Dear Ms Clwyd,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the government proposal to redefine marriage.
My major concern is that the government is also redefining the term "consultation".
It is apparent that the "consultation" will not be about whether marriage should be redefined, but only about how it can be redefined, this in spite of the fact that opinion poles demonstrate that 70% of the population want to maintain the status quo and over 230,000, including myself, have signed a petition calling for the retention of the current definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
May I respectfully remind you of the dictionary definition of democracy:
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
I fear that we may see the demise of democracy if the government is allowed to act contrary to the will of the people without proper consultation.
I am therefore asking you to oppose any attempt to violate the democratic will of the people in this matter.
Yours etc.
Dr Colin Hurt
33 Bryn Onnen
Penderyn
Aberdare
CF44 9JA
Dear Dr. Hurt,
Thank you for your email concerning redefining marriage.
I will be voting with the Government on the matter of equalising same-sex marriage. The reason I that give my support to this has been clearly expressed by Yvette Cooper MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary and Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, in which she said:
“Some people opposed civil partnerships when they were introduced, some people opposed the whole idea of civil marriage. But both were the right thing to do and have strong support now. It is welcome that most people also already support the chance for gay couples to get married too.”
If you have any further queries or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Yours sincerely,
Rt. Hon. Ann Clwyd M.P.
Dear Ms Clwyd,
Thank you for you reply to my email.
I am not surprised by your response, but I am disturbed.
You state that you will be voting with the government, yet, as far as I understand it you cannot know how the government is going to vote as the consultative process is not yet complete, unless, as I suspect, the "consultation" is a sham.
Can you please inform me:
1. What percentage of your constituents are in favour of redefining marriage?
2. What scientifically proven statistical method was used to ascertain this percentage?
3. If it could be demonstrated that the majority of your constituents were opposed to redefining marriage, would you still vote for the government or would you demonstrate your support for democracy by representing the will of the people?
I fear that the government and its supporters on this issue are going to discover that a large number of the citizens of the United Kingdom will refuse to accept a law that is a clear violation of deeply held convictions. I remember a certain politician who ensconced herself in Tower Colliery because she believed that a parliamentary decision was not in the best interests of her constituents. Government is not always to be obeyed, especially when it is acting in a way it was not mandated to act by the people. This is such a time.
Dr Colin Hurt.
1 comment:
Surely everyone understands by now that homosexuality is a natural and normal feature of humanity. Once we accept gay people then marriage naturally follows.
Can't you understand how hurtful the current highly publicised cooments from church leaders are? How would you feel if your own relationship with your wife were the subject of a public national debate, lead by supposedly caring people, focussing one whether it is abnormal, an abomination, immoral, unnatural. obscene, grotesque and a shame on the UK etc etc? And whether it is a threat to the family, children and the whole of society?
And where in the Bible does it sayd that it is the role of Christians to judge other people and exclude them from "normal" society?
The fact that it has been traditional to persecute gay and lesbian people is not a valid reason for continung it, anymore than racsim etc. And the fact that some people don't feel quite ready to refrain from doing so is not a goor reason for continuing to demean, decry and abuse a minority of people who do no harm to anyone.
A successful marriage between two people of the opposite sex can be a wonderful thing. If it is made in a Christian context that is great. Likewise a marriage of two people of the same sex can be a wonderful thing.
It is nonsense to suggest, as is being done, that same sex marriage can in any way threaten or damage opposite sex marriages.
The Church and you should be welcoming everybody and not perpetuating poison and hatred. These ideas are wicked and unchristian. No doubt you trying to bridge what you see as a gap between different points of view. But what I would suggest you should be doing is what is right not what is expedient and supporting same sex marriage in the same way as the government and all political parties are doing.
Well done Ann Clwyd!
Post a Comment