Jack Straw on Marriage Equality

Former Labour Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, has spoken out on marriage equality:

In the Lancashire Telegraph he writes: ‚Äú A central principle common to all world religions is the idea that we should behave towards others in the way in which we would expect others to behave towards us. Christ devotes much of his teaching to this theme, building on the Old Testament injunction that we should love our neighbours as we love ourselves.‚ÄĚ

‚ÄĚ ‚ÄėJudge not, that ye be not judged‚Äô, and ‚ÄėDo to others as you would have them do to you‚Äô, are two of his most powerful, and enduring, messages about how individuals, local communities, and whole societies, should live peacefully, and happily, with others.‚ÄĚ

Mr Straw questions if the leaders of British Christianity are practising these essential teachings of Christ.

He writes: ‚ÄúI happen to be, in the modern jargon, ‚Äėstraight‚Äô. It doesn‚Äôt make me a better person.

“I didn’t choose to be straight. It’s how I am. It would be no different if I were gay. I would neither be a better, nor a worse, person because of it. It would simply be how I was.

‚ÄúBecause I am straight, I have a right to marry a woman. But if I were a gay man, or a lesbian woman, in love with another gay man, or lesbian woman, I can get to a half-way house with a ‚Äúcivil partnership‚ÄĚ, but the law currently says that I cannot marry.‚ÄĚ

He then goes on to explore the myth of the sanctity of marriage:

The Church of England has said it is¬†‚Äúopposed to all forms of homophobia and would want to defend the civil liberties of homosexual people, and to welcome them into our churches‚ÄĚ but that it ‚Äúbelieves on the basis of Bible and tradition that marriage is between a man and a woman and does not accept that this needs to change‚ÄĚ.

The head of the Catholic Church in Scotland compared ‚Äúgrotesque‚ÄĚ plans for gay marriage with the reintroduction of slavery.

Mr Straw admonishes them: “Some Church leaders say the law should stay that way, on the spurious grounds that the sanctity and importance of heterosexual marriage will somehow be damaged. How, why?

“I know of no-one who is married who feels threatened by the idea that another couple, same sex, wishes to cement their love for each other by marrying.

‚ÄúWhy should this not be a matter of celebration, rather than of prohibition?‚ÄĚ

He ends asking: ‚ÄúHow on earth do these church leaders square their present stand with those biblical injunctions about treating others as you would expect to be treated¬†yourself?‚ÄĚ

As I have said before, I am yet to hear a rational or logical reason continuing to prevent gay people from marrying the person they love.

  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    More drivel about “equality”.

    Equality is a delusional concept most often embraced by left wing utopians.

    And its not the point of this issue anyway.

    Quotes from that old commie Jack Straw??

    Get a life and spare readers the constant stream of left wing crap.

    • Pete George

      You were right Whale, unlikely to hear anything rational or logical against equal rights to marry.

      I don’t care about Jack Straw’s supposed political leanings, he shows very good reasoning on this subject.

      • James Stephenson

        I’ve yet to hear a rational argument as to why we need a change in the law. As far as I can see, the legal status on a civil union is identical to that of a marriage.

        This debate seems to be more about being a vehicle for parading one’s liberal or conservative credentials than making any substantive change.

        As if we don’t pass enough pointless legislation already. Legalising gay marriage would be like the dog microchipping thing, 100% about politicians being seen to do something and “sending a message”, 0% about changing anything.

      • Andrei

        Homosexuals cannot marry other homosexuals and lesbians cannot marry other lesbians by definition.

        It is like trying to eat a T-Bone steak with two knives or two forks.

        It is a symptom of a society that has gone insane that anybody considers this as a possibility.

        Marriage is an institution that has at its very heart the procreation of children and the foundation of families.

        Social engineers hate marriage because families serve as obstacles to them imposing there vile  visions upon society. They need weak families so as they can more easily indoctrinate the young in their perverse socialistic ideas.

        This is why   socialists have spent the last ninety years chipping away at marriage, most particularly the last forty with great success alas,

        Unnatural marriage is just another shot at it

    • http://whoar.co.nz/ phillip ure

      is this ‘groundhog day’..?

      phil@whoar.

  • ???

    “Social Changes:
    Another moderate speech that will not have escaped the government’s
    attention came from the leader of the Church of England, Archbishop of
    Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams.
    Dr Williams told an international church conference in Geneva
    last week that the law should not be used as a tool to bring about such
    social changes as gay marriage.

    He said “law may indeed turn out to be ahead of majority
    opinion” in recognising when the way minorities – such as gay people –
    were being treated.

    But, he insisted, “this falls short of a legal charter to promote change in legal institutions, even in language”.

    Language – how “marriage” is defined – is at the heart of the debate about gay marriage.

    Opponents of gay marriage claim that homosexual couples
    already have all the rights and privileges of marriage in civil
    partnerships.

    But supporters say that it is a question of full equality, of justice being “seen to be done”.

    Some also insist that there will not be full equality while churches refuse to marry same sex couples.

    Building block:

    To many Christians, while a civil partnership confers all the
    legal rights of marriage, a church wedding is a mystical event, the
    making of promises before God in a sacred setting, endowing the
    relationship with a special “blessed” quality.

    The government has reiterated its intention to introduce gay
    marriage by 2015, but it says churches will not be forced to perform
    them.

    But that does not satisfy church leaders who regard the
    institution of marriage as a traditional building block of society, at
    the heart of traditional family life.

    The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal
    Keith O’Brien, denounced a proposal he said would “eliminate entirely
    in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child”.

    Catholic teaching regards marriage as part of a transcendent
    “natural law” in which men and women are instinctively paired, partly
    for the bringing up of children.

    Cardinal O’Brien angrily denounced plans for gay marriage as a
    “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right” and a
    development that would “shame the United Kingdom”.

    It is clear that another church leader who has shown himself
    prepared to enter the political arena regards this as an issue of the
    utmost importance.

    Barrage of protest:

    Such remarks seem to place church leaders on a collision course with the government.

    David Cameron has given his personal backing to plans to introduce gay marriage.

    Barrage of protest
    Such remarks seem to place church leaders on a collision course with the government.
    David Cameron has given his personal backing to plans to introduce gay marriage.
    Roman Catholic leader in Scotland Cardinal Keith O’Brien denounced the idea of same-sex marriages

    But there are signs that the barrage of protest might be having an effect on ministers.
    The Catholic journal The Tablet reports that the question of
    whether gay marriage should be allowed at all will now be included in
    the government’s public consultation on the issue expected shortly.
    Previously the consultation was to have been more about how it would be introduced.
    A change of heart – if there has been one – might be based on a look at opinion outside the churches too.
    Threat of division:

    A Roman Catholic group published the results of a poll that
    indicated a majority of people wanted to keep “marriage” for
    heterosexual couples.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17315515

  • Cobolt

    Redbaiter, why don’t you move back to Tennessee, I’m sure you’d be much more comfortable there.

    • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

      Why don’t you move back to Cuba arsehole?

      Last I heard Freedom of Speech still existed in NZ.

      Although it obviously wouldn’t if fucking totalitarian scum like you were in charge.

      • Cobolt

         Freedom of speech is a good thing, Redbaiter, so is freedom from persecution and discrimination.
        That is the antithesis of equality Redbaiter, discrimination. But as long as you are not being discriminated against I guess that fine huh?

      • http://whoar.co.nz/ phillip ure

        “..Last I heard Freedom of Speech still existed in NZ…”

         so ..why do you not allow that at that round centre of auto-eroticism blog that you run..?

        is that ‘freedom of speech’ only for those who agree with your particularly twisted world-view ..there..reddy..?

        ..a kinda selective ‘freedom of speech’..eh..?

        phil@whoar.

  • ???

    Just thought I would post a BBC linked article with a full set of counter-arguments, to balance out the “Pink news” linked article.

  • Kosh103

    I see the haters and homophobes are out early this morning.

    • starboard

      I knew you were a hater kosh…but a homophobe ?

      • grumpy

        and a heterophobe as well.

      • Kosh103

        Oh look starbaord is back and proving how foolish he is again.

        After yesterday we all know it is you who is the hater and homophobe.

      • Kosh103

        Ahhh grumpy spouting bigoted nonsense again I see.

  • Urban Redneck

    The most immediate effect of “gay marriage” is to initially take society down the slippery slope to legalized polyarmoury and polygamy. Marriage will simply be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts linking two, three or more people (however weakly and temporary) in every conceivable combibation. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing, as evidenced by recent columns by left-wing egghead sociologists writing for the NZ Herald. Whats next? Father and step daughters marrying? Brother and sister ? If the only criteria for a marriage is that they are “consenting” and “they love eachother” what’s the problem.

    Marriage between one man and one woman is a vital social construct and THE foundational building block of society. Not only do families depend on marriage for strength and stability, but also society itself hinges on the preservation and protection of stable two-parent families Рand one would have to be wilfully blind not to see the levels of dysfunction which abound these days due to family breakdown,  as decades of turgid social engineering by a left-wing intelligentsia hell bent on radical transformation of society takes its toll.

    • Cobolt

       You seem to think that all gay people are unable/do not want to commit to one partner forever and you oppose their ability to prove that they can do just that.

      I fail to see how allowing gay people to marry will destabilize society. The Dysfunctional family has come about over years of feminism. With greater independent means and societal support people have not been trapped in marriages as they once were. On average men today are far less chivalrous and women far less subservient than in previous generations. This all equals greater strife in the home and more break-ups.

      And none of this has anything to do with gay people.

      • grumpy

        How about you answering Urban Redneck’s point

        “Whats next? Father and step daughters marrying? Brother and sister ? If the only criteria for a marriage is that they are “consenting” and “they love eachother” what’s the problem.”

        In your world, could a brother and a brother get married – if not why not?

        Father and stepson – if not why not?

      • Engineer

         Cobolt the problem is not that some gay people are unable/do not want to commit to one partner forever, or even that some have no intention of doing so and sleep around like rabits.  The problem is the stable, bring home to meet your parents poster gay couples are being used by the left to take us down the path (or slippery slope as Mr Urban Redneck says) to their real goals.

        Go and read some of¬† Tamm’es books and see how the left work.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Bruce

      • Cobolt

         Grumpy:
        Father Step Daughter? No for the same reason Dr-Patient and Teacher-Pupil relationships are frowned upon.
        Brother and Sister, well no change there and potentially the same issue with idolic trust. Same could realy be said for Brother-Brother
        Answer this though. How exactly will gay marriage destroy society? Forget all the bullshit slippery slope what ifs. How will gay marriage, in itself, destroy society?

      • grumpy

        …first they came for decriminalisation.¬† Then they came for Civil Unions.¬† Now they are coming for Marriage.¬† What is next – quotas? affirmative action? compulsion?

      • Cobolt

        ¬†Considering the amount of effort made over the decades to turn gay people straight that was all to no avail I don’t think you have anything to fear about being coerced into being gay yourself.
        Just another irrational excuse to remain a dinosaur.

      • grumpy

        No, but you are already giving it a good shot in schools.

    • Kosh103

      Ahhh the slipery slope bullshit.

      Look I can use your stupidity with guns.

      Owning a gun is legal, therefore murder will become legal. So we better make ownig guns illegal to stop murder from being made legal.

      • grumpy

        Kosh, I don’t think you have answered an earlier question, so I will ask one again;

        In a future homosexual marriage, as there are no biological considerations, should close relatives be able to get married?

      • Kosh103

        Thats for future generations to consider.

        But I think it is a bullshit arguement to say we should not do something that is right because of something that has a very slim chance of happening in the future.

        It was people like you who spoke against black civil rights because of all the evil that might come about.

        Wrong is wrong. And denying gay marriage on the grounds of ifs mights and maybes is wrong.

      • grumpy

        “Thats for future generations to consider. “Very revealing.¬† Just as those who supported decriminalising of homosexuality would never have realised that, in the not too distant future, the demand would be for full marriage.

      • Cobolt

         The point is Grumpy, how exactly will you be affected if gay marriage was legal? What detrimental effect would it have on how you live your life?

      • Rufus

        Kosh – “wrong is wrong” – says YOU.¬† Other people say you’re wrong.

        So, on what basis can you claim you are right, and I am wrong?

      • grumpy

        The point is Cobalt, if the decriminalisation crowd had come at the start to demand marriage and the teaching of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle in schools Рwould it have been supported.  Of course not.

        As it effects me? Probably not, other than watching civilisation go down the gurgler.¬† The effect on my children and grandchildren will concern me though, as the “gay” lobby push for membership amongst the immature and vulnerable.

      • Kosh103

        You are wrong rufus because you want to deny one group a right based on who they love.

        Since when was being in love with someone wrong?

      • starboard

        yeah we all know about your fondness¬†for slippery slopes kosh…

      • grumpy

        Kosh

        “Since when was being in love with someone wrong?”

        When it’s your sister, mother, Uncle, dog etc. etc.

      • Rufus

        Kosh Рyour rights are ARBITRARY human constructs.  They cannot be proven from nature or science.

        So, on what objective¬†basis can you say you are “right”¬†and I am¬†“wrong”?

  • Ciaron_A

    Why do those who quote Christ always forget to square with Mat 5:17?

  • grumpy

    Things are getting very confusing..

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113383/Man-reveals-shock-UKs-transgender-pregnancy.html

    So, the gay partner of this man/woman/mother/father (who obviously had a vagina), had hetero sex and fathered this child.¬† So while this “gay” person was having vaginal sex with a person he thought was “male” was he temporarily straight????

  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    “Freedom of speech is a good thing, Redbaiter, so is freedom from persecution and discrimination.”

    Discrimination is a basic function of the human intelligence system.

    You should exercise some yourself, especially in respect of the by rote Orwellian/Progressive drivel you mistake for reasoned comment.

    • Cobolt

      ¬†“Discrimination is a basic function of the human intelligence system.”
      I guess most of us have evolved beyond the “basic functions” then huh Redbaiter.

      • grumpy

        Nope, “built on” the basic functions would be closer.

  • Jimmie

    Also if you want to argue bible verses how about this from Romans Chapter 1?

    18¬†For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,¬†19¬†because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown¬†it¬†to them.¬†20¬†For since the creation of the world His invisible¬†attributes¬†are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,¬†even¬†His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,¬†21¬†because, although they knew God, they did not glorify¬†Him¬†as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.¬†22¬†Professing to be wise, they became fools,¬†23¬†and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man‚ÄĒand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.24¬†Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,¬†25¬†who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.26¬†For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.¬†27¬†Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.28¬†And even as they did not like to retain God in¬†their¬†knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;¬†29¬†being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c]¬†wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness;¬†they are¬†whisperers,¬†30¬†backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,31¬†undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d]¬†unmerciful;¬†32¬†who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.I don’t really like the cut and paste too much but if you want to quote some bible stuff ya can’t go around cherry picking what suits ya own view points.

    • Bunswalla

      What have the romans ever done for us?

      • Pukakidon

         Romans must be pretty judgemental pricks then, but they will never do anything for anyone, they are a nation of selfish people. Just ask the Chicken of the Sea, he could not give a shit about the people lost at sea.  

        What did Churchill say when on an Italian Cruis-Liner.   Great Food, Excellent Service and no such thing as women and children first when the boat is sinking.

  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    “so ..why do you not allow that at that round centre of auto-eroticism blog that you run..?”

    That you apparently believe I should allow a fucking one dimensional leftist dildo like you to use up my storage allocation and that this would be an example of “freedom of speech” just demonstrates that as usual Phool, you don’t have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

    • http://whoar.co.nz/ phillip ure

      ¬†cut the crap red..it’s not all about me..

      ..you state clearly at circle-jerk-central that anyone opposing your ideas can just fuck off..

      ..don’t you..?

      ..care to quantify further..?

      ..try again..?

      phil@whoar.

  • Blair Mulholland

    I have no problem with gay people “marrying” each other – that’s their right in a free society.¬† It’s also my right to disagree that such an arrangement is a marriage, but I don’t think there should be a law against it.¬† It’s the bit of paper from the government saying “marriage” on it which I have a problem with.

    I’d rather the government didn’t issue bits of paper at all, but since I believe a proper marriage is only between a man and a woman, if they are going to continue to do it, they should only endorse straight couples.

    If some people feel differently, that’s democracy – let’s vote on it and be done with it.¬† But a sheet of paper from the government is not a human right, it is an arbitrary endorsement, and because of my beliefs, I would rather they did not endorse relationships which I do not think are marriages.

    I also fail to see how your view that two dudes rocking up to a church exchanging vows is a marriage is more valid than my view that it is not.¬† In terms of public debate, they are of equal value.¬† I don’t think God meant two men or two women to be in sexual relationships with each other.¬† That’s part of my faith.¬† You disagree.¬† That’s fine.¬† Do what you want.¬† But since we have a say in what our government does, I vote no.¬† That’s my right, and it should be respected without people calling each other names.

    • Cobolt

       I disagree with your thinking Blair but I applaud the way you have stated your case.
      I believe this is an issue for a referendum and for the government to obey the will of the people.
      But before the referendum takes place there needs to be a robust public debate that looks at the facts  moving forward instead of all this sky is falling and left wing conspiracy crap.

      • Pete George

        Like the robust debate that looks at the facts instead of sky is falling and conspiracy crap for MOM/asset sales?

    • Kosh103

      If the whole thing is arbitrary, then we can change the meaning of marriage to what ever we like.

  • Stuart4

    I do not see marriage as the realm of the church, this is because most religious groups have something fairly close to marriage therefore I see it as a tradition. Various churches may be the largest voices opposed to gay marriage, but it is not their right to defend marriage as their own. If each church had its own form of marriage then yes they could defend that as theirs, but I see little difference in most. 

    So I see marriage as a tradition, a common practice throughout generations. Too many traditions are being lost these days, sometimes this is a good thing (e.g. we no longer accept oppressing gay people as acceptable or commonplace) sometimes not so good. Traditions change, and if the majority of people support gay marriage then I will accept that and move on, but while there is debate I will support my cause.

    I oppose gay marriage as I wish to keep this one tradition going as it is. The equality pendulum has swung too far. I see marriage as being a traditional union between a man and a woman and I do not want it to change for the sake of change. Gay people and couples should have the same rights, but simply not the same word. That is all I ask for, one word to stay traditional. One word to show people that I am married to a woman. Our sexuality is a large defining part of us, and when I tell someone I am married I want them to know what it means.

  • BJ

    The word Marriage is copywrite so it shouldn’t be up for discussion.¬†
    Do we rewrite all the ¬†naming words in the dictionary to suit those things that don’t fit the definition? Yes – ¬†I said what defines something. ¬†Because marriage is a status of course it is the definition that is all important, but the gay community want to get passed GO on a description ticket. ¬†Gay Civil Union is the only definition you can use at present unless they wish to invent a new word – ¬†but married they are not and never will be so stop trying to ambush something that defines what I signed up for. You cannot normalize something so abnormal – but hey abnormal is OK but two penises or two vagina’s do not make a marriage.¬†

    • James Gray

      What do you mean “Copywrite”? I assume you mean “Copyright”, a limited monopoly on reproduction of a work granted to the author for a limited period of time (currently the life of the author plus 50 years in New Zealand)… Even assuming a single word is¬†copyright-able, the word marriage dates back to around 1250 AD…

      And what do you mean “ambush”? How does it affect you if two gay men marry?

      • BJ

        Tongue in cheek James – but yes I meant copyright. Two people of the same gender will never have the inherent relationship that the opposites of man and woman have. So what is wrong with making up a new word to define what gay ‘marriage’ encompasses?¬†

  • Blair Mulholland

    Let me also address Straw’s nonsense about unfairness.¬† Lots of women like rugby, for example.¬† And most of them will always like rugby – it’s something that you can’t usually change about a person or force them not to like.¬† But nobody thinks it is unfair that women who like rugby can never play for the All Blacks.¬† You can’t have women All Blacks – it would be wrong to make a law to force women into the team when the All Blacks are by definition a team of men.¬† So it is with gay marriage.¬† It is wrong to make laws designating the word marriage on gay couples, because a marriage is between a man and a woman.¬† Gay couples currently have all the rights that straight couples do, and the state regards them as a couple covered by divorce laws if they live together more than two years anyway.¬† So what is so important about the word “marriage” and the bit of paper with that word on it?¬† Why not leave it be, and celebrate that you are different?

    • BJ

      Very well illustrated Blair. 
      If I may extend that further Рhow acceptable would it be for a womans rugby team to call themselves the All Blacks simply because they play rugby, do the Haka and feel their team has the attributes and heart of the All Blacks?  Рthey may be the same  as the All Blacks in every description but will never ever fit the definition. 

      That ‘different’ woman’s team who feel they tick all the boxes will need to find their own name to reflect their status because the All Blacks is an ‘already taken’ institution.

    • Actual Engineer

      It is because the social engineers don’t
      like traditional marriage because it is ordained by God (i.e. Man + Woman +
      Church).  By changing it as much as possible they are getting what they want,
      state control.  They want the state to be
      above everything else.  So you find a
      cause that sounds good (in this case homo-sexual marriage) and undermines your opponent
      (in this case traditional families and the church).

       

      Also they don’t like the traditional idea
      of marriage as they believe that is enslaves women to the kitchen and all that
      sort of outdated nonsense.

      • Kosh103

        Intresting spin on the truth.

    • Kosh103

      Marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what the law says at the moment.

      Sorta like way back when the law said whites and non whites could not marry – and now they can. Why, because we changed the law.

  • Andrei

    • Andrei

      ROFL – And the capture for this post ¬†was “analtid accomplished”, I kid you not

108%