Well take a look at some of the amendments that they have been lodging in the House of Lords.
Looks like a redefinition to me, of course this only applies to those of same-sex couples as can be seen by a withdrawn amendment on the same line:Clause 1
LORD HYLTON
LORD CORMACK
Page 1, line 5, leave out “Marriage” and insert “Union”
LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFERN
Page 1, line 5, at end insert “and shall be referred to as “marriage (same sex
couples)””
WithdrawnYup.
But apparently marriage as we know it now is no longer good enough for those that are married. It needs redefined and renamed....
Read the full list of redefinitions and comments about them on LGBT+ Lib Dems Northern Ireland
I am so glad that so many notable and honourable people have brought the debate around to marriage = a definition. because we have a very serious and pressing need to redefine marriage and to do so retrospectively. and I am not talking about this, primarily so that same sex couples can get married.
ReplyDeleteMarriage redefinition is abhorrent and anathema to many die-hard bigots but if it is not done so, we are heading for a constitutional crisis when HM QE2 dies. And the likelihood of her dying is more relevant today than it was 60 years ago when I was born.
Charles cannot be king. Certainly not as long as The British monarch has the constitutional title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Unless of course the Church of England in the interim, changes allegiance from Christ to Satan. Charles's union with Camilla albeit recognized by the state is not recognized by God. Jesus Christ in the King James Version of the bible calls this union the sin of Adultery. The union is adultery and that is before any sexual contact within the union. If there is any sexual contact in the union it is mere fornication. Matthew 5:32 (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Fornication sex outside of marriage is also called Sodomy. That will be a surprise to many people. Sodomy that all embracing term of practising the sins of the inhabitants of Sodom. Very few bible scholars highlight this, happy to allow the term only to apply to homosexual sin, but it is Sodomy, the Bible tells us so.
The penultimate book in the Bible as we know it, the one chapter Epistle of Jude in verse seven KJV says Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication (yes it is there), and going after strange flesh (the same-gender sex bit) , are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
And before just moving off Charles one point, if he does become King, will evangelical Christians who are in the houses of Commons and the Lords take an oath of allegiance to a King that is living in such a deliberate sinful life? If they did so, in my opinion, it would be tantamount to giving God 'the finger'.
If Charles in all honour abdicates, then William is next in line. But is William legitimate? Is Harry? Are my three Children, Peter, Keith and Kathryn legitimate? What my three children and William and Harry have in common is that they were born into a union of a man and a woman, but a union that does not fit the current legal definition of marriage. A Union outside of the definition of marriage.
There are four elements to the definition of marriage 1, it is voluntary. 2, it is between a man and a woman, 3, it is for life, and 4, it is to the exclusion of all others. If any one of those 4 elements is missing, then the definition is not complete, therefore the union is not 'marriage' as currently defined.
When I was a police instructor one of the many items of law I taught was the Theft act. The crime of Theft like marriage has a definition, with key elements. One such element is 'Intention'. If any of the key elements was missing the crime of theft was not complete but could have been another crime.
There is no 'intention' in the definition of marriage so is at present irrelevant to that issue and negates any defence of myself and my first wife, or Charles and Diana, that it was our intention, to be for life.
If it is OK that a marriage can exist without any of these four key elements then all Commons and Lords time on this issue was unneeded and a complete and absolute waste of time.
And if so, that time should have been spent on making provision of a way out of the constitutional issue, of what happens when the queen dies.