Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

,

Gay ‘marriage’ push aims to ‘recreate society’ and marginalise Christianity: Archbishop of Glasgow

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

GLASGOW/STRASSBURG, March 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Creating “gay marriage,” is an attempt to rewrite the natural law and “recreate society,” says Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow.

The bishop’s strong comments as the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there is no such thing as a “right” to “gay marriage” in the European Convention on Human Rights, a revelation that has yet to put a damper on the UK government’s enthusiasm for changing the legal definition of marriage.

“It is certainly not the role of law to recreate our society according to passing fashions and ideologies, nor to redefine nature whether in terms of persons and their rights or its natural institutions,” Archbishop Conti said in a homily at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh this weekend.

The prelate said that current plans to alter the definition of marriage, promoted by the Conservative government of David Cameron as an effort to strengthen marriage, are in reality just the next step in the “marginalisation” of Christianity and any voice opposed to homosexual activity.

“Those voices are growing ever louder in our country,” Conti said, “that attempted marginalisation is becoming ever more acute and we are witnessing the transformation of tolerance into a kind of tyranny in which religious views are the only ones which seem unworthy of respect and acceptance.”

The Archbishop cautioned, “We are witnessing the transformation of tolerance into a kind of tyranny in which religious views are the only ones which seem unworthy of respect and acceptance.

“Our society will descend further into ethical confusion and moral disintegration the more that those in Government and the judiciary slip society’s moorings from the capstans of virtue.”

While Prime Minister Cameron’s plans to rewrite the definition of marriage will only affect England and Wales, the local government of Scotland reportedly “tends towards the view” that the definition should also be altered in Scottish law. The consultation in Scotland closed in December, and never received the same media attention as England’s consultation that began this month.

In related news, a much-anticipated ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has come down against the concept of “gay marriage” as a human right, protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court said March 18th that the wording of the Convention itself restricting marriage to a man and a woman was “deliberate”. The ruling upheld one made earlier by France’s highest court prohibiting homosexual “marriage” and adoption.

There is no “indirect discrimination founded (…) on the impossibility of marriage,” the Court said. Article 12 of the Convention “does not impose on the governments of the state parties the obligation to open marriage to a homosexual couple”.

“Moreover, regard must be had to the historical context in which the Convention was adopted. In the 1950s marriage was clearly understood in the traditional sense of being a union between partners of different sex.”

Launching the British government’s consultation early this month, Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone said, “Put simply, it’s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.” It remains to be seen if the ECHR ruling, which is binding on the UK, that there is no such right, will put a damper on the government’s plans to introduce “gay marriage”.

The government’s plans are not popular among the British public. A recent ComRes poll showed that 70 per cent want marriage to remain defined as a “lifelong exclusive commitment between a man and a woman”. A similar poll in Scotland found that 53 per cent of the public thinks that “homosexuals should not be allowed to redefine marriage for everyone else”. Members of Cameron’s party have warned the Prime Minister that while pushing “gay marriage” will win him few points on the extreme left it will alienate voters who are more concerned with the economy and immigration.

A petition being circulated by the Coalition for Marriage to oppose the plan has collected 323,986 signatures as of today. Colin Hart, the head of the Coalition, has described the government’s consultation on the subject as “a sham” in which the crucial question of whether the change ought to be made has already been taken, and all opposition will be ignored. The government’s document launching the consultation said that “points raised in responses that are out of the scope of the consultation and the consultation questions will not necessarily be considered”.

“I always thought that a consultation was about listening to people and asking them their views before making a decision,” Hart said. “Not only are they redefining the meaning of marriage, they’re redefining the meaning of consultation.”

According to MEP Nigel Farage, the head of the increasingly popular libertarian United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), David Cameron’s unprecedented push to create “gay marriage” has less to do with a sincere interest in the homosexualist political agenda than with fear of appearing weak to a public that is increasingly disillusioned with the EU and its mechanisms.

“The last thing he needs at the moment is to have the European courts declare our law discriminatory again and demand it be changed,” Farage wrote.

“He does not want you to realise that a foreign court is the highest court in the land,” a UKIP brief said.

David Coburn, UKIP’s openly gay London Regional Chairman, warned that the government is pointlessly picking a fight with religious people in Britain who could find themselves accused of “hate crimes” for their support of traditional marriage.

“That would be a grotesque assault on peoples’ freedom of conscience. As we all know these things tend to be the thin end of the wedge once the government’s ludicrous overpaid /over-pensioned thought police get on the job.”

Coburn wrote on the homosexualist news service Pink News, “The same-sex marriage debate is not an old-fashioned left-right political issue. It’s about freedom.”

“The Tories over the last few years have raced to catch up with Labour’s authoritarian politically correct agenda.” All three mainstream parties, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour have adopted the authoritarian mode.

Calling the government’s plans for marriage “equality fascism,” Coburn said, they have “created a grotesque, maximum security, Kafkaesque society where everything including speech and thought are regulated in the name of security and equality.

“You can stab old ladies or promising teenagers and do three months, but woe betide if you transgress the language and thought police.”

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

PBS defends decision to air pro-abortion documentary ‘After Tiller’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Under pressure for showing the pro-abortion documentary "After Tiller" on Labor Day, PBS' "POV" affiliate has defended the decision in response to an inquiry from LifeSiteNews.

The producers of the film say their goal with the documentary, which tells the stories of four late-term abortion doctors after the killing of infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller, is to "change public perception of third-trimester abortion providers by building a movement dedicated to supporting their right to work with a special focus on maintaining their safety.” 

POV told LifeSiteNews, "We do believe that 'After Tiller' adds another dimension to an issue that is being debated widely." Asked if POV will show a pro-life documentary, the organization said that it "does not have any other films currently scheduled on this issue. POV received almost 1000 film submissions each year through our annual call for entries and we welcome the opportunity to consider films with a range of points of view."

When asked whether POV was concerned about alienating its viewership -- since PBS received millions in federal tax dollars in 2012 and half of Americans identify as pro-life -- POV said, "The filmmakers would like the film to add to the discussion around these issues. Abortion is already a legal procedure."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"This is an issue that people feel passionately about and will have a passionate response to. We are hopeful that the majority of people can see it for what it is, another lens on a very difficult issue." 

In addition to the documentary, POV has written materials for community leaders and teachers to share. A cursory examination of the 29-page document, which is available publicly, appears to include links to outside sources that defend Roe v. Wade, an examination of the constitutional right to privacy, and "a good explanation of the link between abortion law and the right to privacy," among other information.

Likewise, seven clips recommended for student viewing -- grades 11 and beyond -- include scenes where couples choose abortion because the children are disabled. Another shows pro-life advocates outside a doctor's child's school, and a third is described as showing "why [one of the film's doctors] chose to offer abortion services and includes descriptions of what can happen when abortion is illegal or unavailable, including stories of women who injured themselves when they tried to terminate their own pregnancies and children who were abused because they were unwanted."

Another clip "includes footage of protesters, as well as news coverage of a hearing in the Nebraska State Legislature in which abortion opponents make reference to the idea that a fetus feels pain." The clip's description fails to note that it is a scientifically proven fact that unborn children can feel pain.

The documentary is set to air on PBS at 10 p.m. Eastern on Labor Day.

Kirsten Andersen contributed to this article.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

He defended ‘real’ marriage, and then was beheaded for it

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

A Christian man was executed during the night by a high-profile ruler after making an uncompromising defense of real marriage.

The Christian, who was renowned for his holiness, had told the ruler in public that his relationship with his partner was “against the law” of God. The Christian’s words enraged the ruler’s partner who successfully plotted to have him permanently silenced.

John the Baptist was first imprisoned before he was beheaded. The Catholic Church honors him today, August 29, as a martyr and saint.

While John’s death happened a little less than 2,000 years ago, his heroic stance for real marriage is more pertinent today than ever before.

According to the Gospel of Mark, the ruler Herod had ‘married’ his brother’s wife Herodias. When John told Herod with complete frankness, “It is against the law for you to have your brother’s wife,” Herodias became “furious” with him to the point of wanting him killed for his intolerance, bullying, and hate-speech.

Herodias found her opportunity to silence John by having her daughter please Herod during a dance at a party. Herod offered the girl anything she wanted. The daughter turned to her mother for advice, and Herodias said to ask for John’s head on a platter.

Those who fight for real marriage today can learn three important lessons from John’s example.

  1. Those proudly living in ungodly and unnatural relationships — often referred to in today’s sociopolitical sphere as ‘marriage’ — will despise those who tell them what they are doing is wrong. Real marriage defenders must expect opposition to their message from the highest levels.
  2. Despite facing opposition, John was not afraid to defend God’s plan for marriage in the public square, even holding a secular ruler accountable to this plan. John, following the third book of the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 20:21), held that a man marrying the wife of his brother was an act of “impurity” and therefore abhorrent to God. Real marriage defenders must boldly proclaim today that God is the author of marriage, an institution he created to be a life-long union between one man and one woman from which children arise and in which they are best nurtured. Marriage can be nothing more, nothing less.
  3. John did not compromise on the truth of marriage as revealed by God, even to the point of suffering imprisonment and death for his unpopular position. Real marriage defenders must never compromise on the truth of marriage, even if the government, corporate North America, and the entire secular education system says otherwise. They must learn to recognize the new “Herodias” of today who despises those raising a voice against her lifestyle. They must stand their ground no matter what may come, no matter what the cost.

John the Baptist was not intolerant or a bigot, he simply lived the word of God without compromise, speaking the word of truth when it was needed, knowing that God’s way is always the best way. Were John alive today, he would be at the forefront of the grassroots movement opposing the social and political agenda to remake marriage in the image of man.

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

If he were alive today he might speak simple but eloquent words such as, “It is against God’s law for two men or two women to be together as a husband and wife in marriage. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.” 

He would most likely be hated. He would be ridiculed. He would surely have the human rights tribunals throwing the book at him. But he would be speaking the truth and have God as his ally. 

The time may not be far off when those who defend real marriage, like John, will be presented with the choice of following Caesar or making the ultimate sacrifice. May God grant his faithful the grace to persevere in whatever might come. St. John the Baptist, pray for us!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
The Wunderlich family Mike Donnelly / Home School Legal Defence Association
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

German homeschoolers regain custody of children, vow to stay and fight for freedom

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

One year to the day since a team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed a homeschooling family’s residence near Darmstadt, Germany, and forcibly removed all four of the family’s children, aged 7 to 14, a state appeals court has returned custody of the children to their parents.

The reason given for the removal was that parents Dirk and Petra Wunderlich continued to homeschool their children in defiance of a German ban on home education.

The children were returned three weeks after being taken, following an international outcry spearheaded by the Home School Legal Defense Association.

However, a lower court imposed the condition on the parents that their children were required to attend state schools in order for them to be released, and took legal custody of the children in order to prevent the family from leaving the country.

In a decision that was still highly critical of the parents and of homeschooling, the appeals court decided that the action of the lower court in putting the children in the custody of the state was “disproportional” and ordered complete custody returned to the parents, according to a statement by the HSLDA.

The Wunderlichs, who began homeschooling again when the court signaled it would rule this way, said they were very pleased with the result, but noted that the court’s harsh words about homeschooling indicated that their battle was far from over.

“We have won custody and we are glad about that,” Dirk said.

“The court said that taking our children away was not proportionate—only because the authorities should apply very high fines and criminal prosecution instead. But this decision upholds the absurd idea that homeschooling is child endangerment and an abuse of parental authority.”

The Wunderlichs are now free to emigrate to another country where homeschooling is legal, if they choose, but they said they intend to remain in Germany and work for educational freedom.

“While we no longer fear that our children will be taken away as long as we are living in Hessen, it can still happen to other people in Germany,” Dirk said. “Now we fear crushing fines up to $75,000 and jail. This should not be tolerated in a civilized country.”

Petra Wunderlich said, "We could not do this without the help of HSLDA,” but cautioned that, “No family can fight the powerful German state—it is too much, too expensive."

"If it were not for HSLDA and their support, I am afraid our children would still be in state custody. We are so grateful and thank all homeschoolers who have helped us by helping HSLDA.”

HSLDA’s Director for Global Outreach, Michael Donnelly, said he welcomed the ruling but was concerned about the court’s troubling language.

“We welcome this ruling that overturns what was an outrageous abuse of judicial power,” he said.

“The lower court decision to take away legal custody of the children essentially imprisoned the Wunderlich family in Germany. But this decision does not go far enough. The court has only grudgingly given back custody and has further signaled to local authorities that they should still go after the Wunderlichs with criminal charges or fines.”

Donnelly pointed out that such behavior in a democratic country is problematic.

“Imprisonment and fines for homeschooling are outside the bounds of what free societies that respect fundamental human rights should tolerate,” he explained.

“Freedom and fundamental human rights norms demand respect for parental decision making in education. Germany’s state and national policies that permit banning home education must be changed.

"Such policies from a leading European democracy not only threaten the rights of tens of thousands of German families but establish a dangerous example that other countries may be tempted to follow,” Donnelly warned.

HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris said that acting on behalf of the Wunderlichs was an important stand for freedom.

“The Wunderlichs are a good and decent family whose basic human rights were violated and are still threatened,” Farris said.

“Their fight is our fight," Farris stressed, "and we will continue to support those who stand against German policy banning homeschooling that violates international legal norms. Free people cannot tolerate such oppression and we will do whatever we can to fight for families like the Wunderlichs both here in the United States and abroad. We must stand up to this kind of persecution where it occurs or we risk seeing own freedom weakened.”

Visit the HSLDA website dedicated to helping the Wunderlich family and other German homeschoolers here.

Contact the German embassy in the U.S. here.

Contact the German embassy in Canada here.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook