Hilary White

, ,

Clergy, legal experts not buying ‘protections’ for churches in UK gay ‘marriage’ law

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image

LONDON, January 30, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Promises of “safeguards” for churches in the UK’s proposed gay “marriage” law are empty and unenforceable, given the UK’s Equalities law and connections to the European Union, according to a top legal expert.

According to Aidan O’Neill QC, wording in the bill, scheduled to go to the vote on February 5th, that he government claims makes it illegal for the Church of England and Church in Wales (Anglican) to conduct same-sex “weddings” is “eminently challenge-able”. O’Neill has told the government that the wording is in fact illegal, and will be overturned straight out of the gate.

The comments come in response to a blog post by Maria Milller, the Culture Minister who introduced the bill on Friday, in which she said, “I have always been crystal clear that I simply will not introduce any new law that does not provide protection for all religious organisations and individual ministers of religion.

“Our Bill will both protect and promote religious freedom in this country, so that religious organisations can continue to act according to their own doctrines and beliefs.”

The legislation contains wording that forbids the Anglican churches, as the officially established church, from conducting same-sex “weddings”. But this does not extend to the Catholic Church and other Protestant denominations or religious groups like Jews or Muslims.

Miller wrote, “Tolerance is a two-way street,” adding that the government has taken its cue from the “Quakers, Liberal Jews and Unitarians – who said they wanted the opportunity to marry same-sex couples, and so we decided to build that into our plans.”

“After all, we are very clear that this decision is entirely up to individual religious organisations and their ministers, but in principle who are we to stop those religious bodies from conducting same-sex marriages if they want to? Allowing them to do so promotes religious freedom.”

O’Neill’s concerns were echoed today by Education Secretary Michael Gove who said that government could be “powerless” to stop teachers being sacked for refusing to teach “gay marriage.” The Daily Telegraph reports that “a senior source” in the department of education said the UK is not “in control” of its own legal situation and that the ultimate decision might “inevitably” be made by the European Court of Human Rights.

The source said, “We have had legal advice; the problem is that there is this inherent uncertainty about such matters.”

“These are all under the control of nine guys in Strasbourg, it is just fundamentally uncertain because Britain isn’t in control of this.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Gove is not alone among ministers in expressing doubts. It is now estimated that at least 100 MPs will vote against the bill, although this is far too few to defeat it.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has also raised concerns about the ‘robustness’ of protections. Hammond said that “gay marriage” is not a priority for voters, adding, “I believe the introduction of civil partnerships has removed the elements of practical discrimination that existed against those in same-sex relationships.”

“I do not believe there is a compelling reason to prioritise legislation to go further at the present time and I have concerns about the robustness of the protections for religious organisations that are being put in place.”

While the government continues to focus almost exclusively on the potential conflicts for clergy, Aidan O’Neill has already given testimony to the government’s consultation that creating “gay marriage” in law would automatically throw a wide array of lay religious believers and other conscientious objectors into conflict with their employers and leave them open to litigation with little or no legal recourse. He particularly highlighted teachers as those who could be sacked for refusing to endorse same-sex “marriage,” and also argued that parents would have no right to withdraw their children from classes that endorse gay “marriage.”

Meantime, no one in the Christian community seems to be willing to trust the assurances that they will be protected from being forced to violate their consciences. Earlier this month, 1067 Catholic priests, including 13 bishops and abbots, signed a letter warning of a return of formal persecution of believing Catholics should the change go through. In an interview, the new archbishop of Glasgow, Philip Tartaglia, said he could see himself ending up in prison for his refusal to bow to the zeitgeist’s interpretation of marriage.

At a meeting with concerned Catholic lay groups this week, Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark said he remains unconvinced that the government’s promises of a “quadruple lock” in the bill will stand up in court. He warned that Catholic schools might face a similar fate as the Catholic adoption agencies that were either closed or forced to secularise when the government enacted the Equality legislation requiring them to consider same-sex “couples” as adoptive parents.

John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has said that the emptiness of government promises has already been demonstrated dozens of times. Smeaton wrote today that since the passage of the Abortion Act 1967, successive governments have repeatedly promised and failed to protect conscientious objectors to the various gains of the Sexual Revolution, from abortion to explicit “sex education” in schools to enforcing acceptance of homosexuality.

The government’s promises are ringing even more hollow in the face of a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in a set of four cases brought by Christians complaining of religious discrimination in the workplace. A week before the government brought its marriage bill forward, the ECHR ruled against three of the plaintiffs, ruling in two cases that Christians with conscientious objections were not allowed to refuse to participate in same-sex civil partnerships or counsel same-sex couples.

The ECHR found that the sacking of relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane and of marriage registrar Lillian Ladele were “not disproportionate” and that the sanctions were in keeping with employers’ legitimate “equality and diversity policies”. Under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, the European courts have the power to overturn the laws of member states if they are found to conflict with European law.

In dozens of cases large and small, Christians have been the targets of homosexualist activists using the current Equalities law to punish any public opposition to the political agenda. From these cases alone experts have said that it is clear that the new law will affect ordinary working people in a wide range of professions outside the clergy, including marriage registrars and government officials of any kind, nurses, building managers, teachers, amateur street preachers, foster parents, counsellors, hoteliers and bed and breakfast owners.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Émile Bayard's classic illustration of Cosette in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables.
Anthony Esolen Anthony Esolen Follow Anthony

Tracts and sermons alone won’t form pro-life children. Here’s what will.

Anthony Esolen Anthony Esolen Follow Anthony
By Anthony Esolen

What is remarkable in our age is not that half of our citizens believe it is wrong to kill the child in the womb, the child whose existence, except in the rare case of rape, is owing to our own voluntary actions.  That would be like congratulating ourselves for believing that it's wrong to steal someone's car, to lie under oath to hurt an enemy, to throw our aged parents into the street, or to desecrate churches.  Where is the great moral insight?  What's remarkable instead is that half of us believe it is all right to snuff out the life of that child – because nothing must be allowed to interfere with our “right” to pursue pleasure, as we use the child-making thing as a sweating-off spa on our way to money, prestige, a five-bathroom mansion for two, a tenured chair in Women's Studies, the mayoralty of Camden, another year of nights out on the town, whatever.

How have we come to this pass?  Our imaginations are stunted or diseased, that's how.
 Let churchgoers beware.  You cannot spread pro-life icing on a cake made of flour and rat poison.  Our children meet with rat poison everywhere.  Do they watch Friends on television, that un-funny amoral “comedy” about nihilist young urbanites trading depressions in the mattress with one another?  Rat poison.  Do they watch movies like – well, the moronic Titanic, wherein a shrewish girl and a pouty boy fornicate before they are swallowed by the deep blue sea?  Rat poison.  Do their school teachers feed them such exalted lyric poetry as that of Sylvia Plath, imagining what it would be like to smash her sleeping husband's head like a rotten pumpkin?  Or the bogus Laramie Project, making a hero out of a deeply disturbed young man, killed in a meth deal?  Or Toni Morrison's maudlin obsessions with race and adultery?  Is it an endless cafeteria of ghouls, vampires, girl-murderers – Lord of the Flies, without the severe moral imagination and the talent of William Golding?  Lord of the Flies, Lady of the Flies, Cheerleaders of the Flies, Lifeguard of the Flies, Mr. Goodbar of the Flies, Fight Club of the Flies, Hunger of the Flies?  Rat poison, with that peculiar character of rat poison, that the more the critter consumes, the thirstier it grows.  Vice is the addiction that mimics the habit of virtue.  One hour a week on Sunday does not flush out the strychnine.  Theology lessons are band-aids when your arteries are porous inside.  The forming of a moral imagination is not something additional in the education of a child.  It is the education of a child. 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Your child sees a commercial for Planned Predators.  The commercial baldly states that it doesn't matter who your “partners” are, how many you have, or what you do – because you are the only one who has any say in the matter, and nobody has the right to judge you.  This is not the morality of a cad or a tramp.  Cads and tramps have attacks of conscience.  It is the bland oh-so-self-assured anti-morality of a demon.  It is one hundred proof grain stupidity.  It is distilled evil.  Now, we want to raise children who will do more than say, “I don't agree with that.”  Wonderful enlightenment!  We want to raise children who would look upon anyone who uttered such a thing as they would look upon someone who would fish his food out of a septic tank: incomprehensible, base, inhuman, insane.  That's the negative.  Let me give the positive.  We want to raise children who will understand and cherish the virtues of love and purity.  Those virtues must not remain mere terms or notions.  We must clothe them with flesh and blood.  Consider the following scene from Victor Hugo's masterpiece, Les Miserables.  Two pure young people, Marius and Cosette, have long beheld one another from a distance.  They have fallen in love, and finally, after many months and much seeking, the youth and the maiden meet and speak.  Here is how Hugo describes what they do every evening:

Throughout the month of May . . . in that poor, wild garden, under that shrubbery each day more perfumed and dense, two human beings composed of every chastity and every innocence, overflowing with all the felicities of Heaven, closer to archangels than men, pure, honest, intoxicated, radiant, glowed for each other in the darkness.  It seemed to Cosette that Marius had a crown, and to Marius that Cosette had a halo.  They touched, they gazed at each other, they clasped hands, they pressed close together; but there was a distance they did not pass.  Not that they respected it; they were ignorant of it.  Marius felt a barrier, Cosette's purity, and Cosette had a support, Marius' loyalty.  The first kiss was also the last.  Since then, Marius had not gone beyond touching Cosette's hand, or her scarf, or her curls, with his lips.  Cosette was to him a perfume, and not a woman.  He breathed her.  She refused nothing and he asked nothing.  Cosette was happy, and Marius was satisfied.  They were living in that ravishing condition that might be called the dazzling of one soul by another.  It was that ineffable first embrace of two virginities within the ideal.

Victor Hugo was a man well acquainted with the squalor of the streets, and the wicked things that people do to themselves and one another.  His blood ran hot, not cold – hot with indignation against the wickedness, and hot with greathearted love for what is noblest in man; with what he would call the work of God in man.  Our purveyors of rat poison have not witnessed one hundredth of the miseries and the sins that he witnessed!  But they turn our children's vision to what is dark and dead, and he raises our eyes to the everlasting hills, whence cometh our help.
 We want to raise boys like Marius and girls like Cosette.  We cannot do it with tracts in church teaching and a sermon on Sunday, as needful as those things are.  They may give us the moral, but they do not nourish the imagination.  Without story, without flesh and blood, they flare in the ear but do not ring in the conscience.  Hence the need for art and song, for stories and poetry.  Jesus taught in parables.  These are not just instruments.  They are of the essence.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

Medical staff arrested in India after accidentally aborting baby at 8 months

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

A doctor and a nurse at a prominent private hospital in India have been arrested after they allegedly administered abortion drugs to a eight-months pregnant woman accidentally, resulting in the death of her unborn child.

"We have immediately registered a case and arrested the doctor, whose negligent act has caused this," said South Jammu Superintendent of Police Rahul Malik, according to the Hindustan Times.

The woman's husband, Rakesh Sharma, told the paper that the doctor mistook Shruti Sharma for another patient who was scheduled for an abortion at the JK Medicity Hospital in Jammu on Friday afternoon.

Shruti had gone to the hospital after her gynecologist advised a routine medical examination to safeguard her and her baby's health.

Rakesh alleged that the doctor gave his wife the abortion pills without consulting her medical records. “Doctors and paramedical staff instead of administering glucose, gave her abortion medicine, which was actually meant for another patient,” he said.

"It is the worst case of negligence. I feel strongly that such hospitals should be closed. If this has happened to me today, tomorrow it can happen to any body else," Rakesh said.

While the JK Medicity's administration said it has launched an inquiry into the incident, a report from the Jagran Post stated that the district government has revoked the hospital's license.

"Jammu and Kashmir Government has ordered sealing of the private clinic after suspension of its license to operate in the wake of the incident," said Minister for Health and Medical Education Taj Mohiuddin according to the report.

National media have reported that the incident has brought illegal abortion practices in India to the attention of both the public and government officials.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

According to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, abortion is legal in India up to 20 weeks. However, the opinion of a second doctor is required if the pregnancy is past its 12th week, and abortion-inducing drugs such as mifepristone and misoprostol are allowed only by prescription up until the seventh week of pregnancy.

Moreover, abortions can be performed only in government licensed medical institutions by registered abortionists.

Indian Express reported that the accused in the incident, Dr. Amarjeet Singh, practices ayurvedic medicine (traditional Hindu medicine) and is "unsuitable for carrying out abortions."

A video posted by IndiaTV shows the parents surrounded by family members and relatives at a protest outside the JK Medicity hospital where the group is demanding punishment for those involved in the death of the child.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Queen James Bible
Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten

,

News editor fired for criticizing ‘gay Bible’, files complaint

Kirsten Andersen Kirsten Andersen Follow Kirsten
By Kirsten Anderson

The former editor-in-chief of Iowa’s Newton Daily News has filed a religious discrimination complaint after he was fired over a post on his private blog criticizing the pro-gay Queen James Bible.

The Bible revision was produced by homosexual activists who claim to have edited the eight most commonly cited verses against homosexual behavior “in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.”

On his private blog, which has since been deactivated, Bob Eschliman wrote in April that “the LGBTQXYZ crowd and the Gaystapo” are trying to reword the Bible “to make their sinful nature ‘right with God.’”

After public outcry from homosexual activists, Shaw Media, which owns the paper, fired him on May 6.

In a statement the day of his firing, Shaw Media President John Rung said Eschliman’s “airing of [his opinion] compromised the reputation of this newspaper and his ability to lead it.”

“There will be some who will criticize our action, and mistakenly cite Mr. Eschliman’s First Amendment rights as a reason he should continue on as editor of the Newton Daily News,” Rung said.  “As previously stated, he has a right to voice his opinion. And we have a right to select an editor who we believe best represents our company and best serves the interests of our readers.”

Rung said the company has a duty “to advocate for the communities we serve” and that “to be effective advocates, we must be able to represent the entire community fairly.”

Eschliman, who has been writing professionally since 1998 and became editor-in-chief of the Newton Daily News in 2012, says that the company was aware of his personal blog when he was hired and never indicated it would be a problem for him to continue sharing his personal political and religious views.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In his religious discrimination complaint against the company, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), he says that he believes he was singled out for termination because of his Christian views concerning homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.”

“As a lifelong writer, I have maintained a personal blog on the Internet with some personal thoughts and writings,” Eschliman wrote. “Newton Daily News, my employer, never had a policy prohibiting personal blogging, Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media. In fact, my employer encouraged us to engage in social media on a personal level and I am aware of several employees of Newton Daily News who continue to blog and are still employed with Shaw Media.”

“There is no question that I was fired for holding and talking about my sincerely held religious beliefs on my personal blog during my off-duty time from the comfort of my own home,” Eschliman wrote. “Shaw Media directly discriminated against me because of my religious beliefs and my identity as an evangelical Christian who believes in Holy Scripture and the Biblical view of marriage.

“Moreover, Shaw Media announced that not only were they firing me based upon my religious beliefs, but that they would not hire or allow anyone to work at Shaw Media who holds religious beliefs similar to mine, which would include an automatic denial of any accommodation of those who share my sincerely held religious beliefs,” he added.

Neither Shaw Media nor the Newton Daily News have been willing to provide further comment to the press on the matter, citing pending litigation.

Matthew Whitaker, an attorney with Liberty Institute who is assisting Eschliman with his complaint, said the law is on his client’s side.

“No one should be fired for simply expressing his religious beliefs,” Whitaker said in a statement. “In America, it is against the law to fire an employee for expressing a religious belief in public.  This kind of religious intolerance by an employer has no place in today’s welcoming workforce.”

According to Whitaker, if the EEOC rules in Eschliman’s favor, Shaw Media could be forced to give him back pay, front pay, and a monetary settlement.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook