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.”