Round-up of recent news on same-sex marriage

There is a great deal of press reporting and comment on the government's iniquitous proposals to legalize same-sex marriage - proposals they did not dare to put to the British electorate at the general election.

Without implying approval for any of the content of stories/articles/papers at the links below, I reproduce for your information, some of the main stories which have appeared today and over the weekend concerning the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) bill.

Church of England briefing for 2^nd reading

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1657614/ssmarriagebillbriefing.pdf

Tory MP Caroline Dinenage: Banning gay couples from marrying ‘takes nothing away from their relationship’

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/04/tory-mp-caroline-dinenage-banning-gay-couples-from-marrying-takes-nothing-away-from-their-relationship/

Michael Gove op-ed supporting gay marriage

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272531/Michael-Gove-Denying-gay-men-women-wrong.html#axzz2JvU3vYkw

The blogger Cranmer on “Cameron’s gay marriage hypocrisy”

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/camerons-gay-marriage-hypocrisy.html

French National Assembly votes for gay marriage 249-97 in initial vote

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16969

Tory waverers press-ganged to back Cameron on gay marriage vote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-waverers-pressganged-to-back-cameron-on-gay-marriage-vote-8478712.html

Important essay by philosopher Roger Scruton and policy thinker Philip Blond against gay marriage

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/02/04/3682721.htm

Telegraph editorial criticising David Cameron

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9846189/Mr-Cameron-needs-a-more-civil-partnership.html

Grassroots Tories 'betrayed' by David Cameron over same-sex marriage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9845610/Grassroots-Tories-betrayed-by-David-Cameron-over-same-sex-marriage.html

New Archbishop of Canterbury challenges David Cameron on gay marriage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9846004/New-Archbishop-of-Canterbury-challenges-David-Cameron-on-gay-marriage.html

Two-thirds of Tory MPs could refuse to back gay marriage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9840756/Two-thirds-of-Tory-MPs-could-refuse-to-back-gay-marriage.html

Former Telegraph editor Charles Moore: “This Equality obsession is mad, bad and very dangerous”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9842384/This-Equality-obsession-is-mad-bad-and-very-dangerous.html

Cameron makes last-ditch push for same-sex marriage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9846639/Cameron-makes-last-ditch-push-for-same-sex-marriage.html

Only one voter in 14 says gay marriage is a priority issue that would be important in deciding next election

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/textbased/news/text-2273055/Only-voter-14-says-gay-marriage-priority-issue-important-deciding-election.html

Melanie Phillips  Why failing to stand up for marriage is the reason Tories are always in crisis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/textbased/debate/text-2272935/Why-failing-stand-marriage-reason-Tories-crisis.html

Coalition for Marriage: Broken promises: Cameron said he had ‘no plans’ to redefine marriage

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/01/31/broken-promises-cameron-said-he-had-%E2%80%98no-plans%E2%80%99-to-redefine-marriage/

Coalition for Marriage 2^nd reading briefing

http://c4m.org.uk/downloads/secondreadingbriefing.pdf

Tobias Ellswood MP: I’m a ‘progressive Conservative’ but I will vote against gays marrying

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/02/tobias-ellswood-mp-im-a-progressive-conservative-but-i-will-vote-against-gays-marrying

Norman Tebbit: The same-sex marriage folly is symptomatic of the Coalition's inability to manage its affairs

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100201058/the-same-sex-marriage-folly-is-symptomatic-of-the-coalitions-inability-to-manage-its-affairs/

Teachers free to speak out against same-sex marriage, insists Gove

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article3677050.ece

40,000 TEACHERS RISK JOBS OVER GAY ROW

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/375219/40-000-teachers-risk-jobs-over-gay-row

Rebels line up to jilt Dave at the gay altar

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2272483/Rebels-line-jilt-Dave-gay-altar.html

Conservative party ripped apart by gay marriage vote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9844514/Conservative-party-ripped-apart-by-gay-marriage-vote.html

Gay voters have described David Cameron’s support for same-sex marriage as a ‘cynical political stunt’.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/02/02/gays-reject-coalitions-stunt/

Final plea by Maria Miller to MPs to vote for gay marriage

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/04/maria-miller-voting-for-same-sex-marriage-will-promote-stability-responsibility-and-pride

Ex-MP Paul Goodman: The same-sex marriage bill - and why I'm cutting the money I give to the Party

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/02/same-sex-marriage-and-why-im-cutting-the-money-i-give-to-the-party.html

David Burrowes MP in Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-burrowes-mp/gay-marriage-time-to-stand-up-for-the-progressive-and-conservative-institution-of-marriage_b_2612180.html

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Don't fall for David Cameron's pitch on abortion time limit

David Cameron, the Conservative party leader, has responded to questions from readers of The Catholic Herald on several pro-life and pro-family issues. Mr Cameron was asked:

"Will you press for a reduction in the month for which abortion is allowed?"

Mr Cameron replied:

"My own view is that we do need to review the abortion limit. I think that the way medical science and technology have developed in the past few decades does mean that an upper limit of 20 or 22 weeks would be sensible. So I supported the two amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which would have changed this and I’ll continue to support a modest reduction in the abortion limit. But what’s really important here is that Members of Parliament are always allowed a free vote on this issue. This is an issue of conscience, so it would be wrong to put pressure on Parliamentary colleagues when it comes to voting on this."

It should be noted that:

• by "abortion limit", Mr Cameron only means the 24-week limit for abortions done on social grounds. As he made clear in August 2008, he wants abortion up to birth on disabled children to remain available.
• Mr Cameron and Andrew Lansley, the Conservative party health spokesman, have made clear that they support wider access to abortion in various ways. If there is a free vote by MPs, as promised by Mr Cameron, it will provide the pro-abortion lobby with an opportunity to increase the numbers of abortions, as happened under the Conservative administration under Margaret Thatcher.
• Mr Cameron is only endorsing a reduction of two to four weeks (and for social abortions only). This ignores the vast majority (87% or more) of abortions which are performed before 12 weeks. Only one to two per cent of abortions are performed after 20 weeks. There is a serious danger of MPs who back a cosmetic lowering of the upper time-limit for social abortions of voting in favour of wider access to social abortions earlier in pregnancy.

Nadine Dorries, the leading advocate within the Conservative party of reducing the 24-week social abortion limit, has made her pro-abortion position clear:

"I should like to make my personal position clear, because it has been misrepresented in the past few days. I am pro-choice. I support a woman’s right to abortion—to faster, safer and quicker abortion than is available at the moment, particularly in the first trimester. That is my position ... [O]ne of the main problems is that many young women who present at a hospital or at a doctor’s are made to wait two to four weeks before a termination. I want to make my position clear: I am not against abortion per se. Actually, I would go further: I would like the morning-after pill to be available from every school nurse and in every supermarket pharmacy—and it should be free for young girls, and not £25 at the chemist’s, as it is at the moment." (Hansard, 20 May 2008)

"I have no issue with abortion at the right time." [Daily Mail, 6 March 2008]

She introduced a 10-minute rule bill in 2006 which included a provision to fast-track abortion once the final consent had been given. This provision, if the bill had succeeded, could have led to even more resources being spent on killing the unborn.

There is no reason to believe that the new parliament will be significantly less pro-abortion than the old one. Before the votes on abortion in 2008, advocates of reducing the upper time limit for social abortions had claimed they there had been a sea-change in parliamentary opinion in favour of such a reduction. Yet all the amendments calling for reductions in the upper time limit for social abortions were rejected by large majorities, with the number of MPs voting with the pro-abortion lobby exceeding 390. This sea-change was revealed to be wishful thinking stoked by media hype. With the numbers in parliament stacked against the pro-life movement, it makes no sense at all to add to the calls of the pro-abortion lobby for Parliament to amend the abortion law.

Some observers predict an influx into the new parliament of the so-called Notting Hill Set, socially liberal Tory party candidates with similar views to David Cameron. If so, the result may well be increased pressure to remove restrictions on abortion on demand in early pregnancy and allow nurses to perform certain types of abortion. Most MPs will only accept restrictions on late-term abortions in return for measures making abortion more easily available in other ways. Also, negotiating any lower limit is likely to involve a trade-off with more exceptions being allowed beyond the 24-week limit – up to birth. The number of abortions resulting from these changes would exceed the small number (about 750) of social abortions after 20 or 22 weeks. In any case, those doctors who want to do late abortions can simply get around any lower time-limit, by falsifying gestational age and/or fudging the grounds. As David Steel, the author of the Abortion Act 1967, has said:

"Putting an upper limit on abortions deemed to be done for "social reasons" would have negligible impact on either ease of access for concerned women or current medical practice."

It should also be noted that:

• It was under a Conservative government that parliament voted for abortion up to birth.
• It was also under a Conservative government that the upper limit for abortions was raised for abortions generally. People mistakenly claim that the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks by the Conservative government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. However, because of amendments to the law made by the 1990 Act, the previous limit, which was based on the capability of the baby to be born alive – not a fixed number of weeks (28) – was abolished and a 24 week time limit was introduced but only for certain cases. In other cases (including where the abortion is carried out on the grounds of disability) abortions can be and are now carried out right up to the time of birth. Every child who had reached the stage of development of being “capable of being born alive” was protected by the pre-1990 law. Since 1990 that protection has been removed. So the effect of the 1990 Act was to increase the time limit for abortion in most instances and in many cases right up to birth.
• It was pro-lifers who pressed for the 1990 Act to contain provisions relating to abortion, in the hope of being able to insert some restrictions, particularly early time limits. Sadly this tactic backfired, resulting in a less, not more, restrictive abortion law.

Elsewhere in the interview, David Cameron answers questions on sex education. His answers, and the Conservative policy positions on them, are partly good, partly bad and partly mistaken.

SPUC is political, not party political. Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, the leaders of the other two main parties, share David Cameron's pro-abortion record and position. My critique of David Cameron's answer on abortion is motivated purely by a desire to protect unborn children and their mothers from abortion. The issue of the upper time limit for social abortions is at best a dangerous distraction. At worst, it will entrench discrimination against disabled children and set the scene for an expansion of abortion.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

David Cameron confirms he backs discrimination against unborn disabled babies (and Brown voted for it in 1990)

David Cameron confirmed this evening that he would not vote to reverse current discrimination against unborn disabled babies who can be aborted right up to birth since the law was changed by Parliament in 1990. Mr Cameron made a similar commitment in a Daily Mail interview earlier this year on which I blogged at the time.

I heard this news from Rachel and Bill Peck who attended a "Cameron Direct" Question and Answer Session this evening in Barrow-in-Furness. Rachel asked David Cameron. the Conservative leader, the following question: "In 1990 when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act discriminated against the disabled by allowing disabled babies for the very first time to be aborted right up to full term. My question is: If in power would you favour measures to reverse this discrimination by giving unborn children who are disabled the same protection under the law as currently enjoyed by all other children?"

David Cameron answered: "A short answer first then a longer one. My personal view about that is no. I think abortion votes, and votes on embryology, and votes on all of those things should be free votes. They are matters of conscience and on the last embryology bill we’ve just had I pushed very hard (if you remember, the Prime Minister wanted to have whipped votes like they had whipped votes in the House of Lords) and I said this is wrong; this is a conscience issue; this is one where MP’s have got to examine their consciences, listen to their constituents, and explain their positions and it should always be a free vote. So it should always be a free vote. My own view is yes, I think that we should change the abortion limit down from 24 towards 20 weeks; I voted that way and I think it would be right to do that. But in the case of parents who have medical evidence that they may have a very disabled child, I would not want to change that. And I speak as someone, I mean, I’ve got a six year old boy who is severely disabled has cerebral palsy and is quadriplegic and he’s a sweet boy, he’s a lovely boy Ivan, and, you know, it is though incredibly tough bringing up disabled children and I don’t want to kind of put myself in the position of saying to other parents you’ve got to go ahead and have that child or you can’t have an abortion or you can do this or you can’t do that. Personally Ivan, he’s brought incredible things to my life but it is an enormous challenge and I don’t think it’s right to sort of tell other parents if you hear that you’ve got a very disabled child on the way, that actually doing something about it isn’t an option. That’s my view.”

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, of course, voted three times for this discriminatory legislation in 1990. David Cameron was first elected to Parliament in June 2001.

David Cameron backs wider access to abortion

The office of David Cameron, the leader of the Opposition, has written to SPUC, saying that Mr Cameron regards current proposals for wider access to abortion as "practical and sensible". The relevant section of the letter from Mr Cameron's letter starts by noting that Mr Cameron voted for a “modest” reduction in the the 24 week limit for 'social' abortions. The letter goes on to say:

"David is aware of the comments made by the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley MP, in the House on the 12 May. Andrew was advocating that early, medical abortions are preferable to late, surgical ones. Therefore, Andrew was in favour of amending the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion being performed and for reviewing the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions. As David is in favour of allowing women to have abortions, but supports a reduction to the abortion limit, he thinks that this is a practical and sensible proposal. However, it must be emphasized that this is currently a free vote issue."

I warned recently that certain Conservative parliamentarians prominent in the recent abortion debates see wider access to abortion and reducing the 24 week limit for 'social' abortions as two sides of the same coin.

Amendments to enact proposals for wider access to abortion could be tabled at the next stage (the ‘Report’ stage) of the government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, expected early in July.

If your MP is a Conservative, please write to him/her to say that the support by Mr Cameron and Mr Lansley for wider access to abortion does no credit to the Conservative party. Other points you can make to your MP can be found on our new leaflet "No to more abortion" http://www.spuc.org.uk/hfeabort.pdf You can contact your MP (and find out your MP's name) via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps or by writing to your MP at the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. Please remember to copy any replies you receive to Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, by email at political@spuc.org.uk or by post to SPUC.

Please order a quantity of our new leaflet "No to more abortion" http://www.spuc.org.uk/hfeabort.pdf and distribute them door-to-door, in the street and at churches. You can order a quantity of leaflets by emailing lizfoody@spuc.org.uk or by telephoning SPUC on 020 7091 7091.

British government is afraid of the homosexual lobby

Dr John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, (pictured) has told David Cameron, the prime minister, not to legalize gay marriage*. He said (in an interview in the Telegraph yesterday):

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman ... I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are ... We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way ... "

Dr Sentamu rightly alludes to the actions of "dictators" when referring to David Cameron's plans, for the following reasons:

Firstly, consider the enormity of what the government intends to bring about. David Cameron and his government intend to re-define marriage: a fundamental good of human beings, the first and vital cell and source of human society, which is upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the following terms: “Men and women of full age ... have the right to marry and to found a family. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

As Mario Conti, the Catholic archbishop of Glasgow, put it (in the context of the Scottish government's plans): 9 Oct. 2011:

"Those in Government need to be respectfully reminded that a mandate to govern does not include a mandate to reconstruct society on ideological grounds, nor to undermine the very institution which, from the beginning, has been universally acknowledged as of the natural order and the bedrock of society, namely marriage and the family. In terms of law, its support and defence have been on a par with the defence of life itself. We weaken it at our peril."

Secondly, David Cameron and his government are intending intend to redefine marriage without even the fig leaf of an electoral mandate.

Prior to the election neither of the parties now in the Coalition Government made any reference to changing the law in this area in their manifestos.

Moreover,the coalition agreement does not make any reference to changing the law in this area. (The Coalition: our programme for government, May 2010)

Yet Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, has told Archbishop Peter Smith, the Catholic archbishop of Southwark, "that the Government intended to introduce same-sex marriage and that the consultation was merely to help with the 'nuts and bolts' of the legislation".

Clearly, the government is refusing a consultation on the principle of gay marriage because they're afraid of the homosexual lobby** and because they're afraid that public opinion is being mobilised in defence of marriage and the family.

It's essential that British citizens, of all faiths and none, show no fear in opposing the government's plans. Let's keep the following key points in mind:

• The fundamental group unit of society is not the State; it is the family based upon the marriage of a man and a woman.
• Marriage is not the monopoly of Christians or of any particular faith group. As SPUC puts it in our position paper on same-sex marriage: "Marriage is a fundamental good of human beings and a natural institution. While different religions honour marriage and some raise it to a sacrament, they do not thereby deny that it is an institution natural to human beings – a basic human good. People of faith and those of no faith can and do agree on this."
• It's essential, in opposing the redefinition of marriage, to do so without prejudice to our opposition to civil partnerships in the UK which were in effect designed as, and are seen by many, as quasi-marriages, as leading homosexual activists have made clear (See SPUC's position paper on same-sex marriage and its accompanying background paper).
• To defend man-woman marriage is in no way to denigrate homosexual people, as is sometimes wrongly claimed. Rather, it is simply to defend a vital social institution which protects children born and unborn - and indeed, protects society as a whole. All of us, whatever our personal background, have an interest in supporting this vital, pre-political institution. It is part of the heritage of humanity.

*SPUC's national council, which is SPUC's policy-making body, elected by its grassroots volunteers, last month passed the following resolution to defend marriage:

"That the Council of SPUC, noting the various proposals currently being made by the present Government and others in regard to the status and standing of marriage and its consequent effect upon family life; and further noting the higher proportionate incidence of abortion in unmarried women compared to married women, resolves to do its utmost to fight for the retention of the traditional understanding of marriage in the history, culture and law of the United Kingdom, namely the exclusive union of one man with one woman for life; and accordingly instructs its officers and executive committee to conduct a major campaign to this end, to co-operate with other persons and societies in so doing and specifically to target the Government's consultation period starting in March, 2012, in regard to (so-called) same sex marriage."

**Why is homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

Calls for an upper limit bill on abortion remind me of Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I hope and pray that Jim Dobbin MP can be swiftly persuaded to back off from comments he's reported to have made yesterday that he is seeking an MP to table a private member's Bill to push for another vote in Parliament on the abortion time limit.

Jim Dobbin should be reminded that it's less than two years since the last push for an upper limit bill was stopped at the last ditch, after a united pro-life campaign, from resulting in a massive expansion of the abortion law. At that time a number of pro-life groups joined SPUC's campaign against proposed extreme pro-abortion amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill.

We must remind Members of Parliament that the main threat of creating in Britain a legal "right" to an abortion comes, perversely, from abortion time limit bills, often misguidedly promoted by sincere pro-life individuals and groups. The threat consists in that such proposals give the pro-abortion lobby the chance to argue that “early abortions are better than late abortions.” They argue that in order to ensure that women can get early “safe” abortions the obstacles must be removed, i.e. the medical grounds required for a legal abortion must be abolished. This would achieve a major objective of the pro-abortion lobby, arguably creating a right to abortion not currently in English (or Scottish) abortion law.

SPUC has written to MPs urging them not to support upper limit legislation. Here's why:

It was pro-lifers who pressed for the 1990 Act to contain provisions relating to abortion, in the hope of being able to insert some restrictions, particularly early time limits. Sadly this tactic backfired, resulting in a less, not more, restrictive abortion law.

SPUC said at the time: “… Kenneth Clarke [the secretary of state for health] was … responsible for giving MPs a misleading concept of the clause allowing abortion up to birth when it was debated at the Report Stage of the Bill on 21st June [1990] … He informed the House ‘the doctor will terminate a pregnancy while attempting to save the life of the baby if he can’. However, termination in such circumstances has always been allowed but previously it has been described as ‘induced birth’. For the first time it can be legally categorised as abortion, and, whatever the claims of Mr Clarke, there is now no law compelling a doctor to save the life of the child.” (Human Concern, summer 1990)

Both David Cameron, the prime minister, and Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health, have made clear that they support wider access to abortion in various ways. If there is a free vote by MPs, as was promised by Mr Cameron, it will provide the pro-abortion lobby with an opportunity to increase the numbers of abortions, as happened under the Conservative administration under Margaret Thatcher.

It's therefore all the more perplexing that Jim Dobbin should be reported to be saying: “David Cameron's leadership on this issue is important and could help to sway opinion.”

Finally, David Cameron supports the genocidal treatment of disabled children in the womb. He confirmed during a "Cameron-Direct" session in Barrow-in-Furness that he would not vote to reverse the current discrimination against unborn disabled babies who can be aborted right up to birth since the law was changed by Parliament in 1990.  He made a similar comment in a Daily Mail interview on which I blogged at the time. Tragically, at this point in history, there is every sign that Parliament would confirm this genocidal treatment of the disabled before birth in any vote on the upper limit to abortion - which serves to underline this gravely ethically flawed and totally discredited approach to reform of the British abortion law.

For a fuller history of this whole issue, read my previous posts.



Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Cameron's cabinet should be viewed realistically

David Cameron, the new prime minister, has announced a number of new cabinet and other ministerial appointments. SPUC's initial assessment is as follows:

More likely than not to obstruct the pro-life cause:

• David Cameron, prime minister
• Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister
• George Osborne, chancellor
• Chris Huhne, energy secretary
• Andrew Lansley, health secretary
• Andrew Mitchell, international development secretary
• Ken Clarke, justice secretary (as health minister in the Thatcher government, he helped ensure the success of pro-abortion amendments and the defeat of anti-abortion amendments to the HFE Act 1990)
• Danny Alexander, Scottish secretary
• David Laws, chief secretary to the treasury (cf. House of Commons, 28 Jan 2010)
• Cheryl Gillan, Welsh secretary
• Sir George Young, leader of the Commons

More likely that not to be helpful or unobstructive to the pro-life cause:

• Theresa May, home secretary
• William Hague, foreign secretary
• Eric Pickles, communities secretary
• Baroness Warsi, Conservative party co-chairman
• Dr Liam Fox, defence secretary
• Michael Gove, education secretary
• Caroline Spelman, environment secretary
• Owen Paterson, Northern Ireland secretary
• Philip Hammond, transport secretary
• Iain Duncan Smith, work and pensions secretary
• Damian Green, immigration minister
• David Willetts, university, science and skills minister

Could go either way, depending on the issue:

• Vince Cable, business secretary
• Jeremy Hunt, culture secretary
• Lord Strathclyde, leader of the Lords
• Francis Maude, cabinet office minister
• Nick Herbert, policing reform minister
• Oliver Letwin, cabinet office minister
• Greg Clark, communities minister
• Grant Shapps, housing minister

David Cameron and Andrew Lansley, the new health secretary, have made clear their support for wider access to abortion, under their guise of support for reducing the upper time-limit for social abortions. Now is the time, not for some headlong rush at abortion law reform, but rather for strong representations to ministers and MPs not to take up the previous government's plans to impose anti-life sex education on schools.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Civil partnerships have same value as marriage says David Cameron

According to the Daily Telegraph this morning, David Cameron (pictured), the leader of the Conservative party has said regarding sex education for schoolchildren:

“Should we teach them about civil partnerships being a way of same-sex couples showing commitment just as married couples show commitment? Yes we should.”

He apparently made it clear at a Cameron Direct meeting that this should be embedded "in the ethos of our education".

Last week I reported that Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, agrees with Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, that faith schools must teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless.

It appears, then, that the three major party leaders are in step with each other on this issue. All of this, of course, is in the context of the Government's Children, Schools and Families bill currently being considered by the Public Bill Committee in Parliament. This bill would make sex education compulsory in all state schools, including faith schools, from ages 5-16.

The first consequence of this rare agreement between party leaders is that concerned citizens must ensure that they don't vote along party political lines, but reflect on the voting intentions and voting record of individual parliamentary candidates.

It's important to remember, as the general election approaches, that David Cameron is on record as backing wider access to abortion and that all three party leaders voted in support of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, a law designed to kill countless human beings who are deliberately created never to be born.

The second consequence of the major party leaders' consensus on civil partnerships is that concerned citizens should make it clear that they refuse to allow their children to be taught in such a way at any stage in their education. As Catholics and pro-lifers, my wife and I have always taken this stand. We must never forget in this connection the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 97. He said that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

We must begin to organize more effectively to resist, peacefully and firmly, the State's attacks on the moral welfare of our children. In addition, Catholic parents and young people must also resist, peacefully and firmly, Catholic episcopal policy in England and Wales (on the government's sex education plans), which is contrary to Catholic teaching, undermines the culture of life, and betrays our children and unborn children by delivering them to the abortionists.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

SPUC comments on British PM's pub meeting with gay activist comedian

location of Cameron & Fry meeting

Top story:

SPUC comments on British PM's pub meeting with gay activist comedian
SPUC has commented on the meeting between David Cameron, the British prime minister, and Stephen Fry, the homosexual activist and comedian. The two were invited to meet by Evgeny Lebedev, the owner of the pro-homosexual London Evening Standard newspaper, at a London pub owned jointly by Lebedev and Sir Ian McKellen, the homosexual activist and actor. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the UK's response to Russia's laws on homosexuality. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told LifeSiteNews.com: "David Cameron's pub meeting suggests that he is now an actual leader of the homosexualist lobby, and that he prefers the company of his party's left-wing opponents to its own traditional supporters. One suspects that Mr Cameron is privately pleased that huge numbers of pro-family Tories are fleeing from the Conservative party. All prime ministers are desperate to leave their mark on history, and Mr Cameron is delighted to leave the destruction of true marriage as his legacy. The cost, of course, will be be paid by future generations, especially children both born and unborn." [LifeSiteNews.com, 19 August]

Other stories:

Abortion

• Abortion doesn’t kill babies, abortionists do [SPUC youth blog, 20 August]
• Abortion rates rising in Wigan, north-west England [Wigan Today, 19 August]
• Hard working abortionists should motivate us [SPUC youth blog, 13 August]

Embryology

• 3.8 million human embryos created to produce 122,000 live births – success rate of 3.2%  [Peter Saunders, 18 August]
• At 60, Britain's oldest mum of IVF twins finally admits: I wish I had a man to help me [Mail, 15 August]

Euthanasia

• Rugby star with motor neurone disease says he's "very positive, very happy" [BBC, 20 August]
• Shape up or close down, 800 care homes are told [Times, 20 August]
• Euthanasia fears as Irish government introduces mental incapacity bill [Pat Buckley, 19 August]
• Neighbour tells mother to "Do the right thing and…euthanize" autistic 13-year-old son [LifeSiteNews.com, 19 August]
• English pair arrested over assisted death claim [BBC, 18 August]
• Eleven arrests over care home death [Telegraph, 13 August]

Sexual ethics

• Outgoing Chief Rabbi accused British PM of failing stay-at-home mothers [Telegraph, 19 August]
• Leading Catholic academic shows why Catholics may not support civil partnerships [John Smeaton, 13 August]

General

• Hard working pro-life volunteers should motivate us too! [SPUC youth blog, 19 August]
• Alfred Rosenberg and Nazi racial theory [SPUC youth blog, 14 August]

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Lobby to keep anti-life sex ed out of this parliament and the next

On Monday 8 March the Children, Schools and Families bill was debated in the House of Lords at second reading. As per parliamentary convention, no vote was taken on the bill and the bill now awaits debate in committee. The imminent general election - almost certainly 6 May - means that the bill might not be debated again in this parliament. However, the bill should not be regarded as dead. The bill could be rushed through in the clearing-up procedure by which bills can pass through several readings in a matter of minutes, prior to an election. It is therefore vital that SPUC supporters continue to lobby. At this point, we would ask you to write to (1) The party leaders - especially Gordon Brown and David Cameron and (2) key peers (see below).

Please urge the government members not to attempt to force the bill through without proper consideration. 

Please urge the opposition to maintain their strong resistance to the bill. Thankfully, the Conservative opposition has tabled motions regarding the bill which, while not directly relevant to pro-life issues, will nonetheless help to delay and therefore obstruct the bill's progress.

Even if the bill goes no further in this Parliament, soon after the general election legislation on education will be introduced into the new parliament, regardless of which party heads the government. If the Labour party are re-elected, either with a majority or as the single largest party in a hung parliament, then the bill, or the sex education part of the bill, will probably be resurrected. Alternatively, the Conservative opposition have pledged, if elected, to introduce their own education bill within weeks of the election. There will be intense pressure by anti-life groups and bureaucrats to continue with the government's anti-life sex education plans. These include the draft sex education guidance from the department of children, schools and families (see SPUC's briefing ) 

Therefore, please write to:

• Government peers: Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Leader of the House), Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Deputy Leader of the House), Lord Bassam of Brighton (Chief Whip), Lord Davies of Oldham (Deputy Chief Whip), Lord Brett, Baroness Crawley, Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, Baroness Thornton, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Young of Norwood Green. 
• Opposition peers: Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Chief Whip), Baroness Seccombe (Deputy Chief Whip), Lord Luke, Viscount Bridgeman, Lord Astor of Hever, The Duke of Montrose, Baroness Morris of Bolton, Lord De Mauley, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Baroness Verma, Earl Cathcart, Earl Attlee, Lord Bates, Lord Marland, Baroness Warsi, Earl Howe, Lord McColl of Dulwich.
• Crossbench peers: Baroness Cox, Lord Alton

You can find email addresses for Lords via http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/email/email (Please SPUC know if you experience any problems using this list).

• Rt Hon Gordon Brown, the prime minister, at 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA
• Rt Hon David Cameron, the Conservative opposition leader, at House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. You can also email him at david.cameron@conservatives.com

Please forward any replies you receive to SPUC by:

• email to political@spuc.org.uk
• post to Paul Tully at SPUC HQ.

More information can be found in:

• SPUC's briefing on the CSF bill
• SPUC's leaflet "Government sex education: priming children for teenage sex and abortion?" 
• SPUC's briefing on the government's draft SRE guidance
• SPUC's critique "Sexual health in schools"

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

British Cardinal makes scathing attack on Prime Minister

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, the former archbishop of Westminster, has made a scathing attack this morning on David Cameron, the UK prime minister. In a withering analysis in today's Telegraph he pours scorn on David Cameron's election commitment to strengthen marriage as an institution, on his understanding of the nature of marriage, and on the prime minister's honesty in the Conservative Party's manifesto.

Thank God that leading churchmen are standing up for our families, for the child-centred institution of marriage, not least unborn children (see below).

The Cardinal's letter to the Telegraph reads:

SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, December 15) sets out with admirable clarity why marriage is and should remain a unique and binding contract between a man and a woman, open in principle to the possibility of generating children. That in the Christian Church it is also a sacrament gives it a special value for Christian believers; but that in no way detracts from its character as an institution of central importance for the welfare of society as a whole, to believers and unbelievers alike.

Redefining marriage as simply a contract between individuals irrespective of their sex, without regard either to its procreative function or to the complementarity of the relationship between man and woman, would be an abuse of language. More important, it would weaken marriage by diminishing its implications and its significance. That, and not homophobia, is why many people outside what Mr Moore calls the culturally dominant "minority" are opposed to the Government's proposal – and why more than 600,000 people have signed a petition against it. The state has the right to oversee the administration and legal aspects of marriage, but it has never been accepted that the state can dictate to individuals and society itself what marriage should mean to us. It is clear that many problems would arise if the legislation as now tabled were to be implemented.

In the run-up to the last election, David Cameron led us to believe that the strengthening of marriage as an institution was one of his important objectives; and the Conservative Party's manifesto, which made no mention of "gay marriage", included a proposed tax break for married couples. Nothing has been heard of the latter proposal, and instead of action to strengthen marriage we have the proposal to abandon the traditional understanding of marriage on the basis of a "consultation" which explicitly excluded the possibility of a negative result. Protestations that this is all fundamentally "conservative" ring a bit hollow.

It is difficult not to wonder how far the Prime Minister is someone whose steadiness of purpose can be relied on.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor
Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster
London W4

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. )

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

More abortion won't mend our "broken society"

In the past 6 days, pro-abortion MPs have tabled about a dozen new amendments to the Abortion Act 1967 via the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill, to be debated on Monday. More amendments may be tabled in the next few days. Among the latest amendments, one tabled by Labour MP Frank Field would produce a sliding scale for the number of doctors who must authorise any abortion: one doctor for less than 13 weeks, two doctors for between 13 and 24 weeks, and three doctors for greater than 24 weeks. Given that over 90% of abortions occur before 13 weeks, most abortions will no longer be subject to the two-doctor rule. The effect of the amendment is primarily to streamline the majority of abortions taking place under 13 weeks gestation, possibly leading to more abortions.

The Telegraph reports that the amendment has the support of David Cameron, the leader of the Opposition.

David Cameron has been in the headlines today, calling for firm action to mend our "broken society". Mr Cameron said in a speech:

"[W]e're going to be uncompromising in taking on any vested interests or establishment cultural attitudes that stand in our way. ... Social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make. ... [C]hildren are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them."

So Mr Cameron, why are you compromising with the vested interests and establishment cultural attitudes which promote easy abortion? What about the social problems which are the consequence of abortion - psychological and emotional trauma, relationship breakdowns, suicide and substance abuse? What are you doing to stop secret abortions for children as young as eleven, which parents are powerless to stop?

Cameron says government responsible for quangos' actions

The battle continues over abortion advertising on TV and radio. The Advertising Standards Authority's public consultation is closed, but Ofcom, the statutory regulator for broadcasting, makes the final decision – or does it?

In another context, David Cameron, the Conservative leader (who’s no friend of the pro-life movement), says that Ofcom “shouldn’t be making policy”. He adds:

"Too many state actions, services and decisions are carried out by people who cannot be voted out by the public, by organisations that feel no pressure to answer for what happens – in a way that is completely unaccountable.”

Mr Cameron concludes:

“Even when power is delegated to a quango, the minister remains responsible for the outcome.”

In other words, according to David Cameron’s theory, the government will be responsible if Ofcom authorises abortion agencies to advertise on radio and TV. Lord Carter, the Government’s broadcasting minister, in a letter received by an SPUC supporter, has written in a way that seems sympathetic to abortion advertising on the broadcast media.

SPUC is non party-political and no-one knows where the Tories or other parties stand on this issue, the outcome of which will have a profound impact on the welfare of women and on unborn children. Let’s not forget:

• The Advertising Standards Authority’s proposal threatens to further commercialise the killing of unborn children.
• It would completely disregard the adverse effect of abortion on women's health.
• Abortion remains a criminal offence on the statute book. Advertising of illegal procedures is contrary to the public interest, advertising codes, and the law.
• Only those agencies with sufficient financial resources would be able to advertise. Abortion providers can generate financial resources for advertising by charging more for abortions, whereas most pro-life advice services do not charge clients (or the NHS) for their services. Thus there will be a disproportionate opportunity for abortion providers to advance their cause.
• The predominant wish in the community is for the numbers of abortions to decrease, not increase. However, advertising of abortion services would promote abortion, increase its incidence and thereby increase the harm to all involved.

Please join me in writing now to our MPs, to the prime minister and to party political leaders to oppose lifting the ban on abortion agencies advertising through the broadcast media. You can email your MP from here and contact Mr Brown here. SPUC's submission on the proposed changes in relation to abortion is here.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Family campaigners worldwide must protest against Cameron’s plan to export same-sex marriage

SPUC is calling upon family campaigners worldwide to protest against the British prime minister’s plan to export same-sex marriage, following David Cameron’s speech (see notes 1 & 2 below for extracts) last night at a reception at No. 10 Downing Street, the prime ministerial residence, to thank those who had engineered the rail-roading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act through Parliament.

We are calling for international resistance to the British prime minister’s global plans to impose sexual licence on children and poor families. SPUC will be contacting church leaders, politicians and family campaigners worldwide to alert them to this threat by the British government, asking them to protest to the British embassies in their countries. Same-sex marriage is a counterfeit version of marriage and thus undermines real marriage, which is the best protector of children, both born and unborn.

From the very start of his prime ministership, Mr Cameron and his government have been obsessed with promoting the culture of death around the world. This includes spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the promotion of abortion and contraception. People anxious to defend life and family in their countries must warn their fellow citizens about these insidious activities of British government officials.

Antonia Tully, national coordinator of SPUC’s Safe at School campaign, commented:

"Mr Cameron’s comments about children (see note 2 below) is yet more evidence that legalising same-sex marriage will lead to the promotion of homosexuality in schools. The real scourge in schools is the sexualisation of children, not least through the material which homosexual groups use to target children.”

SPUC has published a position paper on same-sex marriage explaining why SPUC campaigns for real marriage, and a background paper to be read in conjunction with the position paper and which provides some additional references and reflections.

Notes:

1) Mr Cameron thanked ministers and officials (known as the ‘bill team’), saying:

"I’ve told the bill team I’m now going to reassign them because, of course, all over the world people would have been watching this piece of legislation and we’ve set something, I think, of an example of how to pass good legislation in good time. Many other countries are going to want to copy this. And, as you know, I talk about the global race, about how we’ve got to export more and sell more so I’m going to export the bill team. I think they can be part of this global race and take it around the world."

Mr Cameron also said:

“There’s a lot more work to be done as Britain in the Commonwealth, talking to our Commonwealth partners about decriminalising homosexuality in various countries.”

2) In clear references to how the same-sex marriage law will provide momentum to promoting homosexuality in schools, Mr Cameron said:

"I think of young children growing up at school, who might be uncertain about their sexuality, knowing that now, in the highest place in the land – in Parliament – we’ve passed this law that says that marriage is for you, whether you’re gay or whether you’re straight. And I think that is so important to young people growing up."

and

"There’s a lot of work to be done on homophobic bullying in schools, which is still a scourge in our country. There’s a lot of work to be done in terms of hate crimes and how we stop and stamp that out in our society."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time

SPUC has responded to David Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph this morning  in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015.

As I told the media this morning, there are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies.

Mr Cameron's speech reveals that his understanding of marriage and religion is woefully simplistic and ignorant. His mantra of 'equality' totally ignores the nature, history and role of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman ordered towards the procreation of children.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is outside Mr Cameron's remit as a political leader. The family - not the government - is the first and vital cell and source of human society, and is therefore a pre-political institution. By seeking to redefine marriage, Mr Cameron is also seeking to redefine the family, which is based upon marriage between one man and one woman. Mr Cameron is clearly doing his best to copy Tony Blair as a social engineering guru.

SPUC's position paper on same-sex marriage explains why SPUC, as a pro-life campaigning organisation, campaigns against same-sex unions.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Bishop tells Prime Minister: You are undermining the very nature, meaning & purpose of marriage

Congratulations to Bishop Egan, the Catholic bishop of Portsmouth!

Visitors to my blog may wish to visit Bishop Egan's website to read and to print out and to pass on to others his excellent letter to David Cameron, the Prime Minister, which is reproduced in full below.

Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP
Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA

15th December 2012

Dear Mr Cameron

From Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth
I am writing to you to send you best wishes from the priests and people of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, and the promise of our prayers for you, as you carry the heavy responsibility of leading our great nation. However, I am also writing to ask you, indeed to urge you, to change course on your intention to introduce same-sex marriage.

You have said you are an enthusiastic supporter of marriage and that you do not want "gay people to be excluded from a great institution." Yet I wish respectfully to point out that behind what you say lurks a basic philosophical misconception about the nature of 'equality.' Equality can never be an absolute value, only a derivative and relative value. After all, a man cannot be a mother nor a woman a father, and so men and women can never be absolutely equal, only relatively equal, since they are biologically different. So too with marriage. Marriage, ever since the dawn of human history, is a union for life and love between a man and a woman. It is a complementary relationship between two people of the opposite sex, the man and the woman not being the same, but different. They are not, in other words, absolutely equal but relatively equal. This is why gay couples, two men or two women, are not being ‘excluded’ from marriage; they simply cannot enter marriage.

By enabling gays to 'marry' and by equating the union of gay people with marriage, however well-intentioned, you are not only redefining what we mean by marriage but actually undermining the very nature, meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage, and the home, children and family life it generates, is the foundation and basic building block of our society. If you proceed with your plans, you will gravely damage the value of the family, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations. The 2011 Census shows the parlous state of the institution of marriage which you claim to believe in so strongly, and of family life in general, with one in two teenagers no longer living with their birth parents and over 50% of adults living outside of marriage.

Can you imagine the confusion and the challenge for teenagers as they grow up and seek to reach a fully mature and integrated sexuality? This is why I fail to see how your intentions can possibly strengthen the institution of marriage and family life. Rather they will dilute it.

More, you are ignoring the huge opposition of Christians, Jews and Muslims alike, as well as that of a huge number of ordinary people. You are imposing the aspirations of a tiny minority on the vast majority. Make no mistake, the change you are proposing is of immense significance. By it, you will be luring the people of England away from their common Christian values and Christian patrimony, and forcing upon us all a brave new world, artificially engineered. What you are proposing will smother the traditional Christian ethos of our society and in time strangle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church in Britain to conduct its mission. There is no sanction whatsoever in the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian tradition for gay marriage. I cannot see how anyone who claims to be a Christian can possibly justify what you are intending to do.

I know you have spoken of the 'quadruple lock' and other legal safeguards. Yet for me many grave concerns remain about the brave new world you are fashioning in the name of the false gods of equality and diversity. For example, will I as a Christian have to support your ideology when preaching? Will you exempt the Church, its resources and premises, from charges of discrimination if it declines to host same-sex social activities? Will Catholic schools, Catholic societies, Catholic charities and Catholic institutions be free (and legally protected) to teach the full truth of Christ and the real meaning of life and love?

I appreciate how politically difficult it can be to undertake a U-turn and to sustain the attendant criticism such would bring. But when it is a matter of the truth, and the reasons are cast-iron clear, a U-turn would be hailed by history only as brave and courageous. This is why, like a Thomas a Becket appealing to Henry II, I do not hesitate to ask you to consider doing what is the right and just thing to do. Otherwise, will we ever be able to forget that it was the leader of the Conservative Party (sic) who finally destroyed marriage as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between a man and a woman?

I assure you of my respect, best wishes and prayers.

Rt. Rev. Philip A. Egan
Bishop of Portsmouth
CC: Priests and People of Diocese of Portsmouth

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage. )

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy