The 'Speaker' Who Spoke Out Of Order

Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has annoyed MPs by using the Queen’s diamond jubilee to ‘lecture’ her on sodomy.

The Queen was in Westminster Hall to speak at an event in celebration of her 60-year reign.

In an introduction speech that lasted almost as long as the Queen’s own speech, Mr Bercow called Her Majesty our “kaleidoscope Queen” and gave a thinly-veiled plug for gay marriage.

Even the Prime Minister – who personally backs gay marriage – was caught on camera looking irritated by the Speaker’s brash actions.

Other distinguished members of the Westminster Hall audience visibly cringed at his words.

Mr Bercow is the president of gay rights group, Kaleidoscope Trust. Following his speech the group issued a press statement welcoming the choice of words.

The group said: “We congratulate the Speaker on his words,” adding: “we offer our own tribute to the kaleidoscope Queen.”

A spokesman for the Speaker later said that his reference to the “kaleidoscope Queen” was “not necessarily about the Kaleidoscope Trust”.

Parliamentarians were angered by the Speaker’s antics. One senior MP said: “It was too ghastly for words.

As usual with Bercow it was all about him and his own political obsessions. It was completely ill-judged and rather embarrassing.”

Another MP said: “The speaker is entitled to his views on gay rights but he is not entitled to lecture the Queen on the issue when he is addressing her on our behalf at an event to mark her jubilee.”

As for a Biblical verdict on this crass behaviour?

Romans 1:28 and 32 suggest themselves:

"And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Murder of the New Born

A paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, entitled, 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?', argues that killing a newborn baby should be "permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

The authors of this paper, Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of Melbourne University, argue that,

(i) "both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons";

(ii) "the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant";

(iii) and thirdly, they write that, "adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people."

To summarise:

• newborn babies are not actual people, ....

• therefore, killing them is not immoral.

No matter how this policy is 'dressed up,' the brutal reality is that it is an argument pro killing babies.

Of course the arguments marshalled by these ethicists' are not new ... just an extension of the current argument that undergirds the murder of babies within the womb to cater for their killing outside of the womb.

If we accept the ideas on personhood that are held by those who advocate abortion, there is no ethical reason to stop carrying out abortions at the arbitrary point of birth.

The moment we assume the dangerous position of setting ourselves up as the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once we declare that all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

As one author correctly pointed out,

"An ethicist's job is like a magician’s. The main job of both is to distract you from the obvious. The magician uses sleight of hand to pretend to make people disappear. But when ethicists do it, people disappear for real."

The suggestion from these ethicists - repulsive in the extreme - actually highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.

In the UK, in most cases, it is only legal to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy (provided certain criteria are met). But this time limit is nothing more than a line drawn in the sand – a compromise between pro-lifers and their pro-choice opponents. It's a moral fudge simply because we can't agree on when a human being becomes a human being.

This is why these ethicists have taken the pro-abortion argument to its logical extreme, by drawing their line in the sand after birth.

The only totally logical response – and that can't include the 24-week fudge – is to be altogether anti-abortion.

To agree with Scripture, in other words. cf. our previous article on Abortion.

Petitions in Support of Marriage

Several petitions have been launched online to provide Christians with an opportunity to register their opposition to the Government's current plans to redefine marriage so as to permit homosexuals to marry.

(1) One is from the Coalition for Marriage:

While this one is certainly "not up to concert pitch" in articulating the evangelical Protestant position, you may wish to support it on the basis that it provides a basic definition of marriage by adding your signature here:

http://c4m.org.uk

The identification statement of the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) reads:
"The Coalition for Marriage is an umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK that support traditional marriage and oppose any plans to redefine it.

The Coalition is backed by politicians, lawyers, academics and religious leaders. It reaches out to people of all faiths and none, who believe that marriage is the most successful partnership in history and should not be redefined.

The Coalition draws upon a substantial body of evidence showing that marriage – as it has been understood for thousands of years – is beneficial to society, and that changing its definition would undermine that benefit.

The Coalition’s petition demonstrates that there is broad public opposition to redefining marriage. The Coalition is committed to a reasoned and courteous debate on this issue, and will highlight any intimidation or intolerance shown to supporters of traditional marriage."

(2) Another is from Christian Voice:

Again, you may wish to support it by adding your signature here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/defendmarriage