Sudden Death of Convenor of Government & Morals Committee

“Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” (Psalm 116:15).

On Tuesday afternoon, 21 May 2013, our esteemed colleague in Gospel ministry and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, Rev. Robert Ormerod, received his home calling.

While travelling with three of his sisters along the M6 in England to visit his seriously ill brother in Coventry, Rev. Ormerod suffered a heart attack and died.

Mr Ormerod became Student Minister in our Cloughmills congregation in January 1983 and celebrated 30 years of ministry in Cloughmills at the beginning of this year.  Having served as secretary of the Government and Morals Committee for many years, Rev. Ormerod was appointed Convenor of this Committee by our Presbytery in September 2012.

To those who most keenly feel the pain of his passing – his wife Julie, sons Jonathan and Timothy, and daughters Naomi, Hannah and Danielle – we extend our deepest sympathy and assure them of our continued prayers.

Truth is, Rev. Ormerod will be sorely missed right across our denomination.  We will cherish every memory of him.  We will remember his godly example.  We will strive to emulate that in some way.  But above all we will praise the God of grace who saved him; the Lord Jesus Christ who came into this world to bear his sin on Calvary; who rose from the dead that he too might one day rise with Him; who went into heaven to prepare a place for him; and who, on Tuesday past, welcomed him there with the words, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant!”

Tonight, another tragic step on the road to ruin has been taken by our country.

As if previous measures designed to promote a perverse lifestyle in our nation were not enough, our Parliament has voted to pass legislation to facilitate 'gay marriage' by a majority of 400 to 175.

Sadly, the process to remove another "ancient landmark" that sets the standard for moral behaviour within our shores is now well under way.  The next step to press this vote into effective legislation will occur when this debate is taken to the House of Lords.  Many supporters are fuelled with fresh confidence, given the scale of the "yes" vote in the Commons, that it will now be much more difficult for the House of Lords to obstruct this measure.  

Hebrews 13:4 provides a pertinent couplet – 

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:  but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." 

- reminding us that,

(i) The marriage of one male and one female, as instituted by God (Genesis 2), retains His blessing;

(ii) but immorality – of which homosexual activity is a chief and grievous form – falls under His curse (Romans 1).

Tonight sends a signal to all true Christians:  we need to intensify our efforts in prayer so that God would intervene in the affairs of our nation in the grace of salvation and rescue rather than the judgment of devastation and ruin. 

Led by the supposedly 'great and the good' who, given the incidence of atheists, humanists and deviants within their ranks, are currently further from God than most previous Parliaments have been, the majority of our MPs have blindly steered the nation in the direction of the ditch of depravity.

However, if we can urgently grasp the offer of divine aid as revealed in Hosea 13:9-10 – 

"O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thine help.  I will be thy King:  where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities?"

- we may live to see our nation turned around and back to God.

Let us intercede for a merciful awakening by the power of the Holy Spirit in these dark days when our government seems so intent on morphing evil into good!


____________________________________________________________________________

FACTS TO NOTE ABOUT TONIGHT'S VOTE:

• The majority of Conservative MPs rejected this measure:  136 to 126.  A poor result for the Prime Minister.  He led – but fewer than half his MPs followed.  No personal victory in this.

• 'How the Minor Parties voted' ... 

The bill was also opposed by: 

Democratic Unionists Gregory Campbell (Londonderry East), Nigel Dodds (Belfast North), Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley), Rev William McCrea (Antrim South), Ian Paisley Junior (Antrim North), Jim Shannon (Strangford), David Simpson (Upper Bann), Sammy Wilson (Antrim East), and independents Nadine Dorries (Bedfordshire Mid) and Lady Sylvia Hermon (Down North). 

It is tremendously encouraging to note the high level of opposition to 'Same Sex Marriage' within our own province.  Our thanks is extended to all those who have registered their vote for traditional, biblical marriage.





• Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Patterson also voted against.

Of great concern is the fact that this bill was supported by: 

Two local MPs – Alliance MP Naomi Long (Belfast East) and the SDLP's Mark Durkan (Foyle).

• Labour leader Ed Milliband has announced:  

"Proud that Parliament voted in favour of equal marriage today.  This is an important step forward in the fight for equality in Britain."  

By this he simply cements his position within the ranks of those who "glory in their shame" (Philippians 3:19).

MPs Vote To Protect Marriage Beliefs

MPs have voted 86-31 in favour of a proposal to protect people’s beliefs about marriage.
The vote, which is not binding, came at the end of a debate led by Edward Leigh MP who wants changes to be made to the Equality Act 2010.

It was inspired by the case of Adrian Smith, a housing manager who was demoted for saying privately that gay weddings in churches would be “an equality too far.”

Beliefs

Mr Leigh also referred to the recent European Court of Human Rights decision against a Christian registrar who was pushed out her job because of her beliefs about marriage.

He said the ruling means “an employee who is ordered to go against their conscience on marriage has few, if any, legal rights to protect them; that is why we need an amendment to the Equality Act”.

Mr Leigh said this problem will become “much worse” if the Government redefines marriage.

Conscientious

He said the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, “as presently drafted, does nothing to protect ordinary people’s conscientious views.”

He called for the legislation to undergo the proper scrutiny of the whole House of Commons, rather than being “fast-tracked.”

Though the Bill is unlikely to become law, the vote shows that MPs believe more needs to be done to protect those who support traditional marriage.

Chalke Another Sin Out Of Scripture, Steve!

Having gained notoriety in 2004 on account of his denial of a doctrine that lies at the heart of Christian theology - the penal substitution of our Lord Jesus Christ (he described this truth as God the Father engaging in "cosmic child abuse" when He sent His Son to the cross for us) - Steve Chalke is playing fast and loose with Scripture again.

On this occasion his assault is on the biblical teaching on the subject of homosexuality.

As a regular contributor to the magazine 'Christianity,' his latest submission argues that we must step outside of the boundaries of Scripture and declassify homosexuality as a sin.

His article can be sourced here:

http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/sexuality/stevechalke.aspx

As may a contrary view, published alongside Chalke's poorly reasoned and biblically redundant piece:

http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/sexuality/gregdownes.aspx

An excellent – and important – discussion of the Scripture passages that treat homosexuality is found here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/01/29/pro-gay-theology

The Cost of Having Biblical Convictions

The Baltimore Sun (Maryland) has reported how an Annapolic company whose old-fashioned trolleys are iconic in the city's wedding scene has felt compelled to abandon the nuptial industry rather than serve same-sex couples.

The owner of Discover Annapolis Tours said he decided to walk away from $50,000 in annual revenue instead of compromising his Christian convictions when same-sex marriages become legal in Maryland at the turn of the year. And he has urged prospective clients to lobby state lawmakers for a religious exemption for wedding vendors.

Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost. Legal experts said Discover Annapolis Tours sidesteps legal trouble by avoiding all weddings.

The trolley company's decision, publicized by a straight groom offended by what he called "repressive bigotry," offers a snapshot of a local business navigating a new landscape in Maryland's wedding industry, and leaving it behind for a competitor to swoop in.

The head of the Maryland Wedding Professionals Association said the trolley company is the second vendor to refuse business over the state's same-sex marriage law, which voters upheld in November. 

The Maryland clergyman who led opposition to same-sex marriage called the trolley company's choice to abandon profits on principle "gutsy" and predicted that more businesses would quietly follow suit.

"That's a bold and noble statement," said Derek McCoy, executive director of the Maryland Marriage Alliance. "The other option would have been just to become a legal case."

Frank Schubert, the political strategist who ran campaigns against same-sex marriage in Maryland and three other states this year, said opponents predicted collateral damage from legalizing same-sex unions.

"This is exactly what happens," Schubert said, adding that religious liberty is "right in the cross hairs of this debate. … The law doesn't protect people of faith. It simply doesn't."

Schubert pointed to a handful of other examples publicised in news reports across the country of wedding vendors sued for refusing to accommodate a same-sex ceremony: a pair of Vermont innkeepers, a New Jersey church group and a New Mexico wedding photographer.

A Christian conservative group financed an appeal in the case in New Mexico — where same-sex marriages are not recognised but, as in Maryland, "public accommodation" laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.  A lesbian couple tried to hire the photographer for their commitment ceremony, but the photographer's attorneys argued that artists have a constitutional right to refuse to endorse a message they do not support, according to the Religion News Service.  Two New Mexico courts have sided with the lesbian couple who sued, and the state's highest court agreed to hear the case.

In Maryland, the homosexual-rights group Equality Maryland said the trolley company's decision appears to be an isolated case of a business owner exercising his rights.

"As long as he doesn't discriminate against other people, he's free to do what ever he wants to do, including withdrawing his business from the industry," executive director Carrie Evans said.

Discover Annapolis Tours owner Matt Grubbs declined repeated requests to discuss the move, beyond acknowledging its economic impact to his business, which also operates historic tours endorsed by the Annapolis & Anne Arundel County Conference & Visitors Bureau.

Grubbs said he expects to post a full explanation on his company's website by Jan. 1, and confirmed he sent an email to prospective client Chris Belkot last month that said "we used to do weddings until recently. But we're a Christian-owned business, and we are not able to lend support to gay marriages. And as a public accommodation, we cannot discriminate between gay or straight couples, so we had to stop doing all wedding transportation."

Grubbs' message went on to suggest Maryland residents contact their lawmakers to "request they amend the new marriage law to allow an exemption for religious conviction for the layperson in the pew. The law exempts my minister from doing same-sex weddings, and the Knights of Columbus don't have to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception, but somehow my religious convictions don't count for anything."

Chick-Fil-A president Dan Carthy's public statements against same-sex marriage brought both backlash and huge crowds this year as patronizing or boycotting the fast-food chain became a political statement.

Gosnell, who said he has not met Grubbs, added that the trolley company's decision on same-sex weddings does not necessarily reveal Grubbs' feelings about gay people or transporting them to other events.

"It could be that it's not so much that he's against people, so much as he's against a policy or law that has been put in place," Gosnell said. "That is not abnormal for any business owner to take a position about any law that affects them."

Legal experts said the state law forbidding discrimination against sexual orientation has been on the books since 2001. Back then, the General Assembly added sexual orientation to the list of protected classes that already included race, gender, disability and marital status. Business owners can no more refuse a trolley for a same-sex wedding than they can refuse to serve an African-American at a lunch counter.

Grubbs' trolleys, with their interior lighting and quaint feel, had nearly become a staple in Annapolis' wedding scene, wedding planners and photographers said.

"You will see trolleys every Saturday in Annapolis, and most of them will have a bride," said Mike Busada, owner of Mike B Photography. "Fifty percent of the weddings I do in Annapolis have a trolley. … Someone else will come in and fill that niche. There's definitely a demand for it."

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.