">
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
ClickBank1
ClickBank1

Redefining Marriage

Redefining Marriage

LogoI have done quite a few posts on language and how it is being redefined, with particular emphasis on the redefining of marriage.  Those of us who disapprove of this redefining say that redefining it to include 2 people of the same sex marrying would mean that language and laws that have been around for hundreds of years would be redefined and they would find themselves in a mess.  This has proved to be true as an entry on the Coalition For Marriage website proves.

I have put the whole article below under the title:

SWEEPING CHANGES TO 700-YEAR-OLD LAWS, AHEAD OF GAY MARRIAGES NEXT MONTH

It says: “The Government now realises that same-sex marriage will require a massive re-write of legislation dating back to 1285 AD – including airbrushing out the terms “husband” and “wife” from many of our laws. Crucial safeguards will also have to be introduced to safeguard the Monarchy.
The Government are rushing to introduce all these changes through ministerial orders.
The proposals include changing the law:
•    To prevent a man from becoming Queen in the event a King ‘marries’ another man
•    To prevent a man from becoming the Princess of Wales in the event that the heir to the throne enters a same-sex marriage
•    To stop the ‘husband’ of a male Peer being referred to as Duchess, Lady or Countess
•    To replace the terms “husband” and “wife” with “partner” or “spouse” in a huge raft of English law
Redefining marriage means rewriting our language as well as our laws. All this just goes to show that marriage should never have been redefined.
C4M said all along that thousands of laws would need to be changed. These, and other far-reaching consequences, flow from redefining marriage.
MPs are expected to agree the draft orders tomorrow with the House of Lords considering them on Thursday. No doubt there will need to be further changes to clear up the legislative mess created by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act.
Parliament may have changed the law, but it is vitally important that we continue to assert the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

If marriage can be changed to accommodate 2 people of the same sex marrying what is to stop them changing it to allow a man marrying 2 women or a woman marrying 2 men?   And what about lowing the age of concent to allow marriage to what are now classed at children?

We know from previous experience that changing the law to allow one thing opens it to other similar things happening. The 1967 Abortion Law said that it was for those

who were carrying seriously handicapped babies and it was definitely not for young healthy females carrying healthy babies. But now this accounts for most abortions.

In addition those who opposed it said, among other things, that child abuse would escallate. Those who wanted it said that it wouldn’t. The fact that we are continually being told that Social Worker, Teachers, etc have not stopped a child being abused and even killed by one, or both it his/her parents. Other children are being removed because those in authority say that they are doing things or not doing what they think they should.

All of this poses the question if, just as there are laws governing the physical realm, such as gravity, there are not also ones governing moral realm. This will be the subject of a later post.

Your comments on this would be appreciated.


Leave a Reply