LONDON, July 25, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Prime Minister David Cameron has vowed to use his government’s new same-sex “marriage” law to spread the doctrine of homosexual “marriage” all over the world.
At a reception at No. 10 Downing St. today for 150 leaders of the British homosexual lobby, Cameron said that together they had set “an example of how to pass good legislation in good time. Many other countries are going to want to copy this.”
“I’m going to export the bill team,” he joked. “I think they can be part of this global race and take [marriage redefinition] around the world.”
Cameron told the assembled group he was “personally proud” to be “probably the only Conservative prime minister who’s taken this step.”
He particularly noted the influence that the legislation will have as a teaching instrument for young people. “Young children growing up at school, who might be uncertain about their sexuality, knowing that now, in the highest place in the land – in Parliament – we’ve passed this law that says that marriage is for you, whether you’re gay or whether you’re straight,” he said.
The guest list at this afternoon’s party included heads of campaign groups and organizers of “Gay Pride” events from across the country including Stonewall, the country’s lead homosexual lobby, Out4Marriage campaign, Lobby A Lord, and the Coalition for Equal Marriage.
Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party who once called himself the “heir to Blair,” thanked the activists present “for the pressure that you’ve kept up,” to bring the bill to fruition.
“I thought the great thing about it was that we didn’t just win the vote but actually we won the argument,” Cameron added.
But campaigners for natural marriage have begged to differ, saying that the government only “won the argument” by ignoring and browbeating the other side.
The Coalition for Marriage (C4M) has said that from the start, when the government brought the bill forward without a mandate from the electorate, they ignored the objections of more than half a million British people, as well as the combined voices of religious leaders and civil liberties advocates, who demanded that it be dropped on religious freedom grounds and the warnings of the Conservative Party faithful who said it would fatally damage the party’s chances in future elections.
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
C4M noted in a briefing for Peers that in 2010, three days before the last general election, Cameron told Sky News interviewer Adam Boulton that he had “no plans” to change the law defining marriage.
Cameron had won over Tory membership to take the leadership of the party after giving several speeches lamenting the decline of the family in British life.
After the Conservatives formed a coalition with the far-left Liberal Democrats, the government published its Program for Government, setting out the legislative agenda, that made absolutely no mention of same-sex “marriage.”
When redefining marriage was suddenly brought onto the legislative scene, the public consultation allowed only questions on how it would be implemented, not if.
C4M and other marriage campaign groups denounced the consultation as a “sham” and said the government had allowed multiple anonymous responses from overseas while rejecting 500,000 names and addresses of UK residents who opposed the policy.
“The narrow majority the Government secured in favor of redefining marriage (53 percent to 46 percent) was only obtained by ignoring half-a-million names and addresses which had been submitted to the consultation – people who very clearly said ‘no’ to redefining marriage,” the group said.
With that half million counted, they said the opposition rose to about 80 percent.
Notably, a ComRes poll in November 2012 found 63 percent of respondents said they are “fearful of saying they oppose same-sex marriage.”
At first, the government said that it would restrict the changes to civil marriages, but after the consultation, citing calls from a select group of “religious leaders,” expanded the bill to allow religious same-sex “weddings.”
Exemptions were offered to allow clergy from the Church of England, the established church, to opt out, but clergy from other Christian communions and other faith groups were not included.
During the process, the Conservative membership and grassroots leadership repeatedly called on the prime minister to drop the bill, saying it was going to create an electoral disaster.
As news stories increased of Conservative voters becoming disillusioned enough to defect to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) the government continued to ignore expressions of concern from ground-level party leadership.
In an open letter to the Daily Telegraph, 58 parliamentarians – 43 of them Conservative – said, “We believe that the government does not have a mandate to redefine marriage,” and given the absence of gay marriage from the main manifestos, that “these facts alone should have led to extreme caution on the part of those calling for this change to be made.”
Even the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes, a supporter of changing the traditional definition of marriage, admitted to MPs that “this was in no election manifesto.”
Despite the promises of a free vote at Second Reading in the House of Commons, credible reports have emerged of MPs being subjected to a “silent whip” of intimidation and threats by party leadership, including alleged blackmail, as reported by the Daily Mail in April.
Former MP Paul Goodman wrote that, for Conservatives, “there has been no free vote, at least when it comes to members of the Executive: it has been made very clear to Ministers which lobby the Prime Minister wants them to go into.”
A confidential poll of MPs found that 27 percent felt there had been no true free vote.
In April 2012, religious discrimination law expert Neil Addison called the government’s assurances that clergy will be free to opt out of same-sex weddings “worthless.”
Addison noted that most of the gains of the homosexual liberation movement’s political agenda have been made through the courts, which in Britain are subject to rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR, he pointed out, has the power to overturn any aspect of British law that it deems to be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
He pointed to the recent European Court of Human Rights decision in a case involving two French lesbians that said, although states are under no obligation to create “gay marriage,” once it is in place, the law must be applied equally to all citizens.