
over Elton John (who has blown a lot more than a "Candle in the Wind,"
trust us!) Main Street over Christopher Street?
However, despite our biological and sexual differences, there is one
immutable fact that both heterosexuals and homosexuals can always agree
upon one hundred per cent of the time: For the love of Sweet Baby Jesus
on the Cross, please end that little bastard Ricky Martin’s 15 minutes
of fame right now!!!
Muslims + evangelicals.
A perfect storm formed in the 90s.
It takes a cognitive leap bordering on mental illness, to go from (A) letting a same gender couple get married, to (B) rounding up Christians and putting them in death camps.
What a braying reactionary loon.
Most same-sex oriented people reject the term "gay" for themselves because of the cultural associations linked to gay identity, including non-masculine entertainment interests (musicals, female singers, clothing, disinterest in major sports).
Ahead of today's statement by equalities minister Maria Miller on gay marriage, there has been some confusion over Labour's position. The party previously indicated that it would impose a three-line whip on its MPs (in favour of the bill), but now appears likely to offer a free vote. However, as one MP explained to me, there's been no U-turn. "The three-line whip only applied to civil ceremonies. Now the government has agreed to allow gay marriages in religious buildings, we will hold a free vote."
Although less numerous than those in the Conservatives, there are some in Miliband's party who are hostile towards gay marriage. Roger Godsiff, the MP for Birmingham Hall Green, has said he will oppose any law "redefining the current definition of marriage", while his parliamentary colleague Austin Mitchell tweeted yesterday: "Gay marriage is neither urgent nor important.It's also a moral issue therefore a free vote on which basis it won't pass". Three other Labour MPs, Jim Dobbin, Joe Benton and Mary Glindon, have signed the Coalition For Marriage petition against the proposal.
The Lib Dems have yet to say whether their MPs will be whipped in favour of gay marriage, but it's worth noting that Nick Clegg has previously criticised David Cameron's decision to offer Conservative MPs a free vote. He told The Andrew Marr Show in May: "My view is that in the same way that the civil partnerships legislation that was introduced under Labour was a whipped vote, I personally don’t think this is something that should be subject to a great free-for-all because we’re not asking people to make a decision of conscience about religion."
Update: The Coalition for Equal Marriage has pointed me towards three other Labour MPs who oppose gay marriage: Brian Donohoe, Paul Murphy, and Stephen Pound.
Who Is The Third Labour Anti-Gay Bigot?
Lucy Lips, December 11th 2012, 2:30 pm
We’ve come to expect this sort of thing from the Tories, despite the impressive determination of David Cameron to pass gay marriage equality during his premiership.
But this is depressing, coming from Labour:
After a “passionate” meeting of the Shadow Cabinet yesterday, it seems likely that Labour will not impose a three-line whip on equal marriage proposals, allowing MPs to vote on the basis of conscience.
It represents a backtrack on the part of the Labour leadership, which recently made it clear such a whip was “highly likely”.
Apparently the U-turn was not proposed by members of the Shadow Cabinet on a matter of principle, but largely because three shadow ministers – including Stephen Timms and Gavin Shuker - had threatened to resign. Three Shadow Cabinet ministers – Angela Eagle, Stephen Twigg (both gay) and deputy leader Harriet Harman had argued passionately in favour of maintaining the line.
Gay marriage really does make some people lose. their. minds.
How long before Michele Bachmann starts parroting this? Or has she already made the comparison? At least now, she'd have someone to cite.
LONDON — The pragmatic Dutch should be forgiven for wondering what all the fuss is about.
A decade after the Netherlands legalized marriage for same-sex couples with a minimum of brouhaha, the issue has spurred a fierce and emotional debate in two other European countries, France and Britain.
The disputes focus on plans by the Socialist government in France and the Conservative-led government in Britain to introduce legislation next year that would allow same-sex marriage.
The British government announced its proposals on Tuesday with a compromise that left both sides of the debate unhappy.
The proposed law specifically excludes the established Anglican churches of England and Wales by forbidding them from marrying same-sex couples, while other faith groups such as Quakers and liberal Reform Jews would be allowed to opt into the system.
That is intended to protect a reluctant Anglican Church from being forced into performing gay marriage ceremonies. But it added to what gay and equal rights activists described as the muddle surrounding law reform.
Peter Tatchell, a veteran gay rights activist, told Pink News that the Conservative proposals actually discriminated against heterosexual couples by denying them the right to a civil partnership, the so-called “marriage lite” that has been available to gay couples in Britain since 2004.
The proposed British compromise looked unlikely to quell opposition within Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party from those who reject the concept of same-sex marriage on religious, social or moral grounds.
The right-wing United Kingdom Independence Party has threatened to exploit divisions which it said threatened to rip apart the Conservatives’ traditional rural base.
“We feel the prime minister’s proposals will present an affront to millions of people in this country for whom this will be the final straw,” Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, told The Guardian.
Mr. Farage may be exaggerating the extent of opposition in a country where opinion polls show a majority in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. But, as in France, the opposition is certainly noisy.Anti-gay marriage groups staged demonstrations across France in October and November that attracted an estimated 100,000 people. The ruling Socialist Party has decided to fight back by throwing its support behind a counter-demonstration due to take place in Paris this weekend.
Romain Burrell, a journalist for a French gay magazine, wrote in The Guardian, “It’s quite simple. The ongoing same-sex marriage debate sparked a renewed wave of homophobia in France.”
He lamented that the opposition conservative U.M.P. had thrown its weight behind the anti-gay marriage campaign.
The Netherlands, meanwhile, appears to have survived unscathed from 11 years of same-sex marriage.
My colleague Celestine Bohlen, in a report from Amsterdam last week, cited polls that showed support for same-sex marriage increased by 20 points to 82 percent in the five years after the Dutch law was introduced.
As Celestine wrote, “Gay or straight, married, divorced, single or cohabiting, the Dutch — like many other Europeans — have been quietly rearranging their family structures over the past decade.”
In a letter leaked to the Daily Mail, Baroness Warsi suggests schools could be required to teach about same-sex unions, while individual priests and churches who refuse to conduct them risk being sued.
Her intervention will embolden more than 100 Tory MPs who are threatening to vote against the legislation in the New Year.
Writing to Culture Secretary Maria Miller, who unveiled the planned legislation on Tuesday, Lady Warsi raises a series of questions about the change in the law.
She demands ‘clarity’ on how the new law will properly ‘protect religious freedom’ and asks: ‘What legal support will be afforded to churches and other places of worship if they’re challenged individually or as an organisation?’
Lady Warsi, who attends Cabinet and is also senior minister for the Foreign Office, asks what legal advice the Government has received in relation to the compatibility of gay marriage legislation with ‘domestic and European law’.
Most contentiously, the peer, who held talks on the issue this week with Church of England leaders, asks: ‘What consideration has been given to the teaching of equal marriage in schools, both faith schools and non-faith schools?’
Her letter, sent after Mrs Miller outlined her plans to MPs, was copied to Education Secretary Michael Gove, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, Attorney General Dominic Grieve and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles.
The Cabinet signed off the plans this week, but Lady Warsi’s letter suggests that serious reservations – understood to be shared by other ministers, such as Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson – remain.
Lady Warsi tells Mrs Miller that as minister for faith she has received a ‘large volume of calls in relation to this matter’ from groups seeking assurance ‘about a number of aspects of the policy’.
She writes: ‘How will we ensure that the legislation will protect religious freedom? What legal protection will churches and other places of worship be afforded from challenges if they refuse to undertake same-sex marriage?
He also believes that Dirk Bogarde actually fucked Charlotte Rampling in The Night Porter. And Lord Carey still beats off to memories of Helmut Griem
Get rid of faith schools.
uh no, r38. You sound like a Nazi.
I have no problem with an anticlerical agenda.
Government's gay marriage plan a mess, says Labour
Yvette Cooper urges rethink after churches say they were not consulted on plan to ban them offering same-sex ceremonies
Labour has accused the government of making a "real mess" of its equal-marriage proposals and urged a rethink after the Church of England and the Church in Wales said they were not consulted over plans to ban them from offering same-sex ceremonies.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary and minister for women and equality, intervened as the archbishop of Wales complained that the government had put his church in an "enormously difficult position", which threatened to "severely curtail" its freedom to act according to its conscience.
The churches said on Thursday they had no idea they were to be legally barred from marrying same-sex couples until the culture secretary and equalities minister, Maria Miller, outlined the proposals to the Commons on Tuesday.
"Ministers have made a real mess of this," said Cooper. "Why are they making it expressly illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to hold same sex marriages, when even senior figures in both churches are questioning it?
"The government should rethink this before they publish the legislation. Religious freedom should be protected in the legislation. But that goes both ways. Churches that want to hold same-sex marriages should be able to do so."
Cooper, who said Labour would consider amending the bill once it was published if the government did not start listening, also asked the Church of England to reconsider its opposition to the matter.
"Although the Church of England has said it does not support same-sex marriage right now I hope it will change its position in time," she said. "Parliament should not be making it harder for any church to change its mind in future – especially the established church."
The archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, said he felt the wishes of the Church in Wales had not been heeded by the government.
"We didn't even have informal contacts with officials," he told BBC Radio 4's World at One. "The Church of England may have had that, but the Church in Wales certainly did not. I think we were just regarded as a kind of tag-on, as it were.
"It has put us in an enormously difficult position … It would have been nice to have some kind of consultation with somebody."
The archbishop said the church was speaking now to Miller and other officials in the hope of changing the government's mind.
"To regard the marriage of gays as a criminal act I don't think helps anybody," he said. "It certainly doesn't help the church and it doesn't help gay people either.
"It's not law yet and there is a long way to go, so I'm hoping we will be able to find a way round it that doesn't lock us in this protection."
A government spokeswoman said it was "just not true" to say that it had failed to discuss its proposals with the Church of England, and denied the church's assertion that it had not been informed of the so-called "quadruple lock" on gay marriage.
She said: "While it is inappropriate to share the exact nature of legislative proposals before announcing them to parliament, discussions with the church were quite specific about the quad lock."
The church, meanwhile, stressed the need for consultation saying it had "underlined to the DCMS the importance of church officials being able to study draft clauses before the bill is published, given the complex interaction between statute law and canon law".
A spokeswoman for the Catholic church in England and Wales said the church had nothing to add to the statement it made on Tuesday, in which it described the process behind the proposals as "shambolic".
The government proposals, which come after last month's General Synod vote against legislation to allow female bishops, have disheartened many clergy campaigning for a more inclusive church.
Colin Coward, director of Changing Attitude, which works for the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the life of the Anglican Communion, said he felt the row had reinforced the perception that the church was homophobic and made life far more difficult for the next archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
"I think he could have coped with the mess that had been created in the aftermath of General Synod," he said. "I think the mess that is now being created is much more difficult for even somebody as wise and skilled as him to deal with. It's easy to look at what's happening and see the church entering more and more deeply into a crisis from which it may not manage to clamber out."
Father Andrew Cain, vicar of St Mary with All Souls, Kilburn and St James, West Hampstead, and a campaigner for equality and inclusion within the church, said the struggle for equal marriage was reminiscent of the fight for women priests.
"Twenty years ago, we had no women priests; we're now debating women bishops," he said. "The whole campaign for equal treatment of gays and lesbians in the church is 20 or 30 years behind that of women. We just have to keep campaigning and eventually, the church will catch up with society - hopefully slightly faster."
The Rev Bob Callaghan, national co-ordinator of Inclusive Church, said he was not holding his breath.
"It ain't going to happen in my lifetime as a priest," he said. "I'm 53 and I ain't going to be doing gay marriages. Come off it. We'll be lucky to have women bishops by the time I'm still ministering. But I think there is a need to keep plugging away at it."
ok, r40. Now, when people say that gay rights leads to oppression of religious rights, they can cite your anti-religious admission as evidence.
MPs and Peers launch gay marriage rebellion saying Cameron has 'no mandate'
The scale of rebellion David Cameron faces over same-sex marriage is made clear as dozens of MPS and peers signed up to a new cross-party alliance publicly pledging to resist the move.
Almost 60 members of the Commons and Lords have signed a letter to The Daily Telegraph accusing the Coalition of acting without a mandate.
In a strongly-worded statement, they pour scorn on the Government’s consultation process which they say is mired in doubts over its legitimacy.
And they accuse the Coalition of “ploughing on regardless” in the face of what they describe as an “overwhelming public response” opposition to the change.
Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary, announced plans to allow same-sex couples to marry last week. A bill is expected at the end of January and David Cameron hopes to get the redefinition of marriage through parliament by the summer.
The letter which carries the names of Conservative, Labour and independent members as well as those from smaller parties, marks the launch of a campaign in Parliament to oppose the measure.
Supporters say those who have publicly signed so far represent only a proportion of those likely to vote against when a bill comes before Parliament in the New Year.
Some 137 Conservative MPs, almost half the parliamentary party, are now expected to vote against, based on letters written privately to constituents.
But this is the first time a large number of parliamentarians have publicly signed up to oppose the change.
“At the last election, none of the three main parties stood on a platform to redefine marriage,” they write.
“It was not contained in any of their manifestos, nor did it feature in the Coalition’s Programme for Government.
“These facts alone should have led to extreme caution on the part of those calling for this change to be made.
“Instead the Government is ignoring the overwhelming public response against the plans.
“The consultation has ignored the views of 500,000 British residents in favour of anonymous submissions from anyone anywhere in the world.
“We believe that the Government does not have a mandate to redefine marriage.”
The group includes former ministers such as Sir Gerald Howarth, Tim Loughton and David Davis as well as rising stars of the party such as Rehman Chishti, the Pakistan-born former Benazir Bhutto who once ran as a Labour candidate before defecting to the Tories.
The campaign is being orchestrated by David Burrowes, the Tory MP for Enfield in north London, who once received death threats because of his stance on same-sex marriage.
Supporters in the Lords include Labour’s Lord Anderson and the crossbencher Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
The group insist that they value “loving and committed” gay relationships and support civil partnerships but see marriage as “distinctive” and insist the move is “divisive and unnecessary”.
“We understand some parliamentarians support freedom for same sex couples to marry, but we support a freedom from the state being able to redefine the meaning of marriage,” they write.
In a commentary on telegraph.co.uk Mr Burrowes speaks of opponents of same-sex marriage already facing “Orwellian” treatment, such as that meted out to Adrian Smith, the housing trust official from Trafford who lost his managerial position after expressing his view in a personal Facebook posting.
“Last week the Coalition Government announced the beginning of the end of the traditional meaning of marriage,” he writes.
“It also marked the beginning of the Parliamentary campaign which I am leading and supported by a coalition of Parliamentarians across the political spectrum.”
He claims that once gay marriage becomes “state orthodoxy” those who oppose could find themselves “persecuted”.
One of the biggest challenges Mr Cameron faces over this issue is outside Parliament.
Last week Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, warned the row over marriage could “rip apart” the Tories and said he was planning to put the issue at the heart of his party’s 2014 European parliamentary elections campaign.
But Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, yesterday accused Mr Farage of being “on the make” and exploiting the issue.
“Now, I used to feel like Mr Farage felt; I used to feel that marriage was just for men and women,” he said.
“Now, about a year or so ago I changed my mind.”
Patrick McLoughlin the Transport Secretary, told The Sunday Politics on BBC One: “I think you have to make decisions in Government, you have to do progressive social legislation and the voters can take their choice when the general election comes.”
“I took a view that what was being proposed was right, the right move as far as allowing people the freedom to marry.”
Nah. A small section of the conservatives (small C, not just the Tory party are whinging but also some old duffer bigots in other parties), the right wing press are giving them attention. That's entirely different being an issue that is causing a serious divide in the normal population.
The general public is mostly either thinking WTF at the right wingers or not in the least bit interested. Not even close to civil war. Sound and fury signifying nothing. The bill will pass and so will any hubbub over the issue.
I think the Tories are actually trying to off load some of the crazy socially conservative bigots from their party because it severely hurts them trying to get votes from anybody under 60. They're going for socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
It is getting a huge amount of press beyond the rightwing media. It appears over 100 MPs are revolting, and UKIP is gaining with the antigay protest vote. Labor also has internal squabbling over whether gay marriage undermines religious liberty. It seems everyone agree Cameron has turned this into a train wreck.
Muslims want gay marriage protection like Church of England
By Murtaza Ali Shah
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
From Print Edition
Mosques allowed to perform gay marriages, if they so want
LONDON: British government has said that under the gay marriage legislation mosques in Britain will not be forced to conduct same sex marriages unless the governing bodies of the mosques “opt in” but the Church of England and Wales would be banned from “opting in”.
The government response came after Senior Cabinet Minister Sayeeda Warsi and mainstream British Muslim organisations opposed the gay marriage proposals and sought clarity as well as the same legal exemptions as the Church of England. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was “appalled” by “utterly discriminatory” legislation on gay marriage set out by the coalition government. The proposals would allow faith groups to conduct gay marriages but would ban the Church of England and the Church in Wales from doing so.
But in an exclusive interview with The News, an official at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport — which is responsible for the gay marriage legislation — assured that the mosques can “opt in” only if their governing body chooses to do so and there will be prosecutions. The official said that the same-sex couples will be able to get married in civil ceremonies for the first time and religious organisations who chose to “opt in” will be able to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.
She said that a “quadruple lock” of measures in domestic legislation would protect religious freedom, putting beyond doubt the possibility of successful challenge through domestic or European courts and the law will provide watertight protections for religious organisations including Muslims.
She told The News that the government was aware about the sensitivity of the Muslim communities and that’s the reason why the legislation will require that no religious organisation or individual minister could be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises.
“The Equality Act 2010 would be amended to ensure that no discrimination claim could be brought against religious organisations or individual minister for refusing to marry a same-sex couple. Muslim leaders/mosques will never be forced to marry same-sex couples and we will be protected them in law from legal challenges.”
Muslims fear that some maverick elements within the community will start conducting gay marriages inside the mosques and will cause tensions within the community.
Farooq Murad, the MCB Secretary General, called on the Culture Secretary Maria Miller to meet a delegation of Muslim leaders to hear the concerns of the British Muslim community.
“No-one in their right mind should accept such a discriminatory law It should be amended to give exactly the same exemption to all the religions,” he said in reference to the gay marriage proposed legislation.
When quizzed why the established Church of England was banned but not the mosques, the official said that the church in England “has a unique position as opposed to any other religion in this country”.
“There are two elements which apply specifically to the Church of England which means they have to be dealt with separately. Their legal duty to marry parishioners and the Canon law. We cannot have inconsistent law and so there is a need to reconcile what we do in our Bill with the Canon law which states that marriage is between a man and a woman. This does not mean that the law on who can marry must be exactly the same in civil law and Canon law, only that they are not in conflict. If there was a proper conflict, there is statutory provision which sets out that Canon law would not have effect.”
(Reuters) - Britain's anti-European Union party has scooped up support from voters traditionally loyal to Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservatives after the government announced plans to allow gay couples to marry, three polls showed on Sunday.
A large number of Conservative parliamentarians as well as the Church of England oppose the plans for same-sex marriage announced on Tuesday, although the move is generally popular across the country.
UKIP, which wants Britain to exit the EU, has pledged to exploit Conservative divisions over the issue and polls showed its support reaching new highs, putting it in third place ahead of Cameron's junior coalition partners the Liberal Democrats.
Both a ComRes survey for the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Mirror newspapers and the Observer paper's Opinium poll had the Conservatives on 29 percent, 10 points behind the opposition Labour Party, with UKIP on 14 percent.
A third poll by Survation for the Mail on Sunday newspaper had the Conservatives on 30 percent, Labour on 38 percent and UKIP again with 14 percent. All three surveys had the Liberal Democrats trailing in fourth on 9 percent or less.
"The Conservatives are leaking votes to UKIP - one in five of the party's 2010 voters say that they now intend to vote UKIP," said Andrew Hawkins, chairman of ComRes.
"There is good evidence that many UKIP voters are erstwhile Conservatives on the rebound: large proportions are negative about David Cameron and (Chancellor) George Osborne on the economy, and about Mr Cameron's handling of gay marriage."
UKIP polled more votes than the centre-right Conservatives in two recent elections for parliamentary seats, partly helped by Britons' discontent at government austerity measures along with a growing anti-EU sentiment shared by many within Cameron's party.
Despite success in elections for the European Parliament, UKIP has never won a seat at Westminster and commentators say its rise in support is likely to hurt the Conservatives at the next election in 2015 rather than lead to an electoral breakthrough.
"Unless we see some really substantial change from the government and the Labour party ... with a U-turn on Europe, open-door immigration, gay marriage and other things, then there's no reason to think that this level of support for UKIP can't be maintained," its leader Nigel Farage told Sky News.
He hopes UKIP's opposition to gay marriage will contribute to this, and argues that current laws which allow gay couples to form civil partnerships conferring the same legal rights as marriage are sufficient.
While polls indicate a majority of Britons do support the change, they have also shown far fewer of those who voted Conservative at the last election in 2010 are in favour.
Political analysts have suggested the gay marriage plans are a way for Cameron to broaden his party's support and burnish its liberal values. However the Survation survey found two-thirds of those it polled thought he was supporting gay marriage to win "trendy votes" rather than because he thought it was right.
Gay marriage: poll shows backing in Lords for postponement
Expectations that same-sex marriage could be defeated in the House of Lords are growing after the first poll of peers on the subject showed strong support for shelving the move.
By John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor
6:30AM GMT 08 Jan 2013
Almost six out of 10 members of the Lords polled said that the Coalition should call a halt to its plans to change the marriage laws until it becomes clearer whether there is broad public support.
It comes amid accusations from senior churchmen that the Coalition’s official consultation on same-sex marriage was a “sham”.
Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary disclosed to the Commons last month that just under 53 per cent of responses to the online listening exercise were in favour.
But that figure discounts the views of more than half a million opponents who signed online petitions.
The polling also showed strong objections in both houses to the prospect of the Government invoking rarely-used parliamentary powers to change the law without the support of the House of Lords.
The Coalition is due to publish it equal marriage bill in the next few weeks.
It is likely to pass the Commons despite an expected rebellion by more than 130 Tory MPs but the outcome of a vote in the Lords is far less clear.
A ComRes poll of peers carried out for the Coalition for Marriage (C4M), which campaigns against the change, found that 56 per cent agreed with the statement that the Government should “not proceed” with the changes if the consultation does not show “broad support”.
When asked whether the measure should simply be shelved until after the next election irrespective of the consultation outcome opinion was finely balanced with 46 per cent in favour and 49 per cent against.
Three quarters of Conservative peers and 67 per cent of cross-benchers polled favoured a pause but only 15 per cent of Liberal Democrats did so.
Meanwhile a separate poll of MPs found that two thirds of members of the Commons are to opposed to using Parliament Act to get the legislation through if it is blocked in the Lords.
Nicknamed the “nuclear option” of Parliamentary procedure, the Act has been used only a handful of times in the last century.
Among peers opposition to using the Parliament Act ran at 74 per cent.
Colin hart, campaign director for the C4M said: “Mr Cameron should realise that trying to ram through this policy in a desperate bid appear trendy and progressive is not fooling anyone.
“Ordinary people want him to stop meddling with the institution of marriage and get on with fixing Britain’s flatlining economy.
“After all that’s why he was elected.
“Day by day the case for holding a referendum on this issue grows.
“If Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg believe this policy is both the right thing to do and popular why do they not trust the British people and let them have their say?”
Gay marriage: after today's letter in the Telegraph, the Catholic Church really is at war with the Government
More than a thousand Catholic priests have signed the letter to The Daily Telegraph arguing that the Government's gay marriage plans will "severely restrict the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools" and rejecting promised safeguards as "meaningless".
I'll be honest: when I read the news story about the letter, I thought: gosh, a thousand conservative/traditionalist priests are standing up to be counted. But that just goes to show the folly of assuming that the Catholic Church is as factional as the Church of England. Because when I worked my way down the names, I kept coming across priests who are poles apart liturgically and even differ in the way they interpret Catholic teaching on homosexuality. The list includes members of the "Magic Circle" of well-connected liberals, Latin Mass traditionalists, moderate conservatives and the leaders of the newly formed Ordinariate. As for the political leanings of the signatories, I can assure you that Labour supporters are well represented. So, too, are celibate gay priests.
All of which brings home the extent to which the "conservative" David Cameron is at war not just with fundamentalists, but also with middle-of-the-road clergy and lay people from Britain's largest and, arguably, best-integrated religious minority. By redefining marriage without even the fig leaf of a manifesto commitment, he has forced Catholics and other Christians who thought of themselves as gay-friendly to take a stance which, in the lexicon of hashtag politics (see my earlier post), renders them homophobic opponents of "equal marriage". They won't quickly forgive him for that.