Gay marriage, Nazis and Fascism

by “Archbishop Cranmer”

This issue really is becoming tiresome: each day brings with it some tedious development in the inexorable quest for ‘marriage equality’ that the mind is pestered and plagued with the pricks of riposte. No matter what human tragedy is suffered, what poverty endured or global revolution witnessed, we come back to David Cameron’s intention to redefine marriage ‘because he is a Conservative’.

Christopher Bryant MP and the Search for Male Company

Last week, Lord Carey raised the spectre of the Nazis and the Holocaust. It didn’t matter what he actually said; the mere juxtaposition was sufficient to have him condemned as a raving loon and bigoted homophobe. And yesterday, Gordon Wilson, former leader of the SNP, warned that gay marriage would lead to ‘state fascism’. The only good thing to come of that interjection was that it rendered Chris Bryant MP speechless.

Ah, Chris Bryant, who is about to bring a Private Members Bill on the proposal to redefine the meaning of marriage to extend to same-sex couples. The debate is scheduled to take place in the House of Commons on October 30th. And doubtless he’ll opine about the bigots, Nazis and fascists ranged against his moderate, enlightened and utterly reasonable Bill. It is precisely because the debate is being conducted on such emotive and inflammatory terms that the reality of the consequences of gay marriage may be completely ignored:

“You are summoned to a tribunal where you cannot have a defense lawyer and you cannot record the proceedings nor have a witness present. The people judging and prosecuting you have no legal qualifications. The accusation is ambiguous, having to do with ideas the state does not like. The penalties could include fines equal to several thousands of dollars, public recanting, and rehabilitation classes. You are a bishop. This is not China. This is Canada. The offense: explaining why homosexual relations are a sin.”

So began the address of Terrence Prendergast, Archbishop of Ottawa, to St Thomas University Law School a week ago. He simply set out – calmly and rationally – ‘the alarming consequences of same-sex “marriage” from the Canadian experience’.

The Archbishop was recounting the true experiences of Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, who received complaints for preaching the Church’s traditional and historic teachings on homosexuality. The complaint was subsequently dropped by the plaintiff, who admitted that he only filed it to get media attention.

How many Christians will be targeted and harassed by aggressive homosexuals – the homosexualists – simply in order ‘to get media attention’? And don’t think it’s only the Christians: these homosexualists are ferociously unforgiving in condemnation of their dissenting co-sexualists (see here, here and here).

Yes, to the rabid, intolerant homosexualist, a gay person who doesn’t support gay marriage is ‘like the token Asian guy who wants to be in the BNP’. Nice, huh?

We will doubtless be seeing an awful lot more of this: the Attorney General has warned of the ‘profound difficulties’ ahead for those who dissent from the state’s redefinition of marriage. We will surely see Christian ministers and schoolteachers dragged before commissions and inquisitions, at the end of which they will be found ‘guilty’. Their crime will simply have been that of preaching a sermon or delivering a lesson expressing some concern about the gay agenda or casting some doubt upon the validity of gay marriage. They will be arrested, prosecuted, fined or imprisoned. The only means of avoiding this will be self-censorship: the mere discussion of homosexuality will become taboo.

Canada has gone before us. Archbishop Prendergast tells us that gay marriage has resulted in the Bible being called ‘hate literature’. Like the Roman Catholic adoption agencies here, there is ‘growing pressure for the Church to comply or to be shut down’. Indeed, we’ve already heard the threats.

The Archbishop enumerates the consequences of same-sex marriages as including ‘restrictions on freedoms; forced sex education; sexually confused children; sexual experimentation among children; and muzzling and debilitating the Church’.

“By reassigning financial benefits to same-sex marriage, what was once an incentive to fruitful, traditional families has become an incentive to sterile, destructive social arrangements,” he said.

But Chris Bryant MP will doubtless march on regardless, persuaded that those who oppose him are the real bigots, Nazis and fascists. But do not mistake his agenda merely for that of enlightened equality: he truly desires the disestablishment of the Church of England. And in David Cameron he has found a willing accomplice.

5 responses to “Gay marriage, Nazis and Fascism

  1. Radical Rodent

    …the state’s redefinition of marriage.” It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck; however, the state has redefined it as a chicken. Oh Lord, please save us from the madness that is rampant amongst those who purport to lead us.

    Does no-one raise objection to the Church’s condemnation of heterosexual relations outside marriage?

  2. Private ceremonies (as long as they are voluntary matters between “consenting adults”) should be of no concern of the law – if two men wish to call themselves “man and wife” and their friends also call them that, then fair enough – as long as it “does not frighten the horses”.

    The real issue here is state “non discrimination” doctrine. Oddly enough this goes back way before the Frankfurt School of “cultural” Marxism who invented “Political Correctness” doctrine (as a way of underming civil society – which they call “capitalism”) back in the 1920s.

    The idea of state commanded “non discrimination” goes back to the late Roman Empire – with the breakdown in the distinction between privarte and state, with any commercial venture being considered (de facto) state, because it was “open to the public”.

    Sellers of goods were told they had to sell to anyone (and later on what price and terms) and providers of a service (for example inns) were told they had to accept anyone.

    This denial of private property (if the property is used for a commercial purpose) is at the root of such terrible judgements as the one that was made today (where a women had thousands of Pounds taken from her because she did not wish to have two men share a bed under her roof – the fact that she was running a business was held by the court to, de facto, destroy her private property rights and freedom of choice, “discriminate” being simply another word for “choose”).

    And “Gay Marriage” – again the root of the dispute is the denial of freedom of asociation (which must include the freedom not to associate).

    There was no such thing as a government marriage in England and Wales before 1836 (the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act) and marriage should not (in a free society) be a government matter.

    Whether the “marriage” of two people (or more than two people – in cases of…….) is “recognised” by other people (or organisations) should be a matter of freedom of choice (the right to freely choose).

    However, with the decline and fall of civil society, such things as freedom of choice (freedom to “discriminate”) and freedom of association (which must include freedom to not associate) are dying.

  3. Julie near Chicago

    Does anyone remember the bitterness dripping from Miss Rand’s pen when whoever-it-was informed Dagny that she had to do whatever-it-was since, after all, “you are a COMMON CARRIER!”

    —Wait….*sounds of electrons shuffling around in cyberspace***

    Amazing what you can find on this here gadget known as the Internet! Some no-goodnik with a .cn domain (where’s that?) has the chapter online, in defiance of copyright. It’s from the scene with the tramp, where the train crew has deserted and nobody’s goin’ nowhere.

    “This is perfectly outrageous!” yelled a woman, springing forward, throwing her words at Dagny’s face. “You have no right to let this happen! I don’t intend to be kept waiting in the middle of nowhere! I expect transportation!”

    “Keep your mouth shut,” said Dagny, “or I’ll lock the train doors and leave you where you are.”

    “You can’t do that! You’re a common carrier! You have no right to discriminate against me! I’ll report it to the Unification Board!”

    “-if I give you a train to get you within sight or hearing of your Board,” said Dagny, turning away.

    “Miss Taggart,” [Kellogg] asked, “how long will you remain willing to be a common carrier?”

  4. Julie near Chicago

    Oh. China. What an idiot!

  5. Yes Julie. “Common Carrier” (or common provider) the sort of concept one finds in, late, Roman Law (the late Empire – when Republican distinctions between state and civil society had broken down). But used for P.C. purposes.