More hypocritical MPs

In this post I listed some MPs who are supporting the Campaign for Marriage's attempts to prevent equal marriage legislation.


Since then some more MPs have nailed their colours to the anti-equality mast. and yet again we find that some of them have personally struggled to live up to C4M's standard which is

"I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

Therese Coffey, Robert Halfon, Alec Shelbrooke & Nicola Blackwood have yet to tie the knot. As they have similar views perhaps they could form two couples?

Geoffrey Clinton Brown and Eleanor Laing failed at 'for life' aspect and are both divorced.

Laurence Roberson hasn't got divorced yet but it hasn't stopped him shacking up with his new partner.

Andrew Turner appears to have formed a voluntary union with his partner but forgot to actually get married, doh.

The undoubted star of this batch is Roger Gale currently on his third wife. [insert your own cheap 'Roger' Joke here]

However I have to give an honourable mention to Jacob Rees Mogg. As far as I am aware he is happily married but his father in law . Wow!




 Once again, I am more than happy to blame Wikipedia and amend any errors.

Wed as I say not as I did

The Coalition for Marriage website has a petition where people can sign up to the following

I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.

A number of MPs are signatories. Others have express their views on the subject to newspapers or constituents. The Coalition for Equal Marriage are compiling a list detailing way MPs are likely to vote.

I make it 49 MPs who have said they will vote against an equal marriage bill. How many of them do you think would have their own relationship categorised under the definition above? All of them? 90 percent? Lets count and see who wins the race to be the biggest hypocrite.

I will start with those who didn't even get out of the blocks and have yet to embrace this whole marriage thing.

John Stevenson,
Paul Murphy
Philip Lee
Richard Fuller
Ann Widdecombe
Sammy Wilson
Robert Alexander Stewart and
Paul Maynard

Now it starts to get interesting. Bronze medals go to those who tripped up over either the 'for life' or the 'exclusion of all other' hurdles.

Robert Syms - Divorced
Simon Burns - Divorced
John Whittingdale - Marriage Dissolved
Stephen Pound - has a child from a previous relationship and
John Glen - married a woman with children from a previous relationship.

Silver medals go those who stumbled at the 'one man and one woman part', who so embraced the idea of marriage they did it twice or three times.

Sir Roger Gale, 3 wives
Richard Drax, 3 wives
Tony Baldry, 2 wives
Ann Main, 2 husbands and
Craig Whitaker, 2 wives

However we have a clear winner. The gold medal goes to

Nadine Dorries

Who not only got divorced but then went on to have an affair with a married man. Congratulations Nadine.

So to answer my earlier question less than 62% can be advanced as role models for the alleged marriage definition.


P.S. In awarding medals above I am not criticising the failure or otherwise of the relationships concerned. The end of marriages or relationships can be a painful and traumatic event, but it happens. Sometimes one party may be to blame, other times both, but it can also be neither.

My criticism is in the attempt by the Coalition for Marriage and the signatories to try to promote a false definition of marriage. I have said before 'Marriage is not defined a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman. It is not life long. Married people can get divorced and if they choose may marry again. It is not exclusive either. People who have affairs are still considered married.'

The MPs highlighted above are promoting a false definition of marriage in order to exclude certain people despite personally failing to live within their own definition.


PPS. The information above was taken from the internet mainly Wikipedia. I am happy to amend any errors.

Is it time the Government lost God?

Alastair Campbell famously told Tony Blair "We don't do God". The current Government certainly does. I blogged last month about Cameron's claim that the values of the Bible are the values the UK needs.

Following last weeks elections, which were bad for the coalition, the Tory right has identified the cause for voter unrest and has identified the cure. The reason that the coalition did badly was their support for Equal Marriage and House of Lords reform. Dropping these will, they suggest, bring back the electorate. The signs are that the message is getting through. Were these the real reasons for the decline in votes or is this simply people with an agenda exploiting the traditional mid-term drop in support for the ruling party?

The London assembly vote gives an interesting insight. 'Christian Peoples Alliance - Supporting Traditional Marriage' fielded 25 candidates for the 11 available top up seats. I guess believing five loaves and two fish will feed 5000 renders this particular bums/seats problem trivial! The addition of  'Supporting Traditional Marriage' to the party's name brought the equal marriage issue to the fore. If this was a real concern then the votes would show it.

The results must have been a blow for the anti-equal marriage brigade. The Christian Peoples Alliance polled 1.7%, down from the 2.9% they achieved in both 2008 and in 2004. This 41% fall in support even managed to eclipse the catastrophic losses of the Liberal Democrats. Christianity is declining but not at the rate suggested by these results. This result shows one of two things. Either Christians have lost the appetite for mixing religion with politics, or maintaining discrimination in marriage is not an issue they can support. 

Similarly the support for Lords reform does not appear to be an issue which has alienated voters from the Government. A recent Yougov poll showed that only 5% support the current Lords appointment system. Perhaps this is the place to insert a plug for 'Holy Redundant' the humanist campaign to remove the automatic right for Bishops to sit in the Upper Chamber. Their website contains an email generator allowing you to express your opposition to the "Lords Spiritual" to your local MP.

Whatever reason people deserted the Government in the last round of elections, there is no reason to suggest it was down to Equal Marriage or Lords reform. Nadine Dorries suggests in the article above that that the Conservative party needs to drop these issues so they don't appear out of touch, inward looking and self interested. What appears to me to be out of touch, inward looking and self interested is Dorries and other Christians attempting to derail natural justice by trying to "do God" in politics.

Cardinal O'Brien on same sex marriage

Cardinal Keith O'Brien is the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland. He appeared on the Today program on Monday morning to talk about gay marriage. You can hear his interview with John Humphrys by clicking on this link 

In the interview he said that the Declaration of Human Rights defined marriage as "a relationship between men and woman (sic)". Adding later "We know what the Untied Nations declaration says". I suggest not everyone does know what it says so it may be worth us taking a quick look at the relevant articles

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 16.

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Stating at the end, the declaration makes clear that all articles apply equally .

The first article does not distinguish between men and women but states all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Article 7 establishes that the law applies equally to all and article 12 prohibits arbitrary interference in family life.

While article 16 is the main article as far as marriage is concerned, we saw from article 30 that it can not be read in isolation; it must be read in conjunction with the other articles.

There is nothing in article 16 defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. It simply says both men and women have the right to marry. As long as they are both of full age there is no limitation on who they can marry, and rightly so, anything different would contradict article 1. Changing the UK law to allow same sex marriages appears to be an implementation of Article 7. The arbitrary interference of the Church in preventing same sex couples founding a family contradicts article 12. The article does not define marriage as a relationship between men and woman. Put simply Cardinal O'Brien lied.

He then went on to suggest that allowing same sex marriages would lead to slavery. When questioned he reaffirmed that slavery was a "very very good example as to what might happen in our own country at this present time" following it with the statement that slavery was a "perfectly good example as to could happen in our own country if we go this way".

The Cardinal has wicked imagination and is being extremely mischievous. As one who claims to be familiar with United Nations declaration of human rights he would be familiar with article 4.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

In an earlier post I listed some of the support in the bible for slavery. Those interested in the subject may like to read the Ministry of Truth's post about of the Church's involvement in the slave trade; the Bishops in the House of Lords voting against the abolition of slavery and the money the state paid to the Church in compensation for the loss of its slaves.

Having earlier stated that he was simply relating the "Teaching of the Church for over 2000 years" O' Brien went on to say "marriage is a natural state and we know natural law, it is natural for a man and a woman to be together for the procreation and education of children." Perhaps he is unfamiliar with 1Timothy written about 2000 years ago

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach

but I would have thought he would be aware that his church still prevents women from educating as Priests.

O'Brien in calling same sex unions grotesque and saying it would shaming the country is clearly seeking to sow the seeds of discord amongst his congregation. Listening to the interview I was reminded of Proverbs 6:16-19

Proverbs 6:16-19 says, "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

Seems to me that Keith O'Brien will be on the receiving end of some of his God's hate.

The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman

A new group, the Coalition for Marriage, has recently stared a petition asking people to support the "legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others".

It is claimed to have the support, amongst others, of lawyers. I would suggest that anyone thinking lawyers favour an unambiguous and incontrovertible legal definition does not have the slightest idea how the legal profession makes its money.

The above definition can not be found in UK statute. The marriage act of 1949, rather than banning marriage between those of opposite sex, actually prevents marriage between certain men and women. Specifically it makes the Marriage between Abraham and his sister which was blessed by God in Genesis 17:16 illegal in the UK.  It was not until 1971 and the Nullity of Marriage act that same sex marriages were outlawed.

The spotlighted signatories of the petition are predominately Christian leaders. Ironically the list is headed by Lord Carey of Clifton, former Archbishop of Canterbury. One wonders, when signing a petition calling for the union of one man with one woman for life, whether he contemplated the circumstances which caused his Church to separate from Rome. Or indeed whether he considered the traditional lessons about marriage found in the bible. 

God certainly was not a fan of this one man & one woman malarkey. From Lenach in Genisis 4, to Esau, Jacob, David  and Soloman the O.T. has no shortage of polygamy. God even gave rules in Exodus 21: 10 on how to take another wife. Indeed he went further rewarding those marrying again

Deuteronomy 24:5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

Paul, the prime mouthpiece for Jesus, on the other hand was clearly giving an anti-marriage message. 

1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 For I would that all men were even as I myself    .... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 

Matthew 19:10-12 reports Jesus' downer on marriage when he said you are better off castrating yourself than getting married. Jesus' ambivalence further illustrated in  Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:35 which all report him saying that marriages are not recognised in heaven.  

So it appears that the 'one man one woman thing' is far from the biblical ideal, what about 'for life'? If marriage was for life why would Jesus encourage the disciples to abandon their wives as pointed out by Mark 10:29-20?

There is no man that hath left .. (his) wife for my sake, and the gospel's. But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

And why make divorce is so easy? Back to Deuteronomy and 24:1

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house

We have yet to address the part of the definition concerning the 'voluntary' nature of the union.  Deuteronomy 21 contains a charming moral teaching where wives can be taken without consent.

21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will

Incidentally note in the above there are no issues with abandoning a wife who is not satisfactory. None of that 'for life' rubbish here.

That leaves us with "to the exclusion of all others". Can I just suggest that you search the bible for one of the many references to 'concubine' and draw your own conclusions.

What is clear is that this 'voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others' meme has no legitimate or consistent basis for support in the bible. Wherever it came from it is is not reflected by the traditional Christian Values found in the holy book.