Posted on 12/11/2017 6:25:35 PM PST by marshmallow
The UK Government is expected to endorse new plans for heterosexual civil partnerships that would undermine marriage.
Conservative MP Tim Loughton has introduced a Private Members’ Bill to extend the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which currently only applies to homosexual couples.
According to media reports, his Bill is expected to receive support from the Government at its second reading in February and has already been endorsed by Education Secretary Justine Greening.
‘Marriage-lite’
This weekend it was reported that the Scottish National Party’s national council – the body responsible for policy-making – has also backed calls for heterosexual civil partnerships.
Angela Constance, Scotlands Equalities Minister, told MSPs the Scottish Government will seek to legislate “later in this parliament”.
Reacting to the news, Deputy Director at The Christian Institute Simon Calvert said: “This is yet another fundamental attack on traditional marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at christian.org.uk ...
I wonder how the pervert patrol would react if we offered an a la carte menu in the United States: “civil partnerships” that included all the legal benefits of marriage, or real marriage without legal status. I suspect normal people would do both - have a real wedding, as a sacrament in front of God, and also file the paperwork for a civil partnership. What would the LGBTQIA freaks choose?
Chopping away at civilization.
A republic of free citizens has an interest in the formation of permanent family bonds. A dictatorship has an interest in the disintegration of family bonds, resulting in a confused, depressed, and easily herded subject population.
“A republic of free citizens has an interest in the formation of permanent family bonds.”
A republic of free citizens has an interest in associating as they choose. They do NOT have the right to compel anyone else to associate with them, or to recognize their own chosen associations.
I’m not so sure official government sanction of marriage is in the best interest of those who value marriage. Because with that sanction comes definition. And government has no business defining marriage.
Unless you want every conceivable coupling elevated to “official marriage”.
Did not the King of England start this nonsense by removing the recognition of marriage from the public ceremony on the church in assembly to a permission granted by the state for a license fee in order to raise revenue?
What has changed? Marriage lite won’t come without a fee to the crown.
Yes, the devil is in the details. Nonetheless, I affirm the philosophical point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.