Today's aggressive LGBT rights movement takes no prisoners – and it’s not finished yet

I suspect that few reading this blog will have heard of the ILGA but will equally not be surprised to learn that it exists.

The International lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex association (ILGA) is a worldwide federation of 1,100 member organisations from 110 countries campaigning for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex rights.

Its European wing maps the LGBT status of every European country and from this portal you can easily access the legal summary for the UK.

The latter lists the legislative objectives achieved and those still sought in these islands – in great detail.

You may be surprised that LGBT activists believe that there still are legal battles to fight. Northern Ireland still does not recognise hate crime on grounds of gender identity and has not yet legalised same sex marriage. Scotland has not yet criminalised hate speech on grounds of sexual orientation.

But overall the UK bridges not yet crossed are very few.

The ILGA is building a similar legal analysis for every nation on earth and its member organisations are working collaboratively to achieve every legislative objective.

Some may say ‘so what?’ Why shouldn’t LGBT people have the freedom to have what they are asking for?

But the problem is that legal rights for some constitute legal duties for others. Gay rights were once a concession. They then became an expectation. Now it seems they are a requirement.

What began as ‘accept me’ quickly became ‘affirm me’ and then ‘celebrate me… or else’.

Those who resist being coerced to deliver on the LGBT agenda pay a heavy price – not just ridicule and marginalisation, but legal sanctions - dismissal, fines, imprisonment, gagging and being driven from the public square.

These activists will not tolerate disagreement or dissent. Every knee must be made to bow, to recite the mantras and creeds and to grease the LGBT machinery.

The Coalition for Marriage has this week published a leaflet outlining 30 cases involving individuals or groups who have been ‘punished’ for ‘believing in traditional marriage’.

Each case is documented and carefully referenced and although coming from all over the world the vast majority come from the UK. Some examples:

Ashers Baking Company, owned by the McArthur family, was taken to court by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland for declining to produce a pro-gay marriage campaign cake.

Lillian Ladele was pushed out of her job as a registrar at Islington Council for asking her managers to accommodate her belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull were ordered to pay £3,600 in damages because their B&B in Cornwall had a policy of only allowing married couples to share a double bed.

Andrew McClintock was forced to resign as a magistrate in Sheffield because he didn’t believe placing children with same-sex couples was in their best interests. He lost his discrimination case at an employment appeal tribunal.

All Roman Catholic adoption agencies in England have been forced to close or abandon their religious ethos because of their policy of only placing children with traditionally married couples.

That’s five. There are 25 more. And so it goes on and on. I’m informed that these 30 cases are a small minority of those that have occurred. A mere tip of the iceberg.

Now it appears that we are in for more of the same with the three main political parties all pledging in their election manifestos to do more for LGBT ‘rights’. They are full of specious euphemisms which cleverly disguise the realities for those will not play ball.

The Conservative Manifesto trumpets its pride in legalising same-sex marriage and promises more: 

‘Our historic introduction of gay marriage has helped drive forward equality and strengthened the institution of marriage. But there is still more to do, and we will continue to champion equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people. We will build on the posthumous pardon of ... Alan Turing ... with a broader measure to lift the blight of outdated convictions of this nature’ (p46).  

The Labour Manifesto speaks of combatting ‘homophobia’:

‘We will also build on our history of championing LGBT rights, tackling homophobia with tougher laws at home and greater engagement abroad (p67) ...Labour will ...appoint an International LGBT Rights Envoy and a Global Envoy for Religious Freedom’ (p81).

The Liberal Democrat Manifesto boasts about further ‘marriage liberalisation’:

‘We will ... permit humanist weddings and opposite sex civil partnerships, and liberalise the rules about the location, timing and content of wedding ceremonies ... promote international recognition of same sex marriages and civil partnerships as part of a comprehensive International LGBT Rights Strategy’ (p107). 

It is clear that whoever gets to form a government after the general election on 7 May will be actively advancing the LGBT agenda.

Those who believe, teach and practise traditional Christian teaching on marriage, relationships and sexuality are therefore going to find themselves increasingly on the wrong side of the law as this new political correctness is taught is schools, enforced by the constabulary and judiciary and promulgated by the media, in parliament, through celebrity culture and inevitably in our churches.

Our first priority in opposing its pernicious influence must be to ensure that our congregations – and especially our children and young people – are firmly grounded in biblical teaching and also well briefed in how to argue against the new agenda. It is a task that will require clarity, compassion and, above all, courage.

The enemy’s goal is to undermine real marriage and the family. We must resist him with every fibre of our being – through speaking up for the truth and by faithfully upholding God’s model in our personal lives and Christian communities. 

Major poll finds three in ten voters will not back Tories due to same-sex marriage

It looks like David Cameron’s decision to redefine marriage seems set to hurt the Conservative Party’s electoral chances in the European elections. 

Almost three in ten voters cite the Prime Minister’s policy on same-sex marriage as the reason why they are not backing the Conservatives.

The poll of over 2,000 people comes ahead of the local and European elections next week.

The ComRes poll:

• Predicts a UKIP win in the Euro elections, with a scrap between Labour and the Conservatives for second place.
• Unveils a widespread scepticism about the PM’s motives for introducing gay marriage. Six in ten people believe the Prime Minister introduced same-sex marriage to make the Conservative Party look trendy.
• Shows that over half of those surveyed don’t believe that Mr Cameron has the determination and power to block any proposals from Europe which would undermine our freedoms.
• Demonstrates that introducing same-sex marriage not only irked older voters but young people too, with nearly one in four 18-24 year-olds citing it as reason for not voting Conservative in the upcoming European elections.

The detailed poll results are available on the ComRes website

As the Prime Minister was warned at the time, redefining marriage without any mandate from the British people would cost him huge numbers of votes.

The outcome of the vote next week looks set to be fascinating. 

I suspect on the basis of this poll that the redefinition of marriage will be a significant factor.

Gay partnerships – how far should we go in tolerating ‘evangelicals’ who endorse them?

The Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones (£), and Baptist minister Steve Chalke have both recently come out in support of the church affirming monogamous gay (sexual) partnerships.

James Jones says that gay partnerships are among a number of major moral issues where ‘the church allows a large space for a variety of nuances, interpretations, applications and disagreements’.

Steve Chalke has written a special liturgy for gay partnerships that he has published on his Oasis charity website along with a full ‘evangelical exegesis’ of his pro-gay stance (More here and here).

The House of Bishops’ pastoral statement on civil partnerships of July 2005 specifically precludes the clergy of the Church of England from conducting services of blessing for those who have entered into a civil partnership.

It states: ‘Clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership.’

Steve Clifford, general director of the Evangelical Alliance (EA), has said that he believes the conclusions Chalke has come to on same-sex relationships are wrong. He has also expressed ‘sadness and disappointment’ at the way Chalke, an EA member, ‘has not only distanced himself from the vast majority of the evangelical community here in the UK, but indeed from the Church across the world and 2,000 years of biblical interpretation’. 

And yet both Justin Welby, the new archbishop of Canterbury, and Steve Clifford seem committed to an ongoing dialogue with those with whom they disagree. Welby has called for the church to disagree ‘gracefully’ over gay marriage and Clifford has stressed that ‘as we have this discussion let's remember that Jesus requires us to disagree without being disagreeable’.

Am I alone in finding this all rather disturbing?

To Jones and Chalke, the issue of whether or not one should bless gay partnerships is a secondary issue on which evangelicals can legitimately take different positions – in other words both views (acceptance and rejection of gay partnerships) fall within the boundaries of evangelicalism. 

Neither is offering his resignation. This is particularly interesting given that the Courage Trust resigned from EA in 2002 when it decided to take the same position on gay partnerships that Chalke is now espousing and affirming.  

But it seems to me also that, in spite of Clifford’s and Welby’s clear personal stance on the issue (both take the orthodox position that the only context for sex is within monogamous, heterosexual marriage), in practice they appear to regard gay partnerships as being in the category of what Paul called ‘disputable matters’,  issues (of the Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 & 10 variety) on which evangelical Christians can legitimately disagree and yet remain 'in fellowship'.

I say ‘in practice’ because they appear to be taking the view that those who hold to and teach Jones’ and Chalke’s view on gay partnerships should be debated with ‘gracefully’ and ‘agreeably’ rather than being disciplined.

This approach seems to be at odds with EA's own official position which reads as follows (emphasis mine):

'We believe both habitual homoerotic sexual activity without repentance and public promotion of such activity are inconsistent with faithful church membership. While processes of membership and discipline differ from one church to another, we believe that either of these behaviours warrants consideration for church discipline' 

EA appears not to be abiding by its own policy but a far more important question is, 'Does ongoing 'gracious debate' square with what the Bible teaches?' I’m not at all sure that it does.

The ‘one man, one woman, for life’ (marriage) context for sexual relations of Genesis 2:24 is a creation ordinance for all mankind. Furthermore the complementarity and permanence of the marriage relationship mirrors the complementarity and permanence of Christ’s relationship with his body (and bride) the church (Ephesians 5:22-33).

Old Testament teaching on sexuality (detailed in Leviticus 18 & 20) makes it very clear that the only proper context for sexual relations is within (heterosexual) marriage. These two chapters straddle Leviticus 19 with its injunctions to ‘Be Holy because I the Lord am holy’ (19:2) and to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ (19:18).

Jesus upholds the creation ordinance of marriage (Matthew 19:4-6) and indicates that sexual purity goes beyond mere actions to thoughts and motivations (Matthew 5:27-32).

Paul points out the unique nature of sexual sin (porneia) in that it involves sin ‘against one’s own body’ (1 Corinthians 6:18-20) and argues that sexual purity is part of sanctification, living a holy life (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8).

Furthermore we receive the grave warning in Revelation (21:8 and 22:15) that the unrepentant sexually immoral are destined for the lake of fire and will not partake of the tree of life.

The book of Hebrews (10:26) tells us that ‘If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God’.

The Bible is also very clear that homosexual practice in particular, as well as being included within the boundaries of sexual immorality (porneia), is also a specific marker of a society that has turned its back on God – Genesis 19, Judges 19 and Romans 1 are familiar examples.

Jesus himself calls the church of Thyatira to repentance over ‘(tolerating) that woman Jezebel’ who ‘by her teaching’ ‘misleads my servants into sexual immorality’ (Revelation 2:20-25).

Sex outside marriage is viewed very seriously indeed in Scripture but false teaching which leads people into sexual sin is viewed even more seriously (Luke 17:1-2) and warnings about the affirmation and endorsement of sexual immorality (2 Peter 2 and Jude are poignant examples) are particularly strong.

Those who lead ‘little ones’ astray (Matthew 18:6), like those they mislead, are in great danger. This is why it is so important for us to exercise godly discipline with them (Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 17:3-4; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19, 20) for their own sakes, as well as for those who they might mislead or have already misled.

Those who raise these uncomfortable issues in the church are often are told ‘not to judge’, but the Bible is very clear that in the case of sexual immorality or false teaching it is actually our responsibility as Christians to ‘judge’ and to exercise discipline (1 Corinthians 5:1-13).

When there was a serious issue that threatened the integrity of the early church (with whole groups being led astray) the apostles called a council. We read about it in Acts 15. The matter (in that case circumcision) was seen as serious and meriting prompt action. It is interesting that one of the conclusions of that first council was that all Christians were to avoid sexual immorality (Acts 15:29). When the church has encountered other serious issues throughout the centuries councils have similarly been called to bring resolution.

I am no expert on church history and cannot ever recall a church council specifically on sexual morality but I can also not recall a time in history when senior church leaders sought to affirm or bless sexual behaviour that the Bible clearly teaches is immoral.

Can we imagine the apostle Paul leaving a situation like this to smoulder and fester? Would he not rather have urged his co-workers to ‘command certain men not to teach false doctrines’ (1 Timothy 1:3) and to ‘gently instruct in the hope that God will grant repentance’ (2 Timothy 2:25). Would he have not insisted that false teachers ‘must be silenced’ (Titus 1:11)? 

Do we really think that Jesus himself, given his clear warnings about the dangers of false teaching, would have allowed a situation like this to persist unchallenged? Should we be acting any differently? Is it really enough to ‘disagree without being disagreeable’ and to debate ‘gracefully’?   

When false teaching is allowed to fester in the church, and when godly discipline is not exercised with those who are propagating it, whole households, churches and communities can be ruined (Titus 1:11).

I am becoming increasingly uneasy about how we evangelicals have allowed this particular situation to drift. I believe that the time for tolerance and discussion is over and that we need now to act.  

Tim Loughton MP's letter to constituents about why he opposed the redefinition of marriage

Tim Loughton (pictured) has been the Conservative MP for East Worthing and Shoreham since the 1997 general election. He was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families from 2010-2012.

His letter to constituents about why he voted against the redefinition of marriage speaks for itself.

Dear constituent

Thank you for writing to me about the Marriage (Same Sex) Bill which you will have seen was debated in Parliament yesterday. Given your interest from whichever side of the argument I thought you would like to have a link to the Hansard record where you can read a full account of the debate which was very well attended and good natured. Given the number of speakers in a time limited debate contributions were limited to just 4 minutes so my own comments were very limited and I thought I would elaborate a little more on my reasons for opposing the Bill.

I am particularly grateful that the many hundreds of letters, emails and calls I received about the legislation were measured, well intentioned and personally written reflecting constituent’s deeply held views on this contentious issue, rather than the usual lobby group mass circular campaign. Such an approach always has much more influence on me and all MPs. In my comments in the Commons I concentrated on urging all sides to have respect for the views of others however much they may disagree with the opposing view. This is particularly important on a free vote issue not subject to Party policy and obviously not party manifesto commitments at the last election. Each MP needs to vote according to his or her conscience, be transparent in the reasons for that and obviously accountable to constituents.

As they say ‘you can never please all of the people all of the time’ and with over 90,000 constituents to serve voting one way will always disappoint many others urging me to do differently. In the vast majority of cases constituents can respect this impossible position as long as I make myself accountable which I always seek to do. Some I am afraid were quick to despatch emails accusing me of being bigoted, homophobic or closed minded for having voted against ironically revealing their own intolerance on an issue which is all about tolerance and equality of argument. I am afraid abuse from a minority only serves to convince me that I am doing the right thing.

I have set out previously why the measure to redefine marriage to include same sex couples did not sit comfortably with my own long and strongly held beliefs about the nature of marriage. Yesterday I concentrated on almost exclusively secular arguments for why I think this Bill is bad legislation, under 3 main headings: process, the legitimacy of trying to redefine marriage and what next?

As with many other MPs I was very uncomfortable in this Bill coming before Parliament when it did not appear in any Party’s manifesto at the last election; it has not been the subject of any Green paper or White Paper consultation and was not in the Coalition Agreement of May 2010. What is the urgency and legitimacy for rushing the legislation through now when there are many other things which were in our manifesto which are yet to be achieved.

I voted enthusiastically in 2004 for the introduction of Civil Partnerships which gave same sex couples full equivalent rights and entitlements in the eyes of the law and society as for heterosexual couples. I believe that was absolutely the right thing to do and has worked well, it was an end in itself. Yet 9 years on what has happened to make it a priority that we now need the traditional form of marriage to be available to everyone? I do not believe that question has been answered. The Equality lobby groups had not been pressing for it and constituents have not been writing to me about it before it was made a live issue last year. I know many constituents would feel greatly aggrieved if the Government brought forward other completely contentious and new measures of which there was no warning before the last election.

I view Civil Partnerships as no less valued or unequal to marriage. Indeed former Labour Cabinet Minister and equality campaigner Ben Bradshaw said quite clearly that ‘This isn’t a priority for the gay community which already won equal rights. We’ve never needed the word marriage. I agree, which is why it is all the more important that we do not treat such a fundamental issue as the definition of marriage in such a scant and complacent way. For centuries marriage has been recognised as the cornerstone of family life as the union of one man with one woman, subject to being above the age of consent, willing, available and not closely related. That is a benchmark which has been clearly understood across a whole range of faiths and cultures and across political boundaries, even before states and religions existed.

Whether you have faith yourself or not we all have a duty to respect and tolerate the beliefs of those who do, and for many of faith redefining marriage in this way is a significant hurdle for them to cross. So my challenge which again has not been answered is on what basis does this Government or this country believe it can change the nature of an institution which has been constant for ages across all boundaries, state and cultural?

Thirdly there are very serious concerns under the ‘What Next’ category. In the future will marriage be redefined further, and to what, and indeed what will the whole point of marriage become when as this bill does we render gender meaningless for the purposes of a marriage? This contrasts with it currently being the central social institution which expresses the idea that men and women are equally valuable as men and women.

As I have said, I do not regard my church marriage as superior to another man’s civil partnership, it is just different. In any case we do not think of people as religiously married or civilly married, they are just married. But the debate about same sex marriage is a debate about using the law to change the meaning of the social institution of marriage, and that affects everyone. When you politicise a fundamentally social institution as is now being proposed you change marriage for all. It is not about just giving a one way entitlement to same sex couples.

For people who cannot accept such a change because it conflicts with their faith or conscience then will they be penalised under the law just as we have seen cases in the European Court where registrars, relationship counsellors and housing officers have lost their jobs because they could not endorse civil partnerships. Already a poll has indicated that up to 40,000 teachers would decline teaching about same sex marriage. NHS and army chaplains and many other public service workers might also see their positions compromised let alone ministers in other religions who we are promised will not be forced to be involved in same sex marriages.

Importantly the senior law officers in Parliament have so far been unable to give definitive answers about some of the likely knock on effects and just how securely the Government’s proposed ‘quadruple lock mechanism’ will stand up in the courts. It was telling in the main vote after the debate on the Bill that the Attorney General deliberately abstained and the Solicitor General voted against the legislation.

There are many other potential flaws in the legislation and its workability which will now come under closer scrutiny as the Bill proceeds into Committee stages where I am likely to be a member, before it passes on to the lords where there is likely to be much fierce debate.

My bottom line is that I do not recognise that this Bill is an equality measure. It imparts no additional rights or entitlements on same sex couples than had not already quite rightly been achieved through civil partnerships. If it were otherwise I would be at the front of the queue to right such an injustice.

Where I do think the problem lies is that in some parts of our society gay people are still not properly accepted, respected and in some cases discriminated against. That is not acceptable and that is the challenge that we have to address once and for all if we are to achieve a society fit for the 21st century in which all can live comfortably, securely and equally. That is a challenge and duty for all of us and the Government needs to continue to take the lead on this. However, promoting legislation which is about changing a word and the nature of a ceremony will not achieve this in my view and that is why I opposed this legislation.

I hope this is helpful and as usual I welcome your further interest.

Yours sincerely

Tim Loughton MP

Teachers will be sacked and children will be indoctrinated with gay rights propaganda if same sex marriage bill goes through

The Daily Telegraph carried a front-page story this week saying that the Government is ‘powerless’ to stop teachers getting sacked if they refuse to endorse same-sex marriage.

It quotes a senior source at the Department for Education admitting that the UK is not ‘in control’ and that European judges will have the final say.

We knew that teachers were under threat, but now we know the Government secretly thinks so too.

The Coalition for Marriage (C4M) recently published a legal opinion from leading QC Aidan O’Neill (summary here) confirming that one of the major impacts of David Cameron’s new law allowing same sex marriage would be in the classroom.

It says that the law will require that children learn about gay marriage in sex education lessons.

This is because Section 403(1A)(a) of the Education Act 1996 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State ‘to issue guidance’ ensuring that pupils ‘learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children’.

If gay marriage becomes law then ‘its importance for family life and the bringing up of children’ must be taught as part of sex education.

In addition, if gay marriage is taught within schools outside sex education, Mr O’Neill says that parents would have ‘little prospects of success’ in claiming a legal right to withdraw children from such lessons.

The Coalition for Marriage has now published a new report giving details of exactly the sort of material our children will be reading.

Gay Rights Activist group Stonewall has already produced a recommended reading list for primary and secondary schools aimed at normalising lesbian and gay families.

Titles include ‘King and King’, ‘Mom and Mum are getting married’, ‘Daddy, Papa and Me’, ‘Daddy’s roommate’, ‘Josh and Jaz have three mums’ and ‘Mommy, mama and me’.

Countering stigma for vulnerable children is one thing, but attempting to engineer and reshape children’s values and worldviews is quite another altogether.

A teacher training guide, also produced by Stonewall, suggests that primary school children could perform some of the storybooks as school plays.

An accompanying teacher training DVD produced by Stonewall, with support from the taxpayer-funded Training and Development Agency for Schools, suggests that pupils must become ‘resilient’ to the values of their parents and grandparents.

This is in reference to some parents and grandparents who may have objections to issues such as gay marriage.

In 2009, Muslim and Christian parents in Waltham Forest, East London, were threatened with prosecution for withdrawing their children from primary schools lessons that used the gay marriage story book, ‘King & King’. The council said the withdrawals were ‘unauthorised’ absences and that action would be taken against the parents.

The legal and political pressure to use these books in classrooms will be all the greater if marriage gets redefined. Culture wars about the meaning of marriage shouldn’t be dragged into our schools.

But some extreme local authority somewhere will try to do just that, and woe betide any teacher or parent who objects.

What we have learnt from two of the recent four European court cases involving Christians who lost their jobs for manifesting their faith is that under the Equality Act the right of Christian conscience is trumped by gay rights.

The Bill to redefine marriage was published on 25 January and MPs will vote on it for the first time on Tuesday 5 February.

I hope that these concerns will come up in debate and that MPs who back gay marriage will be around to hear them rather than just mindlessly filing through the ‘yes’ lobby in obedience to ‘unofficial whips’ when it is time to vote.

A national day of prayer has been called for on Sunday 3 February.

Same sex marriages can be ‘open’ marriages because ‘adultery’ will not legally exist

It has long been suspected that same sex marriage is a legal can of worms.

But David Cameron's new proposed same sex marriage law may change the nature of marriage beyond even his wildest imaginings.

Currently marriage and same sex civil partnerships are dealt with under two different types of legislation.

The formalities of marriage are predominantly governed by the Marriage Act 1949, the Marriage Act 1983 and the Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Act 1970.

By contrast the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) defines civil partnership as a formal legal relationship between two people of the same sex but gives same-sex couples virtually all of the rights and privileges of married couples.

The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’.

There are however some differences in English law, between a marriage and a civil partnership, but these differences focus not on the rights they confer, but on the genders of the partners, the procedure and place where the partnership is formed, and the roles of consummation and adultery in making and breaking the relationship.

These differences are there because they are different types of relationship. It is not ‘one size fits all’.

Currently same-sex couples cannot get married and opposite-sex couples cannot form civil partnerships.

One of the most intriguing mysteries about David Cameron’s plans to redefine marriage to include same sex couples was always therefore going to be how he would deal with ‘consummation’ and ‘adultery’.

At present a marriage can be declared void if it is not ‘consummated’. And if necessary, whether consummation has been achieved needs to be determined by medical examination. But how is a lesbian or gay marriage to be consummated? Interesting question!

In the same way adultery is grounds for divorce, but the legal definition of adultery is based on (how does one say this politely?) a certain kind of genital contact. So how exactly do lesbian or gay couples commit adultery? Or are the consummation and adultery definitions just to be dropped?

This is important because when a marriage breaks down, and the bickering over who has a right to what begins (in terms of possessions, money, children etc), then the outcome could depend, at least in part, on whether or not the marriage has been consummated and whether or not there has been adultery.

So how would Cameron deal with this problem?

Well now that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has been published we finally know.

There will be no consummation or adultery for same sex couples.

The explanatory notes are more explicit than the Bill itself on this point with respect to consummation:

‘108. Paragraph 4 [of Part 3] amends section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. The effect of this amendment is that non-consummation (either by reason of incapacity or wilful refusal) cannot be a ground on which a marriage is voidable for a same sex couple. The provisions for opposite sex couples remain unaltered.’

And adultery? Well it will simply not exist for same sex couples.

Under the Government's draft Bill only infidelity between a man and a woman constitutes adultery.

So while the law would give same-sex couples the right to marry, they would not be able to divorce their partner on the basis of adultery if their spouse went on to be unfaithful - unless they cheated with somebody of the opposite sex.

It also states that a straight person who discovered their husband or wife had a lover of the same-sex could not accuse their unfaithful partner of adultery in a divorce court.

So what does this mean?

First that this supposed equal marriage for same sex couples is not equal at all because in traditional marriage there is consummation and adultery and in same sex marriage there is not.

Second, this will mean that as soon as the ink is dry on the new law – assuming it passes – it will be ripe for attacks by people who might want, for whatever reason, to abolish consummation and adultery for traditional marriage as well on grounds of equality.

Imagine the following scenario. A man marries a wealthy heiress with no intention to consummate – she dies and the man claims his inheritance. The Estate argues that the heiress was in the process of getting an annulment for non-consummation. The man says he is being discriminated against because he is a heterosexual. If he was gay there is no requirement for consummation – what about his human rights?

According to the Daily Mail, lawyers and MPs have already argued that the distinction over adultery - which arose after Government legal experts failed to agree on what constitutes sex between same-sex couples - would cause confusion.

They warned it would create inequality between heterosexual and homosexual married couples who found themselves in the divorce courts, and said it would likely result in adultery being abolished altogether as a grounds for divorce.

Third, it means that same-sex marriages will, in effect, be legal open marriages. As long as both partners consent in a same sex marriage, each of them can have as many sexual partners as they choose, as long as they are all of the same sex, without actually ever committing adultery. This may actually suit some couples but it completely alters the meaning of marriage which is based on sexual faithfulness.

In fact since one is married without consummation, the situation might arise where a married member of a same sex couple could have sex with any number of people he is not married to (provided they are of the same sex) without ever committing adultery (because it doesn’t exist for same sex marriages) and without ever actually having sex with his or her married partner.

So for same sex couples, sex will be legally uncoupled from marriage altogether. And if there is a legal challenge on the basis of equality, the same thing may follow for traditional marriage.

I wonder if anyone has yet explained this to David Cameron?

I suspect he may be in for a few extra late night briefing before second reading on 5 February.

Steve Chalke affirms same sex partnerships

Controversial Baptist Minister Steve Chalke, who recently joined the ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ Group, which endorses gay marriage, has now written an article for 'Christianity' magazine, in which he more publicly confirms his support for ‘exclusive and permanent same-sex relationships’.

The Times reports (£) that he ‘changed his own mind, not just through personal opinion and experience, but as part of his growing understanding of the Christian Bible’.

He says that he ‘has written a special liturgy for gay partnerships’ that he has published on his Oasis charity website along with ‘a full evangelical exegesis of his pro-gay stance’.

Chalke's arguments run along similar lines to those of ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ leader Benny Hazlehurst, which I reviewed last weekend in more detail.

Chalke is no stranger to controversy, having previously described the biblical doctrine of ‘penal substitution’, whereby Jesus takes the punishment for our sins, as a form of ‘cosmic child abuse’.

Many evangelicals would argue that he has been moving away from an evangelical position on key doctrines for some years and that this latest announcement is simply a further step down this path.

This latest move will no doubt endear him to gay rights activists, the liberal press and the Prime Minister and has clearly been planned to impact on the imminent government debate on the gay marriage bill.

It will not however be welcomed by the vast majority of the country’s two million evangelicals and I expect the Evangelical Alliance will quickly distance itself from Chalke’s position (They now have - see here)

Greg Downes has outlined the traditional evangelical position alongside Chalke's piece in 'Christianity'.

The arguments of the ‘Accepting Evangelicals group have been ably refuted in a variety of recent works, and most recently in the Evangelical Alliance’s excellent summer 2012 publication ‘Biblical and pastoral responses to homosexuality’ which is available on the EA website and summarised here.

CMF’s recent publication ‘Unwanted same sex attraction’ reviews pastoral approaches in helping Christians who experience same sex erotic attraction or recognise that they have a homosexual orientation and I have myself covered this issue before on this blog.

See Evangelical Alliance's response to Steve Chalke here

Other coverage and reaction

Not radical enough - Steve Clifford
Homosexuality and hermeneutics - Steve Holmes
The Bible and homosexuality - Greg Downes
Christianity Today
Telegraph
Ekklesia
Huffington Post
Independent
Guardian