Willie Rennie says Marriage does not belong to the Church, it belongs to society, how utterly wrong, civil marriage is a MK2 event in public’s eyes

Dear All

I found an interest post on Caron’s Musings, a Liberal Democrat supporting blog.

So, I stuck up this ditto in reply to that piece.

‘Dear Caron

Marriage belongs to the Church not society, Willie Rennie is wrong.

The fact that society allows civil marriage to be recognised by the State is something I support, but it is very much a MK2 event in terms of social status.

Could you imagine the Royal Wedding done in a Registry Office?

However, we all know what we are talking about on this issue which politicians skirt round by saying no church should be forced.

We are talking gay marriage in Churches and Mosques.

Let me ask you a question as an ardent supporter, do you support gay marriage in Churches?

I suspect you would immediately say yes; they are seen as a ‘soft target’.

I would then ask you do you support gay marriage in Mosques.

They are seen as a ‘hard target’.

Would you write a blog post on supporting gay marriage in Mosques?

I suspect you would have a serious think about putting ‘pen to paper’ on that but perhaps you will prove me wrong.

The ‘right’ of marriage in a religious church or organisations isn’t a human right, even for heterosexual couples, it is a gift.

So, this isn’t a human rights issue or even an issue of freedom were religious organisations are concerned because they aren’t asking for it.

There is no human right to force yourself on others to do something for you in this context, am I correct?

And the Pope in Rome isn’t doing to change over 2,000 years of Christian faith and belief for Alex Salmond, Willie Rennie, Nicola Sturgeon, Iain Gray or any other social engineering politician who wants votes under the guise of equality trying to promise gay marriage in church which cannot be delivered.

So, this ‘consultation’ which is a sham will produce civil marriage but not marriage in a church or mosque, although some ‘religious’ groups may allow it, it will be a ‘law’ that people cannot be accessed without consent.

And that consent will not be forthcoming anytime soon from Rome!

This is about clearing up State prejudice which all political parties supported until recently.

’ I want’ isn’t the same as ‘I am entitled to’, that is why politicians are 100% lukewarm on the issue of religious marriage.

It comes under ‘matter of conscience’, so they don’t have to say anything.

Unfortunately in this country so many don't understand what human rights are, which is a great pity all round.

When people try to be all things to all men, they usually end up being relevant to no one.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University’

I find it odd that Atheists politicians think it is acceptable to piss on people’s religious faith under the guise of equality to ram down their social engineering agenda on those who do.

Politicians are trying to tread a careful line thinking they can keep both camps happy, so the compromise is civil marriage for the gay community with the add on that any Church or religious organisation will be allowed to conduct ceremonies.

As I say, it is a law that cannot be accessed, so that part of the law is a sham and worthy of contempt, an inaccessible law which requires third party consent isn’t law and therefore not a human right.

What a great pity we live in a country where such ignorance of human rights is so rampant.

I wonder what kind of reception the First Minister Alex Salmond or his Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon would get in the Glasgow Central Mosque if they made a speech supporting gay marriage for Muslim couples in that Mosque.

We have separation of Church and State for good reason.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University’