Government Goes Back on its Word re Gay Marriages in Church

The Government has turned back on its promise not to allow same-sex marriages in church.
 

Its consultation repeatedly promised that same-sex weddings would only take place in civic, not religious settings.
But under plans to be revealed next week, the Government will give its backing to religious organisations that wish to conduct same-sex weddings.

Damage

It claims “locks” will prevent churches from being forced to host same-sex marriages. But there is concern that this will not be sufficient.

Tory MP Peter Bone said the news will “hugely damage the Government in electoral terms”.

And Coalition for Marriage (C4M), which has seen over 600,000 people sign a petition against redefining marriage, criticised the decision.

Freedoms

Colin Hart, Campaign Director of C4M, said: “The Government say they have a double lock for churches but in practice a double lock could become a double jeopardy.

“Churches could be embroiled in legal actions. The Government seems to have decided that it’s better for churches to be sued than for the Government to be sued in the European court. Surely they need to reconsider this rushed legislation which is jeopardising the freedoms of those who believe in traditional marriage.”

Vulnerable

Paul Goodman, the Executive Editor of influential blog ConservativeHome, wrote, “if some churches, say, agree to conduct same-sex marriages, but others refuse, what happens to the latter when a legal case is brought against them?”

He added: “I’m not a lawyer, but it seems at least possible that a church which refuses to conduct same-sex marriages was vulnerable before the Prime Minister’s change of heart – and is even more vulnerable after it.”

A spokesman for the Government said: “We are committed to bringing equal civil marriage forward and the consultation results will be announced next week.

‘Locks’

“We are very clear that religious organisations must be protected and that none will be forced to conduct same-sex marriage.

“EU law is very clear that this is the case and we will additionally bring in very strong legal locks to ensure that this is watertight.”

Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have both previously backed same-sex marriage in churches.

Statement re Opening of Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic

The Government and Morals Committee of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster has issued the following statement in response to the proposed opening of the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast:  

News that the Marie Stopes abortion clinic is poised to open for business in Belfast is a cause for lamentation, not celebration.

That Marie Stopes International has courted fierce controversy during its existence is a point beyond debate.  Its 2010 advert offering advice on abortion services attracted almost 5000 complaints; a 2011 video that targeted children with gross images and vile suggestions caused even more extreme offence.

We have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in recent days to justify the need for this clinic in our capital city, and to the assurances given that it will operate within the strictures of our local laws.  However, we are profoundly unimpressed by both these arguments and assurances.  Our considered view is that the opening of this clinic is simply a vehicle by which the boundaries of the current law on abortion in Northern Ireland will be increasingly pushed, so providing encouragement to others whose wicked objective is to have ‘abortion on demand’ in our country.

Our conscience is bound by Scripture that teaches us not to deliberately kill innocent human beings (cf. Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 6:16,17; Revelation 21:8; 22:15; Matthew 15:19,20; and Romans 13:8-10).

In the light of these (and other) Scriptures, we recognise it as our duty to act as a voice for the unborn and must therefore oppose those who, “gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood” (Psalm 94:21).  To find this potential slaughterhouse located in the centre of our capital city is indescribably appalling.

Rev. Robert Ormerod, Convenor of Government and Morals Committee

Rev. Ian Brown, Clerk of Presbytery

Mayor of London Dismisses Biblical Marriage as A Relic of the 'Stone Age'

At a time when it has been revealed that over 70 per cent of Tory constituency chairmen want the current plans to redefine marriage dropped, (and nearly half say they have lost members because of the policy), some of the Tory 'big guns' have tried to prop up this most unpopular policy.

David Cameron may have steered clear of the thorny issue at the recent Tory Conference, but Chancellor George Osborne, Foreign Secretary William Hague, Education Secretary Michael Gove, and Equalities Minister Maria Miller all voiced their support for changing marriage.

And - right on cue - the Tory mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has likened traditional marriage as being a relic of the Stone Age.

In an article for 'The Independent,' a newspaper which is actively campaigning for marriage to be redefined, Boris said marriage, "has been here since before the Stone Age, and now it needs to move beyond the Stone Age."

This outlandish outburst has attracted a robust response.

I include the contents of two sample copies of letters that protest the comments made by Boris Johnson below; one from David Skinner, the other from Harry *****:-

(1)

"Dear Mr Boris Johnson,

I consider that the remarks you made recently that marriage is as outdated as the Stone Age as a personal insult to my wife and myself.  Similarly the Stonewall advert, “SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY. GET OVER IT!” that you champion I find deeply offensive.

It is you, Mr Johnson, who is fossilised in homosexual Stonewellian ideology, and who will condemn our nation to extinction; whereas, it is we, the productive section of society, those who raise families, constructed of husband and wife, father and mother, uncles and aunts, grandmothers and grandfathers – indeed, a whole tree of identifiable and diverse relationships – on whom our nation depends for its very future existence.

There are 24,036,000 husbands and wives in Britain, over nine million of whom are presently raising their own children for the next generation.  In addition, many of us, honouring our wedding vows, are faithfully married to our original spouses - unlike you, who seem to glory in adultery, a penchant for abortion and all things pink.  I do not wish to go into the sordid details; the evidence is there for anyone to see.

We married couples, living in life-long and monogamous relationships, represent 39% of this nation, unlike the 10,000 gays in uncivil partnerships with dependent children - from God knows where - and who represent a mere 0.017% of entire British population.   

If queer marriage goes ahead, this tiny minority, the vast majority of whom are not in the slightest interested in real marriage, except to deny its essential nature and purity to those who legitimately embrace it, will not suddenly settle down and become like us; on the contrary, society will be coerced to become as queer and corrupted as they are.

Marriage is more than our love for our spouses.  It has a higher dignity and power, since it is God’s holy ordinance, through which He wills to perpetuate the human race until the end of time.  In our love we, husbands and wives, not only become one flesh , but form a link in the chain of the generations, which God causes to come and pass away, to His glory.  In our love, we see not only our own happiness, but we are also placed in a position of responsibility towards the rest of society.   

Marriage is a military post that we are commanded to defend against all those forces, like homosexuality, that would seek to destroy our children and nation.  

Our love might be our own personal possession, but it is also a status, an office of duties and promises that joins us together in the sight of God and man, something which, in the case of same-sex unions, can never, ever happen.  It is not our love that sustains the marriage but God’s enabling power.  It is this which unites us and creates the building block for a secure, stable and cohesive society.

No government or power on Earth can change what God has joined together - a man and woman in holy matrimony.  To attempt to do so would be wilful vandalism and can only end in tears.

Apologise to me and my wife, and the 12 million hardworking married couples in this nation for your arrogant and insulting remarks.  But perhaps you are not sufficiently mature to understand this, and like Peter Pan and the rest of the Gay Liberation Front, you need to grow up."

Yours sincerely

David Skinner

(2)

LETTER FROM HARRY *******

"Dear Mr Johnson,

I consider that your remarks published in the Independent newspaper concerning marriage being as outdated as the Stone Age were offensive, bad mannered, disrespectful and childish.

I have been married for 57 years.  My wife and I have been blessed with, and have brought up, five very balanced, successful and stable sons and daughters whose manners are far more mature than yours.  I love my wife very much indeed and she loves me.  Our marriage is something very dear and precious to us both and we do not like anyone who derides it.  If those who believe in same-sex relationships want a name for their relationship, let them choose their own name and may they enjoy it as much as we, the heterosexual, enjoy ours.

Please will you apologise to me and my wife, ****, for your pathetically childish remarks?

After a lifetime of supporting the Conservative party neither of us will ever vote Conservative again as long as its leaders behave so irresponsibly.

Grow up, little boy."

Yours sincerely but sadly,

Harry *******

Please write to your MP, Boris Johnson, Mr Cameron, or send emails to the press (Telegraph, stletters@telegraph.co.uk and the Daily Mail: letters@dailymail.co.uk).

News that the Marie Stopes abortion clinic is to open for business in Great Victoria Street, Belfast, next week came as a surprise to most people in Northern Ireland today.

It also precipitated an avalanche of opinion on both sides of the argument - for and against this proposed opening.

(Currently, a poll run by the Belfast Telegraph suggests opinion is almost evenly divided on this issue, with 53% opposed to the opening of the 'Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic').  

A Facebook Group, set up this afternoon to oppose the opening of this Clinic, has already attracted 1200 "likes." (Another group in support of the new clinic is only marginally 'ahead' in its number of "likes").  Significantly, many members of the latter group have 'turned up' in the former one in order to argue, agitate and abuse.  Nothing new there, then!

Important to us is .....

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

Many Scripture passages teach us not to deliberately kill innocent human beings (cf. Exodus 23:7; Proverbs 6:16,17; Revelation 21:8; 22:15; Matthew 15:19,20; and Romans 13:8-10).

In addition, please consider these specific passages.

• Psalm 106:37,38: Israel was polluted with blood because the people shed the innocent blood of their “sons and daughters.”

But unborn babies are “sons and daughters.” What then is the condition of our land when over 25 million “sons and daughters” have been legally killed?

• Matthew 2:16: Herod is considered wicked because he slew the male children in Bethlehem.

Luke 2:12,16 calls such children “babes.”

But Luke 1:41,44 also calls unborn children “babes,” so how can it be acceptable to kill them?

• Hosea 13:16; 2 Kings 8:12: When children or infants are dashed to pieces, it is a great tragedy to any nation. Yet unborn babies are children or infants, and in our nation they are dashed to pieces by the millions!

• Acts 7:19; Exodus 1:16-18: Pharaoh commanded that Israelite “sons” or “men children” be killed as soon as they were born.

But these same terms are used for unborn babies. Would it have been acceptable for Pharaoh to have had abortions performed to kill the babies? Is it any less wicked if people today do it?

In the light of these Scriptures that unequivocally establish the biblical and moral perspective on this issue, we completely oppose the opening of this slaughterhouse for the unborn.  To find it located in the centre of our capital city is indescribably appalling.

Vote Against 'Gay Marriage' at Stormont Assembly

The 'Belfast Newsletter' reported (Monday, 1 October 2012):

The Northern Ireland Assembly has rejected a motion calling for gay marriage after a passionate debate on the controversial issue.

The defeat of the motion, introduced jointly by the Green Party and Sinn Fein, was a foregone conclusion as the DUP had tabled a ‘petition of concern’ which effectively gives it a veto on anything in the Assembly which it is determined to block.

It is the first time the Assembly has debated same-sex marriage but even if the motion had passed it would not have changed the law, but rather just stated the opinion of the Assembly.

The motion, which split both nationalism (which was largely in favour) and unionism (which was largely against), was rejected by 45 votes to 50.

Three unionist MLAs voted in favour of the motion, while all 37 nationalist MLAs supported the motion. Just six MLAs designated as neither unionist nor nationalist voted for the motion, indicating that several Alliance MLAs abstained.

However, although the result appeared to be close, the DUP’s veto meant that even if the majority of the Assembly had voted for the motion, it’s 38 MLAs could have single-handedly blocked it getting through.

Introducing his motion, Green Party leader Steven Agnew said that it sought to create equality in society but also to enhance religious freedom and widen access to the institution of marriage.

Rejecting claims that such a move could lead to dissenting churches being prosecuted for refusing to perform such ceremonies, he said that in all of the countries where gay marriage had been legalised there were no instances of churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will.

The TUV leader Jim Allister asked Mr Agnew, “how far his aspirations about equality go ... if you now say marriage can be a union between one man and another man and you say that on the basis of equality - what about the man who says ‘I’m in love with two women; I want to marry two women’; does it become an issue of equality that we have to legalise polygamy ... where do you finish if you start down the member’s road?”

Mr Agnew said that marriage had changed many times during its history - to allow for inter-racial and inter-religious marriages and for divorce — and said that having two wives harmed society but there was “no evidence” that same sex marriage harms society.

The UUP has allowed members a free vote on what it sees an issue of conscience.
Basil McCrea spoke passionately in favour of gay marriage while Danny Kennedy firmly outlined his opposition to the proposed change.

Mr McCrea suggested that there were gay MLAs unable to speak out in support of the motion, saying: “Mr Speaker, I may be one of the few members from the unionist benches to actually speak for this motion. I do so aware that there are many people within my community who are uneasy about the proposition. But I know also that there are members of this house who feel unable to speak on this motion despite their personal inclination and despite the personal circumstances of those they care for. This is a terrible position to put anybody in. Mr Speaker, I do not understand why the DUP felt the need to present a petition of concern on a matter that should have been a free vote.”

However, Newry and Armagh UUP MLA Danny Kennedy spoke strongly against changing the law.

He said that as someone, “with a clear personal faith yet tolerant of others to hold and express their views, I do not and cannot support the principle of same-sex marriage”.

He went on: “I’m opposed to it not just on the basis of my church, the Presbyterian Church ... but also most importantly the teaching of Holy Scripture.”

Mr Kennedy, who is the regional development minister, said that he did not see it as an issue of equality as equality was “already offered” through civil partnerships.

Mr Kennedy said that many at home watching or reading about the debate in a newspaper would wonder why the Assembly was debating gay marriage at a time of economic turmoil.

The DUP Finance Minister Sammy Wilson, whose department is responsible for registering marriages, stressed his, and his party’s, opposition to the proposal.

Dismissing claims that MLAs should legislate for all those who they represent, Mr Wilson said that, “there are occasions when you cannot facilitate everybody’s needs”.

And he said that despite assurances from some that legislation could be framed to protect churches opposed to same-sex marriages, Mr Wilson said that there, “will be a conflict that will arise which will impact on people’s religious freedom” if the motion is passed.

He said that if the legal definition of marriage was changed to allow for same-sex marriages then schools would have to teach that definition, something which could put teachers at odds with the authorities if they are Christians or members of other faiths which oppose same-sex marriage.

The East Antrim MP and MLA added that he could think of “very many more priorities” for legislation emanating from his department than the proposal to redefine marriage.

The Alliance Party was split on the issue, with one MLA voting against the motion and several abstaining, despite the party voting to back gay marriage last month.

Alliance MLA Anna Lo said of the motion: “It is very much in line with policy which was passed by our governing policy council. We support the extension of civil marriage provisions to same sex couples.”

However, she added that the party was clear that “robust” protections for religious groups who oppose same-sex marriage had to be enshrined in any legislation.

Sinn Fein’s Caitriona Ruane said that it was “very worrying” two Executive ministers opposed gay marriage while party colleague Daithi McKay said it was “very much to be welcomed” that the Assembly was debating its first motion about a specifically gay issue.

Speaking in favour of the motion, SDLP MLA Colum Eastwood said: “The sinews of bondage between two people, encased and sustained by the growing nature of love, is a value worthy of extension to those who would choose it. Heterosexual marriage embodies those values; so too does same-sex marriage.”

___________________________________________________________

We welcome this result from the Northern Ireland Assembly, and congratulate each MLA who voted against the motion that called for 'gay marriage.'

Our position as a denomination is founded upon the clear teaching of Scripture, and is articulated in our subordinate standards, 'The Westminster Confession of Faith.'

SCRIPTURE

The message of the Bible, (which is our only rule of faith and practice), is unmistakable with regard to homosexuality:

• this practice is unnatural and depraved (Romans 1:25-28);

• an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13);

• a sin that closes the door of heaven to the one who remains in it (1 Corinthians 6:9&10);

• and is certain to bring upon itself the crushing judgment of the Almighty (Genesis 19, Romans 1:32, Jude 7).

The only way anyone will ever be able to uncover acceptance for the sin of sodomy from either of the biblical testaments is to rewrite them.

To ask a minister who implicitly believes the Bible to be the Word of God - the arbiter in all disputes, his guide and counsellor - to perform a wedding ceremony between two homosexuals would be to commit a gross sin against the revealed will of God in the Scriptures, and cause grievous offence to his own conscience.

SUBORDINATE STANDARD

The subordinate standards of our denomination include the famous Westminster Confession of Faith, formulated by an assembly of godly ministers - “learned, godly and judicious Divines” - in 1646.

These men of clear Reformation principles were commissioned by the British Parliament to write a lengthy statement explaining what the Bible means on issues of church worship, doctrine, government and discipline. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the Westminster Confession of Faith. This document was approved by the British Parliament. For almost four centuries, various churches around the world have adopted this Confession (in some cases with some minor modification) as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.

In a chapter of this Confession that specifically treats, ‘Of Marriage And Divorce,’ Biblical Marriage is defined in an excellent manner. The following statements appear in this definition:

24.1 Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, designed of God to last so long as they both shall live.

24.2 Marriage is designed for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the safeguarding, undergirding, and development of their moral and spiritual character; for the propagation of children and the rearing of them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

24.3 All persons who are able with judgment to give their consent may marry, except within the limits of blood relationship forbidden by Scripture, and such marriages are valid before God in the eyes of the church. But no marriage can be fully and securely Christian in spirit or in purpose unless both partners are committed to a common Christian faith and to a deeply shared intention of building a Christian home. Evangelical Christians should seek as partners in marriage only persons who hold in common a sound basis of evangelical faith.

24.4 Marriage for the Christian has religious as well as civil significance. The distinctive contribution of the church in performing the marriage ceremony is to affirm the divine institution of marriage; to invoke God's blessing upon those who enter into the marital relationship in accordance with his word; to hear the vows of those who desire to be married; and to assure the married partners of God's grace within their new relationship.

24.5 It is the divine intention that persons entering the marriage covenant become inseparably united, thus allowing for no dissolution save that caused by the death of either husband or wife ... .

It is immediately evident from these statements of faith that no provision can be afforded to two males or two females to marry each other. Such a relationship attracts only the punishment, not the approval, of God. The Church is therefore obligated to play no part in such immoral and forbidden unions. For the State to dictate otherwise is to thrust an unwarranted and mischievous imposition upon consciences that are bound by love to God and His Word.
 

Opposition to 'Gay Marriage' has been Clearly Stated

A poll of MPs shows that most voters who write to them about the plans to redefine marriage are opposed to the measure.

The poll also shows that eight out of ten MPs want the freedom to vote according to their conscience.

And only one in four MPs think the Government should redefine marriage “irrespective” of the public opposition in the official consultation on the issue.

DISMISS THE OPPOSITION

However, the Government has vowed to press on, regardless of what the public may think in the consultation.

David Cameron has though, promised a free vote for his Tory MPs including Tory Government ministers – a number of whom want to keep marriage as it is.  But it is understood Labour and Lib Dem MPs may be forced to vote for redefining marriage, whether they agree with the proposal or not.

STATISTICS

The poll of 154 MPs was conducted by 'ComRes' on behalf of the 'Coalition for Marriage,' the group leading the campaign against redefining marriage.

• Three quarters of MPs (74 per cent) said the balance of correspondence about gay marriage was “negative” and almost half (47 per cent) was “strongly negative”.

• Overall, 80 per cent of MPs favour a free vote, which means they don’t want party leaders forcing them to vote in a particular way. 

• A free vote is supported by 94 per cent of Conservative MPs, 72 per cent of Labour MPs and 56 per cent of Lib Dem MPs.

• Only a quarter of MPs think the Government should redefine marriage “irrespective” of the size of opposition in the public consultation.
  
UNCOMFORTABLE

Colin Hart of the Coalition for Marriage said:  

“This poll will make uncomfortable reading for David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who continue to want to force through these undemocratic proposals regardless of what those who elected them say.

It shows a growing sense of unease at the way redefining marriage is being handled, not least how the concerns of ordinary people have been ignored.”

Supporters of Sodomy are the Real Bigots

The Christian owners of a bed and breakfast have spoken of the hate-filled messages they received in the wake of refusing to give a homosexual couple a double room.

Mike and Susanne Wilkinson say “hundreds of emails an hour” came in from around the world, as well as phone calls and texts – some which were “very sexually explicit.”
And they also told of messages threatening to ‘come and get them.’

THREATS OF VIOLENCE

Speaking to a national newspaper, Mr Wilkinson explained:  “One was hand-delivered and handwritten in capitals and said ‘I am coming to burn your house down’ and then lots of filthy words about what they thought of us.” 

He added: “It was very scary.  And we’ve guests as well as children living here.  People started cancelling the bookings.  And that’s when we called the police.”

However the police, despite searching through thousands of messages, were unable to track down any of the senders.

There is no suggestion that any of the messages came from the homosexual couple who were refused a room.

SUPPORT

Mr Wilkinson also said they had received many positive messages.

They were in court last week after homosexual couple, Michael Black and John Morgan, sued them over their actions.

The judge’s decision is expected in the coming days.

The Wilkinson case is being supported by The Christian Institute’s Legal Defence Fund.

PRESERVATION OF FAITH

At the trial Mrs Wilkinson said: “All we ever wanted was to be able to live and work in keeping with our faith.  Christianity isn’t just something we do in church on a Sunday – it affects every area of our life, including our home and our business.  Surely there is room for that in modern British life.”

James Dingemans QC, representing Mrs Wilkinson, said it was against his client’s beliefs for unmarried people to share a bed under her roof, adding: “This is protected by the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998.”

NB. The following article from 'The Mail Online' should be read – it provides more shocking detail about the kind of relentless abuse to which this Christian couple have been subjected by the supposedly 'tolerant' brigade who are clearly determined to steamroller through any rights we have in order to push their perversity in our faces.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206952/Christian-couple-reveal-suffered-year-campaign-death-threats-abuse-refusing-let-gay-men-share-room-B-B.html?printingPage=true

Christian Evangelist Not Guilty in Tesco Case

A Christian evangelist has been found not guilty of a public order offence after he handed out leaflets criticising Tesco's decision to donate £30,000 to the 2012 London/World Pride parade.

Raj Bhachoo was arrested, kept in a police cell for hours, and charged with “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 following a complaint by the manageress during a leafleting exercise outside the Tesco store in Gravesend, Kent in January 2012.

The case was due to be heard by Dartford Magistrates on 24 September 2012.

However, on reviewing the evidence and recent legal decisions including that involving Sandown Road Free Presbyterian Church, the prosecuting barrister offered no evidence.
The magistrates duly dismissed the case.

Just a week ago, Mr Michael Phillips (the solicitor who represented Raj Bhachoo in this case) represented two Christians from the Abort67 group, seeing all charges against them thrown out by magistrates in Brighton.

Last February, Michael Overd faced a trial in Taunton after two homosexuals objected to his preaching.  Mr Overd was also acquited.

In September 2006, Stephen Green of Christian Voice was arrested, locked in the cells for four hours and charged under the same Section 5 by the South Wales Police Minorities Support Unit for handing out evangelistic leaflets at the homosexual Cardiff Mardi Gras.  At the subsequent hearing, all charges were dropped.

Stephen Green said today: "Christians just keep winning these Section 5 freedom of speech cases. It is not against the law to preach against sodomy, to tell the public the facts about homosexual lifestyles, nor to display graphic images of the effects of abortion. These things might upset people, but they are not threatening, they are not abusive, they are not insulting and they are not against the law.

We actually need no change in the law, but we do need police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service to provide training to officers and prosecutors on the law and on their duty to protect people exercising their freedom of expression.

In the abortion case, the police officer who attended admitted in court that the only training he had ever had on the implications of freedom of speech was ten years ago."

Tesco's decision to openly support the sodomite cause is proving yet more costly ... .

Inclusion of Creationist View at the Giants Causeway Visitors Centre

 The new Visitor Centre at the Giant’s Causeway was opened to the public on Tuesday, 3 July 2012.

At a cost of £18.5m, the state-of-the-art complex has taken 18 months to complete and includes exhibition spaces, a cafe and shops.

Max Bryant of the National Trust was obviously enthusiastic.  He said the centre was, “a whole new experience for visitors.  They can go through and enjoy the active interpretation area, before picking up the free audio guide, voiced by local actor Conleth Hill, and take that to the stones.”

What he had not braced himself for was the fact that a bludgeoning amalgam of secular humanists, atheists and evolutionists, on account of some few lines in an exhibit within this Centre, were about to take up more than a few verbal stones and throw them with ferocity in the direction of his organisation, the National Trust.

A transcript from an audio exhibit in the new Causeway Visitor Centre, Northern Ireland, reads:

“Like many natural phenomena around the world, the Giant's Causeway has raised questions and prompted debate about how it was formed.

This debate has ebbed and flowed since the discovery of the Causeway to science and, historically, the Causeway became part of a global debate about how the earth's rocks were formed.

This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science.

Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created some 6000 years ago. This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and in particular the account of creation in the book of Genesis.

Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective.

Young Earth Creationists continue to debate questions about the age of the earth.”

Though these few modest sentences amount to nothing more than a simple acknowledgement of the fact that some people believe that there is an alternative opinion to the explanation provided by evolution for the formation of the famous Causeway stones, they have been enough to unleash a firestorm of vicious opposition from secular humanists, atheists and evolutionists.

    - The National Secular Society is encouraging people to lobby the National Trust, campaigning for the removal of all references to the Creationist viewpoint;

    - a Petition to the National Trust has been set up via “Change.org” – ‘Remove Creationist Exhibit From the Giants Causeway Visitors Centre’;

    - an Open Group has appeared on Facebook where the Creationist viewpoint, God and the Bible are regularly trashed, often in a most vulgar manner – ‘Remove Creationist Display From Giants Causeway Visitor Centre.’

    - Richard Dawkins has ‘checked into town’ by means of a radio interview and has used his trademark tactic of presenting little or no valid scientific analysis, just an ignorant rubbishing of Christians in general and the Creationist perspective in particular.  According to him, those who hold to the Christian and Biblical view on the formation of the Giant’s Causeway are “intellectual baboons.”

Evidently, it does not satisfy these opponents that:

    - their evolutionary view of rock formation at the Causeway is given priority promotion in the Visitors Centre;

    - the National Trust have identified themselves with this view by categorically insisting, “The National Trust fully supports the scientific explanation for the creation of the stones 60 million years ago”;

    - in response to letters of opposition to the meagre airing of the Creationist viewpoint, the National Trust has once again reiterated its belief in and support for the evolutionary stance.

None of this, however, has assuaged the tide of vitriol that has cascaded down upon the National Trust in recent days.

The Trust has received numerous aggressive threats of withdrawal of membership and finance, together with the stated intention of carrying a protest all the way to the AGM of the same body where a demand will be tabled to obliterate from the record this acknowledgment of the Creationist viewpoint.

Accommodating?  No.  Intolerant?  Certainly.

BENDING UNDER PRESSURE

The National Trust, apparently overwhelmed by the ire directed against it by (in the main) a succession of nasty people, on 18 July issued a statement saying:

"There is clearly no scientific debate about the age of the earth or how the Causeway stones were formed.  The National Trust does not endorse or promote any other view … .  To ensure that no further misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this exhibit can occur, we have decided to review the interpretive materials in this section’.”

Since early August I have been heavily involved in maintaining a presence on Facebook in support of the mention of Creationism in this National Trust Centre.  Please join us in this effort, tell your friends about it, as we lobby the National Trust to retain this section among their exhibits.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/204392869686865

Challenge to Blood Donation Safeguard in Northern Ireland

Health Minister Edwin Poots' decision on blood donations is being challenged by an unidentified man.

A judge has ruled that a gay man can progress with a legal battle against a longstanding blood donation safeguard in Northern Ireland. The unnamed homosexual man wants a judicial review of the decision by the Northern Ireland Health Minister to keep the safeguard in place.

The protection means blood donations are not allowed in Northern Ireland from men who have ever had engaged in sodomy.

RISK

Mr Justice Treacy granted leave to seek a judicial review, with a two-day hearing set for December.

Attorney General John Larkin QC, responding in court for the Health Minister, has said the Minister was entitled to act as he has. The safeguard exists because of medical advice showing that men who have sex with men have, as a group, a higher risk of sexually acquired blood-borne viruses like HIV.

SAFETY OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE 

Last month the Health Minister – Edwin Poots – said the rights of people to receive safe blood are more important than the rights of people to donate. He said he did not want the ban to apply to gay people only.

“I think that people who engage in high risk sexual behaviour in general should be excluded from giving blood,” he commented. “And so someone who has sex with somebody in Africa or sex with prostitutes, I am very reluctant about those people being able to give blood.”

APPLIES IN MANY OTHER PLACES 

The Northern Ireland safeguard also applies in the Republic of Ireland, most other European nations and in North America.

In England, Scotland and Wales the lifetime ban was replaced last year with a ban for men who had engaged in 'gay sex' within the previous 12 months.

At the time, critics said the authorities were pandering to gay rights campaigners and ignoring medical evidence.

Oreo Make a Mock at Sin

The Belfast Telegraph has reported:

"America’s favourite cookie has provoked a storm with its picture of a gay pride-inspired Oreo cookie on its Facebook page.

Oreo posted the photoshopped picture of an Oreo cookie stuffed with rainbow-colored layers of frosting with the caption, “Proudly support love!”

The cookie was made especially for the photoshoot and will not be on sale in stores but while many have “liked” the image, others have pledged to boycott the cookie because of the post.

One poster said they’ll 'never buy Oreo again,' while another Facebook user was 'disgusted with oreos.'

'Being gay is an abomination in God’s eyes, I won't be buying them anymore'."

Oreo should take a look at Tescos - and discover that support for the sin of sodomy isn't necessarily good for business.

A relevant comment from Scripture is Proverbs 14:9:  "Fools make a mock at sin ... ."

London/World Pride 2012 – A Shambles

Despite Tesco's well publicised £30,000 donation, and additional funding to the tune of £100,000 from the Office of the Mayor of London, yesterday's 'London Pride 2012' was forced into an embarrassing downgrade.

Leading sodomite spokesperson, Peter Tatchell, described the organisation of the event as a "shambles."

Lack of funds sparked panic last month, that culminated in the Greater London Authority, the Metropolitan Police, Westminster Council, London Fire Brigade and Transport for London, demanding "concrete assurances" that Pride London had the cash to pay the upfront costs associated with the event.

The Mayor's money, plus Tesco's donation, and an offer of support from Diageo (the makers of Smirnoff vodka), was not sufficient to prevent this event in its original form becoming "unsalvageable."

As a result, the parade was scaled down to the level of a 'protest' march in which no floats were allowed, the start time was brought forward by two hours, and street parties were banned.

So much for the promise that this event would be the biggest yet ... .

The reduced scale did not mean the Pride Parade featured any less pollution than usual, however. Sex and bizarre and perverted forms of sexual expression were to the fore as on previous occasions. It is much to be regretted that many children who took part in the parade and those who viewed it from the pavements of the capital city had their minds assaulted with such unrelenting images of aggression, intolerance and depravity.

This has not been the best of times for Tescos – their announcement of £30,000 for this sodomite promotion sparked a Christmas boycott, followed by a marked slump in trading figures and a 15% drop in the price of their shares.

And now the sin that they have publicly pledged to sponsor has suffered a setback.

David Cameron should take note. Sadly, the Prime Minister of our country, despite selecting the wonderful words of Philippians 4:8-9 as his handwritten contribution to a copy of the King James Version of the Bible last year, sent this pathetic little message to the marchers at London/World Pride:

"The UK has been judged to be the best country in Europe in which to live if you’re gay so it is great that World Pride is being celebrated here in London – especially during this Diamond Jubilee and Olympic year.

I’m very pleased that the Mayor of London has enabled the march and events in Trafalgar Square to go ahead and I want to thank all the volunteers who will be stewarding the event and contributing to it.

It is 40 years since people first marched in London calling for equal rights. Since then we’ve come a very long way and progress is still being made. We have just finished consulting on how to introduce same sex marriage and we are working with countries across the globe to bring about greater equality.

I hope you all have a happy Pride and remember all those who have, and those who are still fighting for, greater rights and protection for the LGBT community." 

The opening verses of the 2nd Psalm have profound relevance:

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.'
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set My King upon my holy hill of Zion."

The British Parliament and The 'Gay' Marriage Debate

• Opposition to Gay Marriage is not acceptable, according to one MP, the Justice and Policing Minister, Nick Herbert.

• He must have problems reading his mailbag - or interpreting the contents of the mailbags of fellow MPs.  According to the people of the country, more than 70% find Gay Marriage unacceptable.

• And, simply to indulge his own sin, he must not care that he and others are going to smash the entire definition of marriage should the change to the law that he is actively promoting be implemented.

The following articles give a flavour of the debate that is now raging in our country on this issue:

THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE

(1) A survey of MPs from across the political spectrum by ComRes also shows that only one in 25 parliamentarians believes that allowing gay unions is a main priority for voters.

The poll comes in the wake of a growing number of Conservative heavyweights declaring that they do not support moves to allow same-sex marriage by law by the time of the next election, May 2015.

Last week Downing Street backed down by signalling that there would a “free vote” on the issue in parliament - as is traditional with matters of conscience - in what has become a divisive issue for the coalition.  (Earlier senior sources had indicated that the measure would be “whipped” - meaning that ministers would have to support government plans).

Campaigners believe up to five cabinet ministers would vote against same-sex marriage in the Commons, three of whom are claimed to be Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, Owen Patterson, the Northern Ireland Secretary and Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary.

By contrast, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, recorded a video in support of the proposals, saying “marriage should be for everyone.” Her intervention was seen as highly significant since she is the minister leading the public consultation on the plans.

David Cameron is said to remain firmly committed to allowing same-sex marriage - despite his stance being held at least partly to blame by some Tory MPs for his party’s poor showing in this month’s local elections.  Liberal Democrat ministers are strong supporters of the move.

Ministers are expected to press ahead with plans, permitting same-sex unions in non-religious venues, within the next year.  With Labour supporting the move it would be assured of a majority in the Commons - but would run into significant opposition in the Lords.

The survey, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage (C4M), which is leading the campaign against the government’s proposals, shows that same-sex marriage is the issue which most stands out in MPs correspondence from voters.

According to the polls, findings, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, around one in three MPs (34 per cent) cited it as one of the main concerns raised with them by voters, putting ahead of welfare reform (23 per cent), NHS reform (19 per cent), pensions (13 per cent), fuel prices (13 per cent), fuel taxes (13 per cent), unemployment and jobs (8 per cent) and the Budget (8 per cent).

Asked how voters divide on the issue, MPs say their constituents are overwhelmingly against - with, on average, three in four voters either opposed to the measure (79 per cent) or strongly opposed (55 per cent), according to the MPs’ assessments. Just 16 per cent of those who are in touch with their MPs support the plans.

Strong opposition to the move is reported by MPs of all three main parties, with Conservatives getting the heaviest flak from voters. Among Tories, 45 per cent say that letters and emails opposing same-sex marriage are the number one item in their postbag and email accounts - with the figure falling to 30 per cent of Lib Dems and 23 per cent of Labour MPs.

Asked what issues matter most to their constituents, MPs cite fuel tax (79 per cent), cutting the deficit (74 per cent) and ensuring the tax burden is “spread fairly” overall (69 per cent).
Gay marriage is cited by just four per cent of MPs as a key priority for their constituents, just one per cent ahead of House of Lords reform.

Colin Hart, Campaign Director of C4M, said:

“This poll shows that, right across the Commons, MPs do not regard gay marriage as an important priority.

It also demonstrates that public opposition to the measure is vociferous and widespread.

If Ministers decide to press ahead regardless of popular opinion, they will further undermine public confidence in Parliament and reinforce the growing impression that the ruling elite is out of touch with the strongly-held concerns and opinions of the British people.

David Cameron should drop this idea before it causes yet more social divisions and ill-feeling.”

Andrew Hawkins, Chief Executive of ComRes said:

“Clearly this issue has touched a raw nerve with the public, and not in a positive way.

It is however entirely in line with public polling which shows that Mr Cameron’s stance on same-sex marriage has already cost the Conservatives some support and could well be responsible for a number of the party’s MPs losing their seats at the next election.”

MINISTERS AND MPS STILL WANT TO DICTATE TO US ON THIS ISSUE

(2) Nick Herbert, the justice and policing minister, joined the growing political row within the Conservative Party about giving homosexual couples equal rights to marry.

Mr Herbert, who is homosexual and in a civil partnership, said that he and others of the same sexuality are effectively being treated as second-class citizens.

Opponents of same-sex marriage, he suggested, are making intemperate and unreasonable arguments.

“I am getting rather fed up with people metaphorically jabbing a finger into my chest and saying I should put up with a civil partnership,” he told the London Evening Standard.

“How would they like it if I jabbed a finger into their chests and said they should put up with a civil partnership instead of their marriage?”

Mr Herbert added:

“In my view it’s not acceptable to say to a group in society, ‘You should put up with something that is a second order institution to something that everybody else is entitled to, because we say so’. I think this is about nothing more or less than a fundamental issue of equality.

It has been suggested that this issue is not a priority. Of course, dealing with the economy and the deficit and restoring growth is the overriding mission and priority of this government. But since when was equality not a priority?

Ensuring that people are treated equally without fear of discrimination should always be a priority. That’s why I think this proposal matters.”

Mr Herbert has been tipped for a promotion to the Cabinet when Mr Cameron shuffles his ministerial team.


He added: “I’m absolutely confident that the House of Commons will vote for this and that we will have gay marriage by the end of this Parliament.” 

(3) Nick Clegg is determined that his Party will have no option on this vote, but will be forced to vote for Gay Marriage.

The Deputy Prime Minister said Liberal Democrat MPs will be forced to vote in favour of allowing gay marriage when the legislation is considered by Parliament.

Some Tory MPs are strongly opposed to allowing gay marriage.

Sir George Young, the Conservative leader of the Commons, announced that there would be a free vote on the subject because it was a matter of conscience.

But Mr Clegg disagreed, pointing to the fact that the original law bringing in civil partnerships was also not passed on a free vote in the House of Commons.

He the BBC’s Andrew Marr porgramme: “My view is that in the same way that the civil partnerships legislation that was introduced under Labour was a whipped vote, I personally don’t think this is something that should be subject to a great free-for-all because we’re not asking people to make a decision of conscience about religion.”

Mr Clegg said gay marriage was not “a matter of conscience” because the Government was not forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.

(4) Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland Secretary, has become the first member of David Cameron's Cabinet to declare his opposition to the Prime Minister's plan to legalise Gay Marriage.

GAY MARRIAGE REDEFINES THE COMPLETE CONCEPT OF BIBLICAL AND TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

(5) Sex could be removed from the law of marriage if same-sex marriage gets the go ahead.

Under current rules, a marriage may be annulled if a man and woman do not consummate the marriage with sexual intercourse.

The details of the law mean that same-sex couples cannot meet the requirement, and the law may be altered if marriage is redefined.

Tory MP Edward Leigh says such a move would create legal chaos for people caught in sexless marriages.

Currently non-consummation of a marriage is a ground for the union to be annulled and Mr Leigh warned such a change to the law will have “profound effects” in this area.

Ann Widdecombe has said she did not campaign for Mr Cameron “all day, every day in the last general election” so that he could destroy traditional marriage.
Earlier this month a homosexual writer warned that activists seeking to rewrite the definition of marriage must stop trying to vilify those who oppose them.

“If they don’t snap out of it they’ll even lose the support of gay people like me,” said Max Wind-Cowie.

He is Head of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos and he accused the “gay-rights brigade” of allowing their quest to redefine marriage to turn “into active hetero-phobia”.

ASA and its Inbuilt Bias against Traditional Marriage

John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor of The Telegraph, has published an article under the title -

"Gay marriage: Advertising watchdog accused of bias over Chairman's Campaign Video."

He explains that the Advertising Standards Agency has been accused of bias after its chairman publicly campaigned for gay marriage while it has placed advertisements from opponents of a change in the law under investigation.

The watchdog rejected calls for Lord Smith of Finsbury – the former Labour cabinet minister, Chris Smith – to resign last night but accepted that he had a “conflict of interest” on the matter and therefore would not vote.

ADVERT UNDER INVESTIGATION

It has emerged that the ASA is investigating an advertisement from the Coalition For Marriage (C4M), which campaigns against changing the law, following claims it is “offensive” to homosexual people.

Archbishop Cranmer, a popular political and religious blog, was asked to justify carrying the advertisements, which also appeared in a host of other media after 11 complaints to the ASA.

PRESSURE FROM THE LAW SOCIETY

It came on the same day as the Law Society banned a conference on marriage due to be addressed by a senior High Court judge because it did not promote same-sex marriage.

The advertisements carried on the Cranmer blog promoted the C4M petition, which has attracted more than 500,000 supporters so far, and polling figures suggesting that 70 per cent of people believe marriage should remain between a man and a women.

If the complaints are upheld the advertisement could be banned.

Yesterday Cranmer voiced disbelief after Lord Smith recorded a message for the “Out4Marriage” website, expressing his support for same-sex marriage.

“We have gained so much over the last 10 or 15 years and civil partnerships have been a major step forward but it still isn’t full equality and that is why I think this is a very important campaign,” he said.

“There is a personal reason too – as a gay man I would like to be able to marry.”

CALL FOR RESIGNATION

The blogger called for Lord Smith to resign, adding: “It is simply not possible for the ASA to assert impartiality and objectivity in adjudicating on matters relating to the promotion of traditional marriage.”

Colin Hart, campaign director of the C4M, said: “Cranmer raises some very important questions not least is has this frivolous and spurious complaint being investigated.

There is a political campaign and there seems to be a willingness on the part of the ASA to do its uppermost to clamp down on freedom of speech and debate in this country.

We should all be very worried about this investigation.”

A spokeswoman for the ASA said that there were “robust” processes in place to ensure that the decision on the complaint would be fair and impartial.

“The fact that [the advertisement] is under investigation does not mean that it will necessarily be upheld,” she said.

“Our chairman ordinarily does not vote, we have got 13 members of the council and the decisions are taken by them and our chairman does not ordinarily vote unless it is split.

There is a conflict of interest here so even should the decision have been split he would not vote.” 

Given the performance of ASA in the past, the outcome of this investigation will be worth watching!

European Court Ruling on Homosexual Marriage

Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.

Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.

The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple. 

The ruling comes just days after the Government published a consultation paper which promised marriage to same-sex couples and made clear that Britain is only catching up with other countries.

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."

However, the Strasbourg judges ruled that because the French couple were civil partners, they did not have the rights of married people, who in France have the sole right to adopt a child as a couple.

They declared:  "The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage."

The judges added that couples who are not married do not enjoy the same status as those who are.

"With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples."

The French civil partners, Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, tried to secure marriage rights under clauses that prevent discrimination and protect privacy and family life.

But the Strasbourg judges said there had been no discrimination against them because they were lesbians.

Lawyers said the decisions transformed the impact of David Cameron’s planned same-sex marriage law.

Neil Addison, a specialist in discrimination law, said:  "Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage.

This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises."

The Strasbourg ruling won praise from campaigners against same-sex marriage.

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: 

"For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires.

In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in imposing their views on the rest of the population by force of law.

We are seeing the same principle at work in the Government’s sham of a consultation on same-sex marriage."

He added: 

"The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society.

Instead of rushing to legislate without seriously considering the views of the electorate, the Government should be encouraging a measured public debate on the nature and meaning of marriage."

Further reading:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9157029/Gay-marriage-is-not-a-human-right-according-to-European-ruling.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html

Collapse of Tesco Car Sales

Sky News has reported that,

"Supermarket chain Tesco's brief foray into the consumer car market has reached a dead end."

Tesco Cars was set up in April 2011 to sell second-hand vehicles but failed to become a viable business venture.

The firm's website has announced the closure and said: 

"We started Tesco Cars in good faith and we always aim to do a good job for customers.

However, following a review of the business model we and Carsite, our partner, have decided that we cannot offer customers a satisfactory range of vehicles and as a result, have decided it is right to close the business."

According to 'Car Dealer' magazine, Tesco lacked popular car models to sell and began laying off staff on Christmas Eve after it failed to build sales via Tesco card club member access.

An industry insider said: "I also know there were a lot of changes at board level.  The guys driving the Tesco Cars brand along were moved to other parts of the business, which weren't doing well and that says a lot.  Tesco is really struggling at the moment - they can't seem to sell food in the UK, so why bother with cars?"

 

This major failure comes as part of a series of other similar 'crashes.' 

It comes after:

• the retailer's worst Christmas period for 20 years, during which they were out-performed by the other members of the 'big four';

• £5bn was sliced from the chain's shares in January after a profit warning was announced;

• the humiliation of their market share dropping below 30% for the first time since this milestone was achieved;

• turmoil within the company's management structure that has seen former UK operations boss Mr Richard Brasher losing his job – the fourth board director to depart since Philip Clarke took the top job in 2011;

• a plague of mice that forced the closure of their Covent Garden store hardly lifted morale within the company;

• nor did the loss of a battle to open a Tesco Express store in Herne village in Kent when the whole village united against their planning application, and one local councillor branded the company "totally silly."

The collapse of the car business is the latest problem to hit the stricken firm since it announced a £30,000 gift to London Gay Pride in November 2011.

Whether the Gay Pride decision has brought the wrath of God on the supermarket giant, or whether that ill-timed and ill-thought-out decision was simply a manifestation of a general and deep-seated incompetence, depends on one’s point of view.

Certainly the verdict of God's Word cannot be disputed; 1 Samuel 2:30:  "Them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed."