Coalition for Marriage 12th April 2014
Reminder
If you haven’t already, please respond to the Government consultation on extending civil partnerships, which closes on Thursday 17 April.
Our concerns are focused on Question 3, which asks whether civil partnerships should be extended to opposite-sex couples.
‘Marriage-lite’
Civil partnership law does not require a lifelong commitment, but when you marry you have to intend to be together for life when you say your vows. So opening up civil partnership to heterosexual couples undermines marriage. Society will then be encouraging couples to choose the lower-commitment option. And according to the Pensions Minister, a two-tier system is also likely to cost the taxpayer at least £3bn.
Family hardships
Instead of undermining marriage yet again, the Government should be doing more to address serious family hardship. If two sisters live together and one of them dies, the other could have to sell the house to pay the inheritance tax. Similarly a daughter who gives up her job to care for her elderly parents could be homeless after her parent’s die. These hardships – common to many families – are being ignored by the Government.
Respond now
The easiest way to respond to the consultation is using the Government’sonline form.
You can answer as many or as few questions as you like. It should only take a few minutes.
We encourage you to respond to Question 3 by selecting “I believe civil partnership should not be extended to opposite sex couples because…” and using one or two of the following points (in your own words):
- Heterosexual civil partnerships would create a two-tier system offering couples the option of ‘marriage-lite’ instead of the full responsibilities and exclusive lifelong commitment of marriage.
- There is no popular demand for heterosexual civil partnerships. Marriage is important to our society and should not be undermined just because a tiny minority of people want the rights of marriage but without the commitment.
- Civil partnerships were created specifically for same-sex couples when they were unable to marry. This does not apply to heterosexual couples, who can get married.
- The Government claims it wants to promote marriage. Yet opening up a rival institution with a lower threshold of commitment will inevitably reduce the numbers of people marrying.
- The introduction of heterosexual civil partnerships would be costly to the taxpayer, with estimates ranging from £3 billion to £5 billion.
Thank you for continuing to stand up for marriage.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage
Coalition for Marriage
7th April 2014
We’ve got some great news. Every school in Lancashire has now received our schools booklet informing teachers about the implications of redefining marriage.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also released helpfulguidance on how education providers should tackle the implications of same-sex marriage.
Here are a few quotes from the EHRC guidance:
- “No school, or individual teacher, is under a duty to support, promote or endorse marriage of same sex couples.”
- “Teachers, other school staff, governors, parents and pupils are all free to hold whatever personal views they choose on marriage of same sex couples, including a view that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. The Government recognises that the belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
- “Schools with a religious character can continue to deliver sex and relationship education in accordance with their particular religious doctrines or ethos. They must do so in a sensitive, reasonable, respectful and balanced way.”
We hope that this guidance will help protect children, teachers and parents who believe in traditional marriage. Our own guide also highlights why teachers should not be forced to endorse the redefinition of marriage in the classroom and emphasises that schools should deal with this controversial issue in a balanced and sensitive way.
We do have concerns about some of the other guidance issued by the EHRC, especially regarding chaplains, but in relation to schools they seem to have tried to get the balance right.
Heterosexual civil partnerships
We will be writing to you shortly about a new government consultation on extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. We are very concerned that this move could further undermine marriage by creating ‘marriage-lite’. We will be letting you know very soon how you can take part in the consultation.
If you would like to, you can make a donation here.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage
26th March 2014
The democratic deficit
With the first same-sex weddings set to take place this weekend to much media fanfare, it’s important to remember how undemocratic and illiberal the redefinition of marriage is:
- Marriage was redefined over the heads of the 24 million married people in this country.
- None of the three main political parties at Westminster made redefining marriage part of their election manifesto. It was not even in the coalition agreement.
- Three days before the 2010 General Election, David Cameron told Sky News he had no plans to change the law of marriage.
- There was no green paper or white paper. The only consultation was on ‘how’ to redefine marriage, not ‘whether’ to.
- The Government ignored the 500,000 names and addresses of UK residents on our C4M petition. They weren’t accepted as responses to the consultation.
- Since the Government’s online response form was anonymous, anyone anywhere in the world could submit a response, as many times as they liked.
- The consultation ruled out religious same-sex weddings. But when the Bill was published religious ceremonies were included.
- This exposed religious organisations to the threat of hostile legal action, with one gay couple already publicising their intention to go to court to get a C of E wedding.
- Though he still backs gay marriage, David Cameron has admitted he would never have gone ahead had he known the level of opposition that would be stirred up.
- Parliamentary scrutiny was wholly inadequate. At Second Reading, backbench MPs were limited to four minute speeches.
Inadequate safeguards
The implications of redefining marriage have not been thought through. The Government agrees that people’s careers shouldn’t be damaged just because they believe in traditional marriage – yet the protections in place are completely insufficient.
A parent complained to her school that her six year old daughter had had two lessons on same-sex marriage in a week.
A teacher was threatened with disciplinary proceedings because she said in the staff room that she believed in traditional marriage.
A couple wanting to adopt children were told they were unsuitable because they supported traditional marriage.
Thankfully all these cases have been resolved, but they should never have arisen at all.
Further redefinitions
If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined again? Some campaigners are now calling for polygamy to be legalised.
Just recently the Government stripped familiar words like husband, wife and widow from a raft of our laws simply because these words don’t line up with the Government’s new definition of marriage.
For another example of what could happen, you have to look no further than the recent comments of a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Lord Wilson, in a speech he gave supporting gay marriage, suggested that marriage to the dead was an option. He said “if it really helps the broken-hearted, we have at least to ask: why not?”
No nation on earth had legalised same-sex marriage until 13 years ago. Only 16 out of 193 nations have done so.
The truth is that same-sex marriage is a social construct, a social experiment. Parliament can change the law, but it cannot change the reality that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Marriage – between a man and a woman – is the greatest partnership in history. It reflects the complementary natures of men and women.
Time and time again the evidence has shown that children do best with a married mother and a father.
So let’s keep standing up for marriage.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage
COMMONS VOTES FOR CHANGES TO CENTURIES-OLD LAWS
Click here for further topics in the Archives of this Website
Latest news 08.03.2014
Dear marriage supporter,
On Wednesday the House of Commons voted in changes that will airbrush cherished terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ out of English law.
A raft of centuries-old statutes were amended ahead of same-sex marriage laws coming into effect later this month.
360 MPs voted to replace longstanding terms such as “widow” with ridiculous changes such as “woman whose deceased spouse was a man” or “that person’s surviving spouse”.
We predicted this massive rewrite of legislation when the Government rushed its same-sex marriage Bill through Parliament without revealing these wider consequences.
Over 80 Conservative MPs voted against the changes, despite the political pressure on them to keep quiet.
There remains a strong body of opposition to same-sex marriage in the country at large. C4M is planning to raise the redefinition of marriage as a major issue during the upcoming European Elections. We will be in touch with you about this in the coming weeks.
Remember – in reality marriage will always be the union of one man and one woman, whatever the politicians may say.
| SWEEPING CHANGES TO 700-YEAR-OLD LAWS, AHEAD OF GAY MARRIAGES NEXT MONTH c4m.org.uk |
Latest news 24.02.2014
Dear marriage supporter,
The Government now realises that same-sex marriage will require a massive re-write of legislation dating back to 1285 AD – including airbrushing out the terms “husband” and “wife” from many of our laws. Crucial safeguards will also have to be introduced to safeguard the Monarchy.
The Government are rushing to introduce all these changes through ministerial orders.
The proposals include changing the law:
- To prevent a man from becoming Queen in the event a King ‘marries’ another man
- To prevent a man from becoming the Princess of Wales in the event that the heir to the throne enters a same-sex marriage
- To stop the ‘husband’ of a male Peer being referred to as Duchess, Lady or Countess
- To replace the terms “husband” and “wife” with “partner” or “spouse” in a huge raft of English law
Redefining marriage means rewriting our language as well as our laws. All this just goes to show that marriage should never have been redefined.
C4M said all along that thousands of laws would need to be changed. These, and other far-reaching consequences, flow from redefining marriage.
MPs are expected to agree the draft orders tomorrow with the House of Lords considering them on Thursday. No doubt there will need to be further changes to clear up the legislative mess created by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act.
Parliament may have changed the law, but it is vitally important that we continue to assert the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Coalition for Marriage
Coalition for Marriage 12th April 2014
Reminder
If you haven’t already, please respond to the Government consultation on extending civil partnerships, which closes on Thursday 17 April.
Our concerns are focused on Question 3, which asks whether civil partnerships should be extended to opposite-sex couples.
‘Marriage-lite’
Civil partnership law does not require a lifelong commitment, but when you marry you have to intend to be together for life when you say your vows. So opening up civil partnership to heterosexual couples undermines marriage. Society will then be encouraging couples to choose the lower-commitment option. And according to the Pensions Minister, a two-tier system is also likely to cost the taxpayer at least £3bn.
Family hardships
Instead of undermining marriage yet again, the Government should be doing more to address serious family hardship. If two sisters live together and one of them dies, the other could have to sell the house to pay the inheritance tax. Similarly a daughter who gives up her job to care for her elderly parents could be homeless after her parent’s die. These hardships – common to many families – are being ignored by the Government.
Respond now
The easiest way to respond to the consultation is using the Government’sonline form.
You can answer as many or as few questions as you like. It should only take a few minutes.
We encourage you to respond to Question 3 by selecting “I believe civil partnership should not be extended to opposite sex couples because…” and using one or two of the following points (in your own words):
Thank you for continuing to stand up for marriage.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage
Coalition for Marriage
7th April 2014
We’ve got some great news. Every school in Lancashire has now received our schools booklet informing teachers about the implications of redefining marriage.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also released helpfulguidance on how education providers should tackle the implications of same-sex marriage.
Here are a few quotes from the EHRC guidance:
We hope that this guidance will help protect children, teachers and parents who believe in traditional marriage. Our own guide also highlights why teachers should not be forced to endorse the redefinition of marriage in the classroom and emphasises that schools should deal with this controversial issue in a balanced and sensitive way.
We do have concerns about some of the other guidance issued by the EHRC, especially regarding chaplains, but in relation to schools they seem to have tried to get the balance right.
Heterosexual civil partnerships
We will be writing to you shortly about a new government consultation on extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. We are very concerned that this move could further undermine marriage by creating ‘marriage-lite’. We will be letting you know very soon how you can take part in the consultation.
If you would like to, you can make a donation here.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage
26th March 2014
The democratic deficit
With the first same-sex weddings set to take place this weekend to much media fanfare, it’s important to remember how undemocratic and illiberal the redefinition of marriage is:
Inadequate safeguards
The implications of redefining marriage have not been thought through. The Government agrees that people’s careers shouldn’t be damaged just because they believe in traditional marriage – yet the protections in place are completely insufficient.
A parent complained to her school that her six year old daughter had had two lessons on same-sex marriage in a week.
A teacher was threatened with disciplinary proceedings because she said in the staff room that she believed in traditional marriage.
A couple wanting to adopt children were told they were unsuitable because they supported traditional marriage.
Thankfully all these cases have been resolved, but they should never have arisen at all.
Further redefinitions
If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined again? Some campaigners are now calling for polygamy to be legalised.
Just recently the Government stripped familiar words like husband, wife and widow from a raft of our laws simply because these words don’t line up with the Government’s new definition of marriage.
For another example of what could happen, you have to look no further than the recent comments of a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Lord Wilson, in a speech he gave supporting gay marriage, suggested that marriage to the dead was an option. He said “if it really helps the broken-hearted, we have at least to ask: why not?”
No nation on earth had legalised same-sex marriage until 13 years ago. Only 16 out of 193 nations have done so.
The truth is that same-sex marriage is a social construct, a social experiment. Parliament can change the law, but it cannot change the reality that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Marriage – between a man and a woman – is the greatest partnership in history. It reflects the complementary natures of men and women.
Time and time again the evidence has shown that children do best with a married mother and a father.
So let’s keep standing up for marriage.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage
COMMONS VOTES FOR CHANGES TO CENTURIES-OLD LAWS
Click here for further topics in the Archives of this Website
Latest news 08.03.2014
Dear marriage supporter,
On Wednesday the House of Commons voted in changes that will airbrush cherished terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ out of English law.
A raft of centuries-old statutes were amended ahead of same-sex marriage laws coming into effect later this month.
360 MPs voted to replace longstanding terms such as “widow” with ridiculous changes such as “woman whose deceased spouse was a man” or “that person’s surviving spouse”.
We predicted this massive rewrite of legislation when the Government rushed its same-sex marriage Bill through Parliament without revealing these wider consequences.
Over 80 Conservative MPs voted against the changes, despite the political pressure on them to keep quiet.
There remains a strong body of opposition to same-sex marriage in the country at large. C4M is planning to raise the redefinition of marriage as a major issue during the upcoming European Elections. We will be in touch with you about this in the coming weeks.
Remember – in reality marriage will always be the union of one man and one woman, whatever the politicians may say.
Latest news 24.02.2014
Dear marriage supporter,
The Government now realises that same-sex marriage will require a massive re-write of legislation dating back to 1285 AD – including airbrushing out the terms “husband” and “wife” from many of our laws. Crucial safeguards will also have to be introduced to safeguard the Monarchy.
The Government are rushing to introduce all these changes through ministerial orders.
The proposals include changing the law:
Redefining marriage means rewriting our language as well as our laws. All this just goes to show that marriage should never have been redefined.
C4M said all along that thousands of laws would need to be changed. These, and other far-reaching consequences, flow from redefining marriage.
MPs are expected to agree the draft orders tomorrow with the House of Lords considering them on Thursday. No doubt there will need to be further changes to clear up the legislative mess created by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act.
Parliament may have changed the law, but it is vitally important that we continue to assert the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman.