UKIP Libertarian unless if comes against the authority of The Church* #equalmarriage #fisk

With a former Conservative councillor defecting to UKIP over the issue of equalising marriage for same-sex couples up steps David Coburn of UKIP's National Executive Committee to promptly put his foot in it by clearly not understanding the first of the big words he used. As usual I shall fisk in red.

 "We are a libertarian party Libertian n. 1.One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will. adj. of, relating to, or characteristic of a libertarian which doesn't believe in the government interfering in how people live their lives. We support civil partnerships, enabling gay men and women to register their long-term commitment to each other. I have fought for this all my life. 

 "But David Cameron seems to be saying that marriage is something else so much for maximising individual rights as true libertarians. If so, it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths – and it is none of government's business to meddle with it. Ok we come to a point here. The consultation before the people is currently for civil marriage nothing to do with how the churches conduct marriage. They are not meddling in religious marriage and have nothing to do with the church and other faiths.

Mind you on the issue of the church and other faiths, some of them want to be able to offer equal marriage (Quakers, Unitarians, some Liberal Jews, and others)  but the current consultation isn't letting them because it is only focusing on civil marriage. Should the government stop meddling there and let each faith group determine what it wants to define marriage as? Surely that is the Libertarian approach.

 "It seems that, through some kind of political correctness, David Cameron is picking a fight with the millions of people whose religious faiths do not recognise same-sex marriages I state again some faith groups do, but he isn't letting them recognise same-sex marriage David Cameron is only working in the civil sphere. That, in our view, is an aggressive attack on people of faith, and an act of intolerance in itself so being Libertarians only so far as it doesn't go against the authority of say the Church of England and the Bishop of Rome (and you thought UKIP didn't want Germans and the rest of Europe to dictate to us here in the UK). 

"In addition, if the government does legislate in this way, we believe that any criticism of same-sex marriage which may be expressed by someone on the basis of their faith could be classified as a 'hate crime' whereas only calling same-sex long term commitments by some second class name so that some can talk only about married couples and ignore that other classification isn't . That would be a grotesque assault on people's freedom of conscience. But not libertarian enough to look at everyone's freedom on conscience"

Of course the problem above has arisen from UKIP claiming to be Libertarian, however that is Libertarian with provisos and caveats. Murray Rothbard describes Libertarianism thus:

"a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Therefore true libertarians should be allowed to be with whomever they want. If they want to marry they should be free to do so whether it is someone of the opposite or same sex, after all that does not invade the person or property of another. If someone wishes to marry someone of the opposite sex it is not diminished by the desire of someone to marry someone of the same. However, if the person married to someone married or desiring to be married to someone of the opposite sex denies someone seeking to marry someone of the same sex and call it marriage that is an invasion.


Walter Block adds:

"The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms."

So unless equalising marriage threatens to bring about violence against others it should be legalised by a libertarian.


So UKIP and especially David Coburn are you Libertarian or against against equalising gay marriage? I put it to you that you cannot be both.


* Capitalisation of 't' in the in the title is because it is the State and Roman Catholic churches that are most vocal in their opposition (there are of course others), there are other smaller churches that are not opposed to equal marriage.

Yes redefining marriage has led to polygamy

There is a lack of irony in senior members of the Church of England and others arguing that a redefinition of marriage now, to allow same-sex couples to marry, will lead to polygamy. It already did in 1533.

As Matthew 19:6 says about marriage "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." but this is precisely what Henry VIII had to do in order for him to make his mistress Anne Boleyn become his Queen.

Ah, but say the Church of England, God did allow divorce in the bible. Well he certainly did as Jesus went on to say in Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery", that is her sexual immorality not his. The innocent party is allowed to remarry not the guilty one, from what the bible says.


However, we look at the order of events that led up to Henry VIII setting up the Church of England

• Winter 1532 on return from meeting with Francis I of France Henry marries Anne Boleyn in secret
• 25 Jan 1533 Henry marries a pregnant Anne in a second public ceremony
• 23 May 1533 Archbishop Cranmer convenes special court to look at validity of marriage to Catherine of Aragon
• 28 May 1533 Marriage between Henry and Catherine declared null and void (which again is a selective leaving out parts of scripture)

Therefore there were two people who were believed to have been married to Henry VII for over four months. Marriage was redefined and polygamy took place. As stated above divorce for any other reason other than sexual immorality is also seen in the eyes of God as adultery. Therefore there are an awful lot of polygamists around and it is not down to opening marriage to same-sex couples. By the biblical definition which the Church of England Archbishops and Bishops have spoken so adamantly about adhering to polygamy has been going on the this country for almost 500 years, but they decided to turn a relatively blind eye to it.

Therefore the redefinition of marriage came in 1532/3 and it did lead to polygamy. Don't blame it on those of us who are LGB.

Blogged elsewhere: Widdecombe wants referendum on equal marriage just not neutral questions

Ann Widdecombe has called for a referendum on the subject on gay marriage. She believes in doing this because the Coalition for Marriage carried out an opinion poll which showed that 51% of people thought it was unnecessary. This flies in contrast to previous opinion polls.

The reason? I suspect it has to do with the loaded nature of the question asking whether they agree or disagree with this statement:

Since gay and lesbian couples already have the same rights as married couples available to them under civil partnership, they should not be allowed to redefine marriage for everyone else.

So lets look at just what was asked in the other independent opinion polls on the issue.

Read the resf over on LBGT+ Lib Dems Northern Ireland

Do you cultural vandal take this other cultural vandal as your lawfully married husband

Yeah apparently I am now a cultural vandal.

It has nothing to do with the poetry I write. The music that I write, play or perform. The plays I have been in, though I suspect the one I am writing would have had Mary Whitehouse in a tizzy.

No apparently my cultural vandalism stems from love. Lord Carey says so.



He says the Government has no mandate to define marriage, but what mandate does he, or the Church of England, or Coalition for Marriage have to not allow faith and non-faith groups that want to allow equal marriage.

Apparently the web of family will be affected if marriage is redefined. So if this gay Christian uncle were to get married, in a church setting, before God and the people present, would it unravel the web of my family? I trust that I am smart enough to only fall for somebody who would get on with my nephews, would enjoy as much as I do taking them to places, seeing them read or watch new things and answer their questions. If I didn't end up settling for someone like that you have permission to shoot me. Of course bringing someone into the family is an important step just as many years ago my brother brought my sister-in-law into the family (and with her, her parents and sister).

But apparently Lord Carey has spoken to some gay friends who say they are worried that redefining marriage would affect the structure of marriage. I look at the number of people LGBT or straight who don't see it as affecting family relationships in a negative way but as a positive.

Basing any public opinion based purely on the opinion of friends is not a very dodgy way to go about things, they are more likely to agree with your point of view or not be so outspoken about something, especially if your opinion on something is strongly held and publicly known. Yet apparently according to Lord Carey's statement his friends comments are the only evidence that he basing his opinions on. I thought he was supposed to be a man of books and learning to reach the pinnacle of the Church of England.

In the meantime TWIMC SGM cultural vandal 42 GSOH, NM NK NS former athlete, politically active likes NIOO, good food and books,  WLTM similar for LTR possibly leading to M WTR

Read also  Andrew Page (AKA Scottish Liberal) with his take on the same subject.

Church of England Priests want to offer civil partnerships

120 clergy from the London diocese of the Church of England are calling on individual parishes to have the option of taking the decision whether or not they can carry out Civil Partnerships on their premises. The number of signatories is significant as it is over a quarter of the paid clergy in the London area, and within a week of the Archbishop of York's comments to the contrary are significant.

Their letter to The Times reads:

"We, the undersigned, believe that on the issue of holding civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches incumbents/priests in charge should be accorded the same rights as they enjoy at present in the matter of officiating at the marriage of divorced couples in church. 

"Namely, that this should be a matter for the individual conscience of the incumbent/priest in charge."

The wording is very clever as those opposed to same-sex marriage often oppose it on the grounds that traditionally, in their eyes, marriage was between a man and a woman for life. Of course the church has changed the rules of marriage many times down the years. They now do allow people who are divorced to be remarried, even if previous spouses are alive and maybe even present in the congregation. At one point that would have been "just cause why they should not be wed".

The church has also through the years made the closeness of kinship less close into who shall be married, and the age at which marriage can take place has also been changed.

Those who hark back to the biblical principle of marriage often overlook the multiple spouses of the patriarchs, the taking of their wives' slave girls as wives, the concubines of many. Even the words used to describe the love of David for Jonathan and vice versa are things that we never hear talked about, or if we do the meaning is transferred into different words that fit the mind set of the congregation.

One thing that the bible does show us is that the marriages, and all of the above were blessed by God himself at different times, were ones which fitted into the times that they were set. Nobody today is saying that our soldiers should take wives from the people we defeat in battle, yet this was biblically approved. Nobody says that a master can decide which of his slaves should be married; indeed we are in outrage about the possibility of slavery at all.

Therefore when I read a letter like his in today's Belfast Telegraph I'm glad that here are those in the church who are realising the truism of what marriage is.

Update: The following day the Bishop of Salisbury has joined the call for the Church of England to recognise Civil Partnerships and spoke up in favour of equal marriage.

In which I agree with C of E on civil partnerships in church - sort of

So the Church of England have said they won't hold civil partnership ceremonies in their churches. I say good.

Now many of you who know that I am a campaigner for equal marriage may be a little shocked by opening line, but let me explain.

The consultation in England and Wales is not as complete as the one the is drawing to a close in Scotland this week. It only has one option a civil partnership to be carried out by a religious celebrant. The Scots are looking at equalising marriage, allowing religious groups to carry out same sex marriage and looking at the necessity or not of maintaining civil partnerships if that is the case, as well as looking and the England and Wales proposals. You will notice as I do that Northern Ireland hasn't got any consultation on equal marriage of any type going on or pending.

However, why do I agree with the Church of England on this? Probably not for the reason that the Bishops are in opposition but for the sheer hypocricy of the idea of civil partnerships being carried out on religious premises when a civil marriage is carried out by the same registrar at the registry office of other designated building. Of course the Government aren't proposing that civil marriage is to be carried out on religious premises that would be pointless. If people want a religious location to carry out their ceremony of commitment they want the hymns, prayers, religious lesson for marriage all interspersed within the ceremony. But with a civil partnership that cannot be the case, so it is nowhere near equal.

You see for me as an LGBT person of faith a civil partnership in a church just isn't the same as what my other friends get. Also a civil ceremony should not be in a religious setting, if you want a civil ceremony its because for whatever reason you don't want a religious element. However, there are religious groups that want to be able to carry out same sex marriage. There is religious freedom in the proposals which allow religious groups to opt-in to the ability to carry out same-sex ceremonies. Because of that the Church of England is not opposing the proposals.

I repeat.

The Church of England are NOT opposing the suggestion of civil partnerships in religious buildings, they just don't see it as something that their church will buy into.

Note before anyone criticises me for having a go at the good that Lynne Featherstone has achieved in getting this far, I'm not. On the day that she made her announcement at Lib Dem conference I did talk to her about these issues. She said she had done the best she could, seeing as the men who debated our coalition deal had forgotten to include anything in their deal about this issue and that she was aware it was far short of what the Lib Dem policy on the issue was and she'd carry on working for that to be fully implemented.

Only (Straight) Men Allowed

It would seem that the Anglican Church is set to have another debate about whether to catch up with other denominations, except the Holy See in Rome, and lift the glass ceiling. For 16 years now women have been allowed to be parish priests but with no hope of progress on the career ladder within the church.

In the same time there have been female Moderators of the Church of Scotland and leaders of the Methodists. Yet there seems no certain move for the Anglican Church because of the threat of the Anglo-Catholics either removing themselves or their wealth from the Anglican communion, or merely causing such an uproar to make the who move nearly unworkable.

Of course the other wing of the Church has recently scored by once again halting the possible elevation of Jeffrey John to the Bishopric of Southwark.

So the only senior post that a women, and presumably a gay man can seemingly hold in the Church of England is that of Supreme Governor. Of course to qualify for that you have to be the first born son, or daughter thereafter/instead of the previous monarch or their closest familial alternative. Not much hope for many then, unless a sensible decision is reached this week over women bishops.

Women Bishops But Not Fully Empowered

On a chess board the two Bishops are dressed in the same colour, start from roughly the same place, seem to have the same focus, but they never meet. The reason is of course that one uses the white square and the other's the black. The King and Queen, between them have the same basic move but the King can only move one square in any direction and the Queen can go as far as she pleases.

The Church of England is planning to legislate so that female bishops will be more like a hamstrung King that a fully fledged Bishop when their ascent to the Bishop's seats comes to be some point after 2014. For yes there are moves afoot to replace a stained glass ceiling in the way of those female vicars that are good enough for being a full participant in the House of Bishops. The Church of England has been listening to submissions from many opposed to the ordination of woman bishops and looking for the need of their special care when the inevitable comes to pass.

Ruth McCurry chairs a group supporting the ordination of woman bishops and sees worrying signs of what is happening:

"You will have a group of people who don't recognise each other as bishops. What kind of church do they think they're in when they are not in communion with each other? You are legislating this schism into existence and you are creating a two-tier church, a category of second-class bishops. People could refuse to receive communion from Rowan [Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury] if he were to ever ordain a woman as a bishop.

"Unfortunately I have come to terms with the fact that you cannot have women bishops without discrimination, lots of men will be discriminated against too, and this poor committee is trying to find an elusive formula that will keep everyone happy. They can't."

So is the Church of England really legislating itself into a schism? Quite possibly. However, other denominations have not just had the equivalent of women bishops but some have even had female leaders. Moderators of the General Assembly here in Scotland and the like. The fact that some in the Church of England are still so pent up on the gender of someone rather than their ability to perform the duties is a travesty in the 21st Century. Without women priests there would be a lot of vacate parishes, or overstretched male vicars covering extra flocks. To deny them the same career track as their male counterparts, or deny them part of the duties upon promotion, is something that the Church leadership should not allow.

Having brought female vicars into being the Church must recognise that the cream will rise to the top. As in all walks of live and must be allowed to do so unhindered and unfettered.

Rocester's Rant before Retirement - Or is it Rupturement?

Yesterday I read in Patrick Hannan's book A Useful Fiction:

"As for those Dawkins opposes [religions] , it's difficult to escape the conclusion that, far from concerning themselves with central questions of belief and the way in which they should shape the lives of their congregations, Christian churches have become almost completely preoccupied by disputes about the sexual practises of the clergy."

Well yesterday I was also reading about Scott Rennie recieving a ovation when he was installed as the new Minister of Queen's Cross Kirk in Aberdeen and Nick Clegg calling for more gay rights. Then this morning we have one of the prime examples of a reason for the disestablishment of the Church of England Dr Dr Michael Nazir-Ali Bishop of Rochester, whose voting record on gay rights to the general public is appalling, proved Hannan's point but taking it down to the flock and beyond.

The Bishop, who is stepping down in September 10 years early, made the front page of the Telegraph after saying:

"We want to uphold the traditional teaching of the Bible. We believe that God has revealed his purpose about how we are made.

"People who depart from this don’t share the same faith. They are acting in a way that is not normative according to what God has revealed in the Bible.

"The Bible’s teaching shows that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the way to express our sexual nature.

"We welcome homosexuals, we don’t want to exclude people, but we want them to repent and be changed."

It also appears that the Bishop, who didn't succeed Lord Carey to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, is also on the verge of setting up a Church within the Church of those opposed to the line taken by Archbishop Rowen Williams. Thus he is fulfilling warnings given by the Dean of Southwark Colin Slee that this was the true intent of his early retirement.

As Caron pointed out last weekend the views of the Bishop of Rochester thankfully aren't the view of all senior Anglicans.

Labour Attack Bishops For Speaking the Truth

OK I've attack the church a little bit recently but when they point out that the divide between rich and poor is getting wider that is something that the Lib Dems have been pointing out to Labour for a while.

The Church is often a good judge of how the poorest are getting on as they are usually behind, involved in running or knowledgeable in the conditions of such. So when they say there is a growing divide not aided by the debt culture that is being encouraged they should be listened to.

However, Labour in what is now their usual behaviour have ignored facts and evidence that is contrary to their narrative. The five bishops had branded the government morally corrupt for encouraging a credit culture and making people live beyond their means. The fact that even government parlance of giving credits rather than benefits heightens the acceptance of credit as an acceptable way of living. The Bishops also pointed out that while the bankers have received large bail outs, the government has been doing little to help the less well off in comparison, the government being tight fisted in what it offers the people who actually suffer.

Facing the government itself has borrowed over and over to gets itself out of difficulties far from being a prudent hoarder saver of wealth when available. See the government likes to talk the talk on poverty, but apart from actions in the first four years of Labour governance that has been all they have done. They have been all talk and failing to walk the walk in successive budgets and plans since.

Women Bishops

I'm glad that the Anglican Church has finally caught up with other denominations and voted yesterday to allow women to become Bishops. We've already had female Presbyterian Moderators, female Prime Minister etc so we may eventually have a female Archbishop of Canterbury.

I'm also glad that the concessions for super-bishops and dioceses for those opposed to female bishops was turned down. The women ministers I have met are every bit as good and able at shepherding their flock as men are, many of them more so. There should not be concessions to those opposed to them you only need to point out Ruth, Esther or Naomi in the bible to show that women have always had ability. Only the cream will rise to the top as Bishops but that is the same in every profession. The possibility is that the Church may well be one profession where now that the glass ceiling has been lifted it is actually easier for women to reach a greater equality at the top than business or politics.

The work-life balance in the church is a lot easier than a lot of professions as home and work are closely situated. Of course I also know the counter argument that as a result they never seem to be separated out, but even the most trying of times ministers in the church will know that their family is not that far away at the end of the day.

The church of England is moving into the 21st Century and realising that it has to utilise the best potential that it has at its disposal. All steps in the right direction are good news.