Clegg on Marriage Equality

Everyone knows what David Cameron thinks about marriage equality, but now we also know what Nick Clegg thinks:

The Coalition’s social agenda is hardly uncontroversial, especially when it comes to the suggestion that homosexual couples should have full marriage rights.

Mr Clegg is an unabashed backer of the notion. “Marriage is all about a couple – whether they are a man and woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, – showing love for each other, commitment to each other. I think we should celebrate that commitment,” he says.

That is likely to irk critics including the Roman Catholic Church. Mr Clegg, married to a strong Spanish Catholic who is raising their sons in the faith, insists he has “immense respect” for the Church. But its stance on marriage is outdated, he says.

“The Catholic Church, like any Church, has this constant dilemma, of drawing on their traditional beliefs but also moving with the world as it progresses.

“My own view is that in 50 years’ time people will look back and say, ‘What on earth was all the fuss about?”

  • Brian Smaller

    I think Clegg is being wildly optimistic. In the UK in fifty years people will probably be looking back and saying “Allah u akbar” as another crane load of gays get strung up on a street corner.   Their immigration policy is at odds with the social agenda. 

  • Urban Redneck

    “Equality” is a delusional left-wing construct and homosexuality is merely a form of behaviour. Sociologist Carl Wilson in his book Our Dance Has Turned To Death outlines the dangers facing traditional marriage and the family in today’s increasingly sexualized culture. Wilson recognized what would happen to the family if Western society continues to tolerate every sort of sexual perversion, and his analysis was eye opening indeed. History reveals that nations decline and eventually die when sexual immorality becomes rampant. If the traditional family is discarded in favour of group sex, homosexuality, infidelity and unrestrained sexual hedonism, cultural norms can not survive. Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin author of the classic The American Sex Revolution observed much of the same thing. Sorokin warned that America was committing “voluntary suicide” through unrestrained sexual indulgence and he predicted with remarkable accuracy the increase in divorce, desertion, promiscuity, illegitimate births, abortion and disease. This is why I am 100% opposed to homosexual “marriage” – history shows all too well: sexual promiscuity, perversion and a loss of respect for the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman leads inevitably to cultural decline and eventual collapse. Homosexuals in general have a healthy distain for the traditional meaning of marriage and want to redefine it.

    For example, gay-sex advice columnist and author Dan Savage, poster boy for gay “marriage” and “gay parenting” wrote in his book The Kid:  What Happened When My Boyfriend And I Decided To Get Pregnant, that he wants marriage to be all about non-monogamy, and also revealed that he and his partner still go off and engage in group sex sessions – even though they are “married” and have adopted a young boy. (I can only hope the lad is in the company of “caregivers” when these sex romps are in session)

    Sexual libertines will not rest when homosexual “marriage” and adoption are legalized, the quest will be on to normalize other more extreme perverse behaviours.

    • Pete George

       It’s not like anyone is trying to make it compulsory.

      • Andrei 1

        That is a non sequitur Pete George.

        This is the last gasp of a culture in decay and failing.  The writing is on the wall.

        Cameron is almost certainly promoting this as a distraction from the very real problems that are threatening to overwhelm Europe even as we speak.

        There are millions of angry young males in the West for whom there is nothing on the horizon, while real enemies are gathering at the gates.

        And these angry young men will  not be inspired to fight to preserve their homelands because, to be frank, they are no longer worth preserving

    • Bunswalla

      Oo-err – “sex romps” fnarr fnarr titter titter

    • Andy

      Let’s not forget that celibacy is a sexual perversion, and one which the church not only tolerates but practises.

  • BR

    The institute of marriage has been under attack for quite some time, starting with the removal of no-fault divorce, followed by the granting and even imposing of the legal status of marriage on childless de-facto couples after a certain time period (3 years I think). That was always a bad idea. It means that the courts now have the added task of determining exactly what constitutes a “marriage” and even how long it has formally existed. Such uncertainty could never have existed when all marriages were a matter of public record. Boarders and flatmates can conceivably claim to have been involved in sexual relationships with their live-in landlords, and there would be no easy way to prove otherwise. The de-facto marriage laws have created the potential for messy disputes, wasted court time and unnecessary payments to lawyers. Homosexual “marriage” will only further complicate this issue.

    The laws prohibiting sodomy were repealed on the basis that those who engage in it should be tolerated and not discriminated against. Homosexuals now have the legal right to commit buggery, so what do they have to complain about? Their behaviour is now legally permissible. Of course It is one thing to tolerate aberrant behaviour, but it is another thing to actively encourage it. Besides further eroding the institute of traditional marriage, state-sanctioned homosexual “marriage” would do exactly that.

    There was never any need to formally legitimize homosexual relationships. Any two people can sign a legal contract that makes them joint owners of each others’ property, just as in a real marriage. Homosexual relationships can never produce children, therefore any such “marriage” affects only the ownership of property.

    It had been pointed out earlier by one of your own correspondents that Christian churches cannot not sanctify or endorse any semblance of homosexual “marriage” and remain true to the biblical tenets on which they are founded. If provisions for homosexual “marriage” were written into law, churches would be persecuted and maybe even prosecuted on the basis of discrimination. Everyone, including the churches, would be forced to recognize these unnatural and abnormal liaisons.

    Bill.

202%