If the bill passes that hurdle it will then proceed to committee stage and then third reading which will take place around May.
If it passes through the Commons it will then have to negotiate the House of Lords.
This week I was a joint signatory to a letter calling churches to a day of prayer on Sunday 3 February, which was signed by the CEOs of four organisations – Christian Institute, Christian Concern, CARE and CMF.
A very similar letter has been sent out to all supporters of the Evangelical Alliance.
The reasons for opposing this measure, the myths about same sex marriage, the damage it will do to civil liberties and the stories of people already punished under its legal principles have been previously documented on this blog.
The key objections from a Christian perspective have been concisely summarised this week by Archbishop Peter Smith.
The full text of the letter is below.
Dear friend,
Please will you pray earnestly as we enter a crucial period in the campaign to defend the true meaning of marriage?
And can you encourage your church to join our national day of prayer for marriage on Sunday 3 February?
Any day now, we expect the Government to introduce its Bill which seeks to redefine marriage.
But the Bill can’t become law unless it is backed by Parliament – and that is by no means a foregone conclusion.
On the day that the bill is introduced the Government may very well go on a charm offensive, telling the media that people who believe in traditional marriage have nothing to worry about.
But we know that’s not the case. European judges have recently shown that people who believe in traditional marriage can be forced out of their jobs.
On Tuesday 5 Feb, we expect MPs to have the first opportunity to debate and vote on the Bill at what’s called the ‘Second Reading’ stage.
That date may change but, whenever it comes, it may turn out to be a crucial moment in the whole campaign.
We don’t need an outright win at this stage – so don’t worry if the Bill passes this first hurdle – but it is important that as many MPs as possible vote ‘no’.
A healthy ‘no’ vote, even if it’s not an outright majority, will put added pressure on the Government to drop its plans to redefine marriage.
So that’s why we are asking for your prayers. Please pray:
•That marriage will not be redefined, and that real marriage will be promoted in society for the good of all.
•That as many MPs as possible will vote against the Bill to redefine marriage.
•For David Burrowes MP and others, as they lead opposition to the Government’s plans in the House of Commons.
•For the Coalition for Marriage group as it campaigns to defend the true meaning of marriage.
•For politicians and others in public life to have the courage to stand up for what is right and true.
•For the news media, that they would report the issue widely, fairly, and accurately.
•That the true consequences of redefining marriage would be publicly known and properly discussed.
•That people would not face discrimination, in the workplace or elsewhere, because of their sincere beliefs about marriage.
Open prayer is encouraged, but this written prayer may also be of help:
Heavenly Father,
We thank you for the gift of marriage which you established at the dawn of time, to be a blessing for all generations throughout the earth, down through the ages.
We pray that you would fill each and every marriage with your love and grace, and that every husband and wife would know the joy that comes from sharing and giving.
We thank you for establishing marriage to be a secure and stable environment for raising children.
We pray for all those who do not enjoy those blessings, remembering that you are a father to the orphan and a husband to the widow. We pray, as you have commanded us, for those in positions of civil authority.
We pray that our Government will act with wisdom and righteousness, upholding marriage as the voluntary union of one man to one woman for life, for the good of all people.
We pray for forgiveness for our nation, as our Government seeks to redefine marriage. We pray that these plans would fail.
And we pray for ourselves, that we would speak out in support of marriage with gentleness and kindness, but also with courage and confidence.
In the name of Christ Jesus our Lord we pray.
Amen.
Yours in Christ,
Nola Leach (CEO, CARE)
Andrea Minichiello Williams (CEO, Christian Concern)
Colin Hart (CEO, The Christian Institute)
Dr Peter Saunders (CEO, Christian Medical Fellowship)
I shall be writing in order to ensure your bigoted and reactionary views do not go unchallenged. Thank you for providing the details if your bigotry.
ReplyDeleteThanks but you don't need to write. The Lord is ready and listening all the time and will respond equally to prayers that are spoken or even thought.
DeleteSurely god knows better if gay marriage should be permitted without you lot harassing him with your prayers? It will damage no more than church's power and THAT is what you are afraid of; it has nothing to do with civil liberties. A day of your bigoted propaganda, not a day of prayer is what you are calling for. Thanks for this. I will definitely write to support gay marriage. We are not living in dark ages any longer. We have internet. Your numbers are on the decline. Get over it.
ReplyDeleteThanks. It is in God's hands. Internet is good but not nearly as good as prayer.
DeleteWhile you're praying I will be acting. Namely write to my MP in support of gay marriage. FYI there is no evidence whatsoever that prayer is any more effective than throwing a coin onto a wishing well; even the church ministers know that. This is just a publicity stunt to keep church's power over masses.
DeleteKarl, please do not call us bigots. Many thanks.
ReplyDeleteBut you are if you oppose same sex marriage or deny any rights to the same sex couple based on nothing more than an instruction from a book written by people who buried their children in foundations so houses would stand longer. Those are the kind of people whose instructions you follow.
Deletebut no, we are not. marriage is based on objective fact. That fact being that it is precisely from conjugal relationships that future generations come. marriage is there so that as far as possible we may persue the ideal that each human life is the fruit of love and educated in that same love. You are the one insisting that marriage be redefined according to your abitrary whim. why should it not be redefined according to someone else's e.g. that a marriage shoould be between three people or that a marriage must always be between people of the same race. these are arbitrary redefinitions like yours.they are not based on reason or nature. your shout of bigot is just an attempt to drown out the voice of reason.
ReplyDeleteKarl and twiglety,
ReplyDeleteYou tell us, go on, how redefining marriage so that the 'sexual' acts that homosexual couples enact are pleasing to MOST straight women. Everybody knows that straight women HATE men's requests for these perversions.
Straight women's repulsion at sexual perversion is normal and natural and God-given as a sign of what should not be allowed to pass for 'sex' in marriage. It is very basic to the very definition of marriage as monogamous and heterosexual.
As a woman, I can say this: women tend to support legal recognition of same-sex relationships precisely so that homosexual men keep away from them and don't press them with their demands for things they find repulsive.
There is one huge problem, however, which is that desire for the very same perversions is found among many 'straight' men as well. Men who demand these from their wives, and get refused, are more likely to visit *male homosexual prostitutes or have affairs with other men, to gratify their perverse desires.
The text of the Same-Sex Marriage Bill makes it clear that such women have NO legal right to divorce their husbands on the basis of adultery, even though morally, they will have committed adultery. Indeed, their husbands could even divorce THEM for being 'unreasonable' in refusing shall I say it? 'anal sex' and 'oral sex', among other things.
'Anal sex' was the sin of Sodom. Genesis says that Lot didn't want his angelic guests sodomised, so he offered the men of Sodom his *daughters* instead, saying do whatever you want with them, which logically includes 'anal sex' and 'oral sex'.
Lot corrupted his daughters, rather than protecting them against perversion which, remember, *started* from male homosexual counterfeit sexual desires. Later in Genesis, we learn that Lot's daughers complain that there are no men available to have sex with them and give them children. (Why not? They had been converted to homosexuality of course.) So they decide to committ incest with their father in order to become pregnant.
So - from male homosexuality to fathers not protecting their daughers against unsavoury men, to men rejecting women sexually, to women committing incest to have children.
That sequence is what we WILL see in the long-term with the legal redifinition of marriage. The mainstream media won't report it, because they don't have the Biblical worldview to understand seemingly isolated incidents that form part of the bigger picture.
Don't say we didn't warn you. We did.
DeleteBizarre rant, Anonymous.
I've never wanted (or asked for) anal sex from my wife, but what on earth is wrong with *oral* sex, for Pete's sake?
It's one of the most enjoyable kinds of sex there is - there's nothing "dirty" or "perverted" about it. And can you show me where the Bible prohibits it?
I'd advise everyone to try it :)
I love that you have a picture of some happy newlyweds in this article as well - it makes me wonder what dreadful calamities might befall them if the legal definition of marriage is changed? Should my boyfriend and I marry before this law goes through or after? Because if what Anonymous above says is true, I don't fancy waiting too long just in case my boyfriend goes gay and rejects my sexual advances, my Dad refuses to protect me and I'm forced into having sex with my brother in order to have any children!
ReplyDeleteJoMWhite, for some women unfortunate enough to be born into and grow up in families where the men are completely corrupted, yes, such scenarios will actually transpire. In fact they won't be that new in some quarters. It's well-attested sociologically that daughers who aren't protected from sexual sin by their fathers (and mothers) are more prone to engage in various behaviours. It's one way that girls end up in prostitution.
ReplyDeleteCount yourself lucky that you haven't fallen into the horrible trap that I'm describing. Your attitude is selfish and immature, only looking our for yourself while OTHER WOMEN are put at increasing risk of vile sexual sin from men.
As for James. Your comments are the weird, flakey ones here actually. A man's member was not designed or intended by God to be inserted into a woman's mouth. Again, most women detest requests for this. Their repugnance is a good barometer of decent sexual attitudes.