Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Marriage Letter

Marriage Letter

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 138,028|Likes:
Published by Guido Fawkes

More info:

Published by: Guido Fawkes on Jan 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/31/2014

pdf

text

original

 
THE
RT
HON
DR
LIAM
FOX
MP
(North
Somerset)
HOUSE
OF
COMMONS
LONDON
S\f
IA
OAA020
7219
4198
B
January,20t3
\
nr"r
Gnotutna^f.
I
,/-nunoyou
for
sharing
your
views
with
meabout same-sexmarriage.
I
am
sorry
to writetoyouinthis
impersonal
way
but,
as
youcan imagine,
I
havereceived
a
great
many
letters
and
emails.
Thisdebate
hasbecome
divisiveand
bitter
involving
sections
of
the
British
public
whoare
not
normallystirred
to
political
anger.
It
has led
tothe
alienation
of
many
loyal
and,
in
many
cases
lifelong,
suppofters
of
the
Conseruative
Party.
Before
thingsget
out
of
hand
we
shouldtake
a
step
back
to
consider
the
situationwith
as much
objectivity
as
we
can.
The
proposals
for
same
sex
marriages
in
churchare suppofted
by
many
of
my
friends
and
colleagues
in
Parliament
who
haveheld
this
positionclearly
and
honourably
for
a
longtime.They
are
pefectly
entitled
to
their
viewsand
they
should
be
listened
to
with
due
consideration.
Indeed,
the
wholedebate
would
benefit
froma
gooddeal more
circumspection
and
withoutulterior
motives
being
insinuated
byboth
sides.
As
a doctor
I
believe
that
same-sexrelationships
are
a
variantof the
spectrum
of
humansexual
behaviour
and
should
be
treated
with
tolerance
and
respect.
Prejudicedressed
in
any
other
clothes
is
still
the
same.
Proponents
of
same-sexmarriage
argue
that
any
change
is
simply
a
matterof
equal
rights.
I
disagree
with
them.
I
believe
that
thisargumentfails
to
understand
the full
complexities
of the
social
issues
involved.
If
this weresimplyan
argument
about
righting
awrong,
with
noother
consequences,
it
wouldnot
becreating
so
muchdivision.
The
legalintroduction
of
civil
paftnerships,
recognising
the
legal
basis
of
same-
sex
relationships,
dealt
with
the
perceived
and
real
discriminationagainst
a
section
of our
population.
It
was
a
remedy
that
was
widelyaccepted,
not
least
as
it
affectedonly those
who
had long
faced
this
discrimination
intheir
legal
and
financialaffairs.
Thechange
in the
status
of
marriage
in
the
proposed
legislationdoes not
fit
thispattern,
It
proposes
to
change
the
definition
of
marriage
for
all,
for the
perceived
 
benefit
of a
much
smaller
number.
Unlike
civil
paftnerships
it
is
not
even
clear
that
there
is
much
demand
for
the
change.
I
have
not
heard
any
of
the
gayfriends
that
I
have clamour
for
same-sex marriage in
the way
that
they
demanded
the
right
for
civil
paftnerships.
The
problem
facing
these
proposals
is
that
marriage
is
held
by
many
to
be
the
unique
(and
in
a
religious
context
sacred)
bond between
a
manand
a woman.
Many see
the
change
in
the
legalstatus
as
denying
them
in
law
the
specialrecognition
of
this
relationship
-
a
relationship
whose
unique
qualities
they
have valued,
often
overmany
years.
The
result
is
that,
far
from
embedding
the
tolerance
and
equality
that the
civil
partnership
legislation
brought,
it
is
highlightingdivision
and
difference.
This
is
to
begreatly
regretted.
The
principle
of
altering
the
accepted
legal status
of
the
majority
of
thepopulationinorder
to
satisfy
what
appears
to
bea
verysmall,
if
vocal, minority
is
not
a
good
basis
onwhich
to
build atolerantand
stable society
and
should
be
enough
reason
in
itself
to
think twiceabout
changing
the
law.
What
makes
the
positionworseis
the
way
that
the
legislation increasingly
looksas
though
it
was
madeon
the
hoof
to
deal
with
the
political
problemdu
jour.
Banning
the
Church
of
England
from what would
be an
othenruise
legal
activity
is
anomalous
andabsurd.
If
the
"exemption" is,
as
stated,
because
the
Church
had
made
clear
their
objection
to
same-sex marriage
then why not
exempt
the
Catholic Church
which
hasbeen even clearer
in
itsopposition.
This
confusedpicture
is
made worse
by
the
fact that
the
Church
of
England
hierarchy
claims
not
to
havebeen
fully
consulted
at
all.The
idea
of
making
certain
practices
illegal
for
one
Christian Church,
butnot
others,
risks further
weakening
and
splintering Britain's
traditional religion
at
a
time
when
manyChristians
feel thatthey are
under
threat on
a
number
of
secular,political
and
culturalfronts.
To fail
to
understand
this
is
to
riskan
affront
to
a
largestabilising
and
normally
acquiescent
section
of
this
country
which
will
sow
completelyunnecessary
seeds
of
dissent.
Worse
still,
any
assurances
that we
are
given
that
distinguishing
betweenchurches
will
not
be
used
at
some
pointby
European
courts
to
drivea
coach
and
horses
through
the
legislationcarries
little
credibility
with
those
of
us
who
have
watchedsimilar
assurances
trounced
in
the
past.Having narrowly
avoidedtaking
the
State
into
the
realm
of a
free
press
we
should
not
be
intruding
on
thefreedomofworship
that
is
the
proper
preserue
of
the
Churches
not the
Courts.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->