Many of my Facebook contacts are hot with indignation about a planned change in U.K. law allowing homosexual couples to marry in religious ceremonies. They are not angry about the plan. On the contrary, they welcome it warmly. But they are furious about the reaction of Daily Mail columnist, Melanie Phillips who fiercely opposes it.
Now Phillips is likely to lose support in the pro-Israel movement from many eminent gays.
Meanwhile, the gay newspaper, The Pink News, devoted much space to a spoof “Valentine’s Day Card”attacking her.
While I have often opined that Ms Phillip is far too strident in the expression of her views, this time I agree with her in full.
Like me, she is Jewish and I believe that like me she belongs to a ‘Masorti’ - Conservative egalitarian synagogue. I am therefore wholly unsurprised that she says:
“… the Government’s position is anything but neutral. For it implicitly endorses the idea that there is nothing wrong with overturning centuries of Biblical understanding of the sacrament of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As such, the Government will be cutting the ground from under the feet of religious traditionalists.
“And what if churches refuse to conduct such a travesty of a marriage ceremony? Presumably, they would then risk being sued for ‘discrimination’.
“Truly, we are fast reaching the stage where upholding Biblical sexual standards will become the morality that dare not speak its name.
“Once again, we have to wonder at the way in which a politically motivated faction within a tiny minority of the population — for many gay people do not approve of this ideological gay rights agenda — is now running public policy”.
It is understandable that some gays have counter-reacted violently. But I must explain the situation from another viewpoint.
In Britain I was the non-stipendiary registrar for marriages at the North Manchester Reform Synagogue. Occasionally I had to tackle serious personal issues to the point of angering those involved.
So it is with the matter of religious sacrament for gay couples, no matter their faith. It is in complete contradistinction to thousands of years of (biblical) tradition where marriage has been the seal on a loving heterosexual relationship in order for a couple to produce and rear children naturally in a secure, loving environment. It is only recent advances in bio-science, for example, that have allowed donor conception.
If I were still a synagogue marriage registrar I would point out bluntly that people should not join a particular synagogue because of their sexual orientation. They should do so because of their Jewish faith and background. Although I am aware of ‘gay’ congregations, I would declare that gays would be no more welcomed to a synagogue than they would be barred due to their sexual proclivities. They would be greeted warmly simply because they are Jewish.
‘Sex’ simply should not be an issue concerning acts of religious sacrament as it is an element that would otherwise profane their holiness. I believe this is what Ms Phillips effected to state but her tone was far too shrill and she did not explain her views with enough cogency.
Many gay unions are unstable and do not last long. There is documented evidence showing that the number of civil partnerships being dissolved has doubled over the past year.
According to a report in The Daily Telegraph last summer, “fewer same-sex couples are having civil partnerships, and more are splitting up”. Further, the report claimed that fewer homosexuals were forming legal unions than at any point since their introduction in 2005.
It was then suggested that the decline in civil partnerships was because most of the men or women in long-term same-sex relationships and who had been awaiting official recognition had by then received it.
Homosexual equality campaigner, Peter Tatchell said: “If same-sex marriage was legalised, many more lesbian and gay couples would opt for it rather than civil partnerships. Most people see marriage as the gold standard and regard civil partnerships as second-best”.
- Figures published by the Office for National Statistics show that in 2006, the first full year after the law changed, there were 16,106 civil partnerships.
- The following year, after many of the couples who had been waiting to enjoy legal union took advantage of the new law, there were half as many – 8,728.
- The figures fell again in 2008 to 7,169 and last year’s results showed there were 6,281 civil partnerships last year.
- Moreover, there were 351 civil partnership dissolutions in 2009 – almost twice the previous year’s figure of 180. In 2007 there had been just 41. Of the most recent dissolutions, 63 per cent were among women, showing that 2.1 per cent of British female civil partnerships had ended along with 0.9 per cent of male partnerships.
msniw
