David Cameron said yesterday that homosexual marriage is Conservative, because it encourages strong bonds of commitment between two homosexuals.
The text of his speech shows that he said “Conservative” with a big ‘C’, but it is clear that he also meant conservative with a little ‘c’ – socially conservative.
Dave Landrum of the Evangelical Alliance hit the nail on the head: “If you can’t conserve the institution of marriage, what can you conserve?”
It’s good to see that at least one Dave is thinking clearly about this.
As for the other Dave, has he thought about polygamy? Does David Cameron believe polygamy encourages strong bonds of commitment between several people? Is polygamy conservative too?
I’m not being far fetched. Canada has legalised homosexual marriage, and as a result there is now a courtroom battle in one Canadian province pushing for polygamy to be legalised.
If marriage can be redefined for homosexuals, why not redefine it for polygamists? Given the track record of British Courts interpreting the Human Rights Act, how long would it be before polygamy is legalised in Britain?
What about redefining marriage so that a marriage lasts only two years, to be renewed if both spouses like how things are going? Divorces would be replaced with quicker, simpler ‘non-renewals’.
Far fetched? Nope. It is being proposed right now in Mexico City – just two years after the city legalised homosexual marriage. Is that conservative?
And what about education? If marriage is redefined in law for same-sex marriage, the new legal definition will become the standard one promoted by all public bodies, including our schools.
Little Johnny will learn that two mums will do just fine, dads are not necessarily needed (or vice versa). Little Jenny will learn that she can marry a woman when she grows up.
Any parent who is uncomfortable with what little Johnny or little Jenny is learning will be labelled intolerant. It is already happening with Government backing under Stonewall’s Education For All campaign. Is that conservative?
And how much will redefining marriage cost the taxpayer? At last year’s Lib Dem conference Stonewall’s Ben Summerskill let slip that it could cost as much as £5bn.
Why so much? Because it’s highly unlikely that homosexual marriage would be legalised without also retaining civil partnerships in some way. And if that happens, heterosexual couples could force civil partnerships to be opened up to them too. The associated pension and benefit rights could cost the country £5bn. Is that conservative?
This issue is not about rights. Homosexual couples already have all the legal rights of marriage available through civil partnerships. This issue is about the symbolism and significance of ‘marriage’.
Homosexual pressure groups want to take control of it. The majority of the British people (according to ONS results published a few weeks ago) want to keep it as it is. What’s the conservative thing to do? Embrace the radical redefinition, says David Cameron.
How many people are demanding this radical rewriting of marriage? The last census for which data is available shows that only 0.2 per cent of households are headed by a homosexual couple (presumably those wishing to enter a homosexual marriage will already be sharing a home).
If every homosexual household in Britain entered a homosexual marriage (and that’s far from likely) then 0.2 per cent of households will redefine marriage for the whole nation. Is that conservative?
Marriage wasn’t invented by Government. It is rooted in nature. It is rooted in biology, not ideology. It is rooted in the complementary natures of men and women – and their ability to reproduce children and care for them in a stable environment.
Despite the scientific somersaults that can construct a baby for same-sex couples, you can’t get away from the fact that an egg from a woman and sperm from a man are needed to start the process.
Time and again, evidence shows that a child does best when the two adults who conceived the child remain committed to each other as well as to the child.
Society needs families that are headed by a father and a mother who are determined to do their best for the children they themselves are biologically attached to.
And there will be implications for liberty of conscience. Politicians are promising that no church or clergy will be forced to act against their beliefs. I don’t doubt their sincerity, but we all know that it’s a promise they can’t keep.
Down the line, the chances are that someone will be taken to court because of his stance on marriage. It may not happen immediately, but it may happen eventually. Is that conservative?
Opposing the redefinition of marriage is not about hostility to anyone or anything. It is based on a sincere belief that marriage is foundational to happy lives and good communities.
We disagree with homosexual activists who are pushing for marriage to be redefined. We disagree with them, and disagreement isn’t hatred. In a democracy, people should be free to disagree.
That’s truly conservative with a small ‘c’, even if David Cameron doesn’t think so.