Clergy, legal experts not buying ‘protections’ for churches in UK gay ‘marriage’ law
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.
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.