From John Smeaton’s blog:
Following indications that the Cameron government plans to launch its bill for same-sex marriage next week, SPUC has written to government MPs warning them against the move.
The letter slams the government’s railroading of its proposals as “dishonest”, “high-handed” and “shoddy”. SPUC points out that the family based on real (i.e heterosexual) marriage is the safest place for children both born and unborn. The letter ends by warning that at the next general election SPUC will highlight MPs’ voting records on same-sex marriage.
The full text of SPUC’s letter to MPs is below.
SPUC’s position paper on the same-sex marriage issue can be read at http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/ssm201201
Letter to government MPs regarding same-sex marriage, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), 5 December 2012
“Dear [name of government MP],
I write regarding a story that the Government plans to launch its bill for same‐sex marriage next week.
If the story is correct, it is consistent with the thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable way the government and its allies have attacked real marriage. In the marriage consultation exercise earlier this year, Mr Cameron sought in a high‐handed manner to discuss only “how” to achieve his aims, and not to consider whether they have merit or public support. To hang his proposals on a non‐manifesto plan to “consider the case for changing the law” on civil partnerships is another shoddy manoeuvre.
Marriage is embedded in the fabric of society. Marriage is unquestionably the best setting for children to be conceived, born and raised and to receive their first education. The marriage‐based family is also (and critically for us who defend unborn children) the safest social context for new life.
Contributors to the consultation exercise drew attention to the evidence of the benefits of real marriage, the support for it, its ancient pre‐political heritage, its worldwide status, and the approach of mainstream religions. However, drawing attention to the enormity of his folly only seems to have made Mr Cameron more determined.
We will continue to point out the hypocrisy of asserting that “equal marriage” will not interfere with church weddings. Those planning the legislation know full well that churches which refuse to co‐operate will be denied civil recognition of their marriage rites or face worse persecution.
The recent by‐election results have proven disappointing for both Conservative and Lib‐Dem parties. This is not surprising, given the usual run of mid‐term contests. What was most notable was the strong showing by UKIP, which broadly supports real marriage. SPUC has never taken a party political line, but we do tell people where individual election candidates stand, and our activists have highlighted the position of UKIP candidates alongside others in these contests. We will continue to inform electors of candidates’ voting records and voting intentions on a wide range of issues in future elections.
I urge you to ask Mr Cameron to reconsider and to withdraw his plan.
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC)