Gay marriage motion sparks row within SNP as John Mason defends people's right that they not be forced to accept others views

Dear All

Do you know what a human right is?

Most people do not; they believe ‘I want’ is the same as ‘I am entitled’ too.

And another concept that people wrongly believe is that tolerated is the same as acceptance.

SNP MSP John Mason is a religious man; I know him and like him as a person, I may not agree with every single thing he says but I respect his right to say it.

The issue of gay marriage by churches is outside with the realm of political interference by politicians, and we need to contine the separation between church and state.

At present there is no such thing as gay marriage in church, however there is civil partnership for gay people which I support.

So, what is John Mason saying when he put down his recent parliamentary motion which has attracted such unhappiness?

He is saying that no one should be forced to approve of same-sex marriage.

And why should someone be forced to, what about their human rights?

Their right to religious freedom and faith, well apparently their rights don’t count.

Now, a senior SNP politician called Alyn Smith who is currently an MEP has entered the row within the SNP by hitting out at "mean, angry" bigots.

Does he really think that over 2,000 plus years of Christianity can simply be changed by a social engineering experiment?

More than 2,000 years people have kept the faith but in the mind of Alyn Smith such people are "mean, angry" bigots.

A ‘human right’ cannot be a human right if it tramples on the rights of others.

There is no human right to force others to accept your views.

Smith, writing in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper, said:

"Sadly, the motion before our nation's parliament lacks any idea of respect at all”.
And what he is talking about is John Mason recognising an age old truth; people cannot be forced to accept you.

Smith added:

"The plea that nobody should be forced to even approve of same sex relationships, never mind marriage, is just plain odd."

He went further:

"What is in the small, mean, angry heads of bigots is a matter for them. I never asked for their approval, but I demand equality."

Smith isn’t demanding equality, he is demanding that others are forced to share his views and or at best remain silent.

2,000 plus years of Christianity cannot be changed.

To show that Alyn Smith doesn’t have a leg to stand on, he admitted that although his colleague's stance "saddens" him he has a "right to his views".

So, there is no human right being breached here, no equality issue which can be held up that a wrong has been committed.

John Mason is the SNP MSP for the Shettleston area of Glasgow he is popular with the people.

If think back to the SNP slogan ‘People’s champion’ that what John Mason actually is; hard working and dedicated in his beliefs and to the people he serves.

As well as Alyn Smith having a pop at him, John Mason has also attracted criticism from SNP MP Pete Wishart.

On his Twitter site, Mr Wishart wrote:

"John Mason's nasty little anti-gay marriage motion is just wrong, and really disappointed that other colleagues have signed it."

Unfortunately Mr. Wishart is unable to produce a coherent argument why people should be forced to, no one should be forced to approve of same-sex marriage.

They just 'should' according to him.

Green MSP Patrick Harvie said the motion was "specifically anti-gay", so I challenge Patrick Harvie to bring forward a private members bill that forces religious organisations such as the Catholic Church, Protestant and Muslim faiths to have gay marriages in their places of worship.

2,000 plus years of Christian faith cannot be changed.

Typically and getting the wrong end of the stick, Glasgow University product and Labour's deputy leader at Holyrood, Johann Lamont, has asked First Minister Alex Salmond to distance himself from what she called a "coded attack" on gay people.

I take the view that this is a coded attack on religious organisations.

In the SNP election manifesto the party said it would hold a consultation on the issue. After the election victory the administration said the process would begin "later this year".

If they put something on the statute books it would be meaningless because religious organisations won’t approve.

It is like the SNP Government bringing forward a bill in Holyrood that everyone is entitled to go to the moon.

Just because it exists on paper doesn’t mean the ‘right’ can be exercised.

The First Minister indicated support for the issue in the run-up to the May election.

Mr Mason's motion noted that a public consultation would take place but added that "no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages".

2,000 plus years of Christian faith cannot be changed.

And read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

Same-sex marriage is not currently legal in the United Kingdom.

In January 2009, a petition was drawn up by Nick Henderson, director of gay rights group the LGBT Network, to be submitted to the Scottish Parliament. The petition called for a change to the law that currently disallows two people of the same sex from getting married, by amending the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977. The petition also calls for allowing same-sex marriage ceremonies to be performed by faith groups, but only if that particular institution gives their consent.

And that consent will not be given.

2,000 plus years of Christian faith cannot be changed.

And no SNP Bill will have the slightest effect on the Catholic Church, Protestant and Muslim faiths.

People might not like what John Mason is saying but he is standing up for his religious beliefs, he has attracted critics but they acknowledge that although they are using the equality argument, it has no traction because despite trying to call it a ‘human right’, this isn’t.

A right doesn't require consent.

This is a matter of conscience which goes well beyond party loyalty.

And to those people who call those against this "mean, angry" bigots, their understanding of religion is very poor.

Any legalisation which comes from this issue will be meaningless; it will sit on the statute books as a ‘human right’ that cannot be accessed.

And no matter how anyone tries to dress this up, it isn’t.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University