Where next for Same-sex ‘Marriage’?

The subject, same-sex ‘marriage’, is one we have discussed many times before on CP&S, but seeing the current problems, outrage and divisions it has caused among our neighbours in France, the coming bill to legalise this abomination in England and Wales, is starting to make us all uneasy. The media (mostly in total agreement with this ludicrous bill) in continually calling the French opponents to same-sex marriage “extreme right-wing traditionalists”, or even “fascists”, does not help matters. In making the biased assumption that these opponents are no more than groups of twisted fanatics, not to be taken seriously, rather than normal citizens (most of whom are Catholic, but by no means all) who uphold the one and only possible meaning of ‘marriage’, the general public are receiving a distorted picture of the French resistance to the bill. Same-sex ‘marriage’ is wrong and anti-natural, and one could even say non-existent, whatever it is being called by the politicians!

It remains to be seen what will happen here.

This talk by Richard Kornicki was written and given to us as one of our ‘meditations’ as we walked on the recent Chartres pilgrimage: https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/2013-pentecost-pilgrimage-from-notre-dame-de-paris-to-notre-dame-de-chartres/

Richard Kornicki CBE, is Chairman of Trustees of the Thomas More Legal Centre:  http://www.thomasmorelegal.org.uk/

Marriage: one man and one woman

Marriage: one man and one woman

For Same-Sex Marriage to become law, like any other Act of Parliament, it will require Royal Assent. As it happens, the Government’s plans have already been given Royal Assent – in one form, and that was some years ago. The Monarch in question was the Red Queen in “Alice Through the Looking Glass”. In one famous exchange she declares: “Words mean what I want them to mean”. What Lewis Carroll regarded as absurdity, this Government has, with same-sex marriage, now adopted as a legislative principle. Marriage has always had a perfectly clear meaning; but the Government now wants the word to mean something inherently self-contradictory. You can no more have ‘same-sex marriage’ than you can have mountain-climbing fish or pigs that fly.

Judging by the media reports you would have thought it was already all over. If you listened to the commentators, the vote in favour of Same-Sex Marriage at Second Reading in the House of Commons was the end of the story. Parliament had spoken, all that remained was the dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s.

Fortunately, our Constitution is little less despotic than that. There is still the consideration of the Bill by the House of Lords. And among their Lordships are some blessedly independent minded Peers of all parties.

Eventually though, the Bill will return to the House of Commons, with the amendments made by the House of Lords – if the Bill is not actually rejected wholesale. The House of Commons will consider what the Lords have done with it, and – if they don’t accept the Lords’ amendments – reinstate their original proposals and send it off to the House of Lords again.

If you are beginning to think that this could go on forever as an absurd form of Parliamentary ping-pong, you are absolutely right. But the convention is that the House of Lords will ultimately always give way on a Finance Bill or a manifesto commitment.

And that is where this all gets rather interesting, because three days before the last election Cameron said that he had no plans to introduce same-sex marriage. It was never in his manifesto. There was no Green Paper for discussion, and no White Paper with detailed proposals. And the Bill was not even mentioned in the recent Queen’s Speech setting out the Government’s programme for the coming session. As one MP commented, this has become the Bill that dare not speak its name.

In these circumstances, there is no reason why the Lords should necessarily give way in the end. The Government would then have to use the Parliament Act to force it through. Whether they would dare, given the extraordinary lack of democratic underpinning for the policy, is anyone’s guess. It would be a breathtaking constitutional outrage and many might not support it for that reason alone.

And the Government now knows the price of its policy. In the local elections, same-sex marriage was clearly identified as one of the reasons a number of voters turned to UKIP. The Government has since analysed all the reasons why people voted for UKIP…. Except for this one. It is the elephant in the Cabinet Room.

But the only thing that ultimately drives politicians is votes. Without votes, you cannot get elected, without votes you cannot form a majority Government, without votes you do not have the power to fulfil any of your ambitions. Given the present state of the economy, of employment, of the NHS, of the armed forces; it would be a very rash Prime Minister who thought he could risk losing any votes. I think Sir Humphrey of fond memory would describe it not as ‘brave’ but as ‘courageous’ – if I can translate, brave means you lose votes, courageous means you lose elections.

So it is all to play for. But what will it mean if – God forbid – it does go through?

We have been told there is no need for the Churches to worry, because the Bill is bursting with cast-iron guarantees and a quadruple lock to protect freedom of religion.

Tosh.

No matter how many locks the Bill is shackled with, the European Court of Human Rights can flick them all off with the stroke of a pen. And the Government knows it.

In any event the policy is changing by the day. Originally we were solemnly assured that the policy would not allow for same-sex marriage in Churches, but then the Prime Minister told us that now it would be permitted.

The supporters of the Bill boast of it as providing ‘equal marriage’. But the goal posts have moved again and we now learn that there will be no requirement for same-sex couples to consummate their marriage; that adultery will not be a ground for divorce for same-sex couples (unless with a person of a different sex); and even the table of kindred and affinity will not apply. That is not equal marriage, whatever else it may be. But there is little point expecting logic or common sense to have any application to this Bill. We are in Alice in Wonderland territory.

The Government sticks to the simplistic argument that this is all about love and commitment and that is sufficient justification. But was this not the justification for Civil Partnerships? And if love and commitment are sufficient to justify special legal recognition for a same-sex relationship, then could the Government please explain why it is not prepared to recognise the extraordinary self-sacrificing love and commitment of a single person caring for an elderly parent, giving up their own aspirations for the good of another? Or what about the affectionate love and commitment of two unmarried siblings who live together into their old age? Don’t these people matter too? Evidently not.

If the Government had approached this policy with any serious thought, it would have begun by being clear about what marriage is. But insofar as the Government has bothered to set out any thoughts at all, it is a sadly impoverished understanding, unable to see that marriage constitutes anything beyond an inward looking arrangement for the emotional and practical convenience of any two people. But what marriage has always meant is very much more than that. It is inherently procreative, capable of building the family and extending itself. It produces the unit of society which, as all the evidence shows, provides the best foundation on which the next generation can be created and brought up as functioning members of society. That is why society has always given a particular legal status to marriage distinct from all other relationships: it is because it provides an essential benefit to society itself.

At present, the limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples means that a whole range of issues where same-sex equality issues might arise are simply not justifiable. However, the moment the definition of marriage is changed to accommodate same-sex couples, every one of them will suddenly become open to challenge in the courts. And recent experience suggests we will not have to wait long before the lawyers are briefed. Let me take just a few examples.

State schools, including faith schools, are required to teach the national curriculum. Once the state has redefined marriage, teachers will be obliged to teach all children that marriage between a same-sex couple is identical to marriage between a man and a woman. How long will it be before a teacher is disciplined or dismissed for being unable to teach something which is against his conscience or against the religious ethos of the school in which he teaches? We are told by the Government, that we will be able to state the Catholic view of marriage in a Catholic school – how very kind and generous of them. But we will also be obliged to teach the state’s very different understanding of marriage. Already Stonewall has prepared the cheerily illustrated little story-books for five year olds, telling cosy stories about having two Daddies. Woe betide the child who is upset by this. Woe betide the parent who objects. Woe betide the teacher who refuses to use them.

Or to take another example, we know how great is the need for foster and adoptive parents. They are rightly subject to close scrutiny by Social Services before acceptance. But if a potential foster couple believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, what will the reaction be? Every local authority department is bound by the public sector equality duty, to say nothing of its own diversity policies. It could not regard a belief in the unique status of marriage between a man and woman as being compliant with its policies and duties. Having disposed of the Catholic adoption agencies, this Government might well succeed in disposing of Catholic foster and adoptive parents.

And when a Catholic priest marries a couple, he does so in law as well as religion because he is legally authorised to conduct marriages in the absence of a registrar. But how long will it be before someone challenges the right of a priest to be authorised to conduct marriages if he is not prepared to conduct everything that the State would regard as a marriage? Whatever safeguards the Government may put in the Bill, they are all capable of being European Court of Human Rights – which, as we have seen time and again, allows only very limited discretion where homosexual rights are concerned. Of course same-sex marriage in a Church will only be where the religious body opts in to the arrangement… but if they don’t opt in, their right to conduct any marriage may well be called into question. We may find ourselves doing as they do here in France, going to a civil registrar to establish a marriage in law, and then to a Church for a sacramental marriage.

These are all practical questions that have already been put to the Government in response to its consultation process. We are still waiting for answers.

As we marched out of Paris we sang “Faith of Our Fathers”. We sang how sweet our fate would be, if we could suffer for Christ as our martyrs did.

We do not face anything so dramatic, but we certainly will face a direct confrontation between our beliefs and the law of the land. For some of us, if employed in the public sector, we may be required to assent to diversity policies which would be against our conscience. The security of jobs, or our hopes of promotion, may well come into issue. Whatever the situation is, it will be far from sweet. Taking a stand will be lonely, embarrassing, and difficult. It may be profoundly uncomfortable. Others around us may compromise their beliefs for practical reasons. Many of our friends and family will think we are mad not to do so. We will gain nothing but abuse; who knows how much we may face losing.

This is the reality that we may well face. So we had better prepare ourselves now. We need to know what we will say and why, before the Human Resources department hauls us in to explain ourselves.

The only strength the Church has ever had, has been the strength of truth. What was true yesterday, remains true today, and it will still be true tomorrow. That is the nature of truth. No Act of Parliament can change the teaching of the Catholic Church. No Act of Parliament can change a single Catholic conscience. And no Act of Parliament will prevent the Catholic Church proclaiming that truth and acting on it, whatever the consequences.

Pray God that this awful Bill does not become law. But if it does, pray God that we may find the courage to continue to proclaim the truth.

St Thomas More,                                                                                                                                 St John Fisher,                                                                                                                                     St Margaret Clitherow,                                                                                                                   All Martyrs of England and Wales, Pray for us.

Remember then O most loving Virgin Mary…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Where next for Same-sex ‘Marriage’?

  1. Toad says:

    “As it happens, the Government’s plans have already been given Royal Assent – in one form, and that was some years ago. The Monarch in question was the Red Queen in “Alice Through the Looking Glass”. In one famous exchange she declares: “Words mean what I want them to mean”.”

    As it happens, Mr. Kornicki CBE, those words were said by Mr. Humpty Dumpty, a commoner (although he would not be best pleased to hear himself so described) not the Red Queen.
    So there goes the cunning reference to monarchy and Royal Assent right up the Khyber Pass, does it not?. However the White Queen (Doh! Wrong colour!) did boast that she made a habit of believing six impossible things before breakfast every morning.
    Which no doubt endears her to those of the religious persuasion who entertain very similar predilections.
    Mr. Kornicki CBE really ought to treat The World’s Greatest Book (bar none – Bible and Koran included) in a little less cavalier fashion. Thinks Toad.

    Like

  2. Mimi says:

    Great post, Kathleen. A most inspiring and informative speech. I shall copy it and keep it for the inevitable moment when our rotten government tries to introduce such legislation. The introduction of abortion is the first item on their agenda, of course. Please pray for us as we demonstrate this weekend against this horror.

    Like

  3. Roger says:

    Not a time for weakness. On the contrary it is a time for Unity.
    Remember St Paul on the Road to Damascus! The Road to Damascus is very very pertinent today is it not?
    If Catholics Unified against Divorce, Abortion, Gay-Marriage then what would happen. In 19th century Cardinal Manning 1883 and the London Dock Strike!
    The Vote is being ignored in Greece, Spain and Italy where the policies of Austerity are being imposed on the electorate! Do not put your Faith in the Vote.
    14 countries have put Gay-Marriage in their Laws. So there is an International imposition going on.
    Of what Use are Elections and Party Agendas if these are tossed over and other Agendas are pursued when in Power.
    The Church RIGHT NOW SHOULD SAY IN UNISON NOT JUST NO but there will be NO Coronation NO Marriages NO Baptisms NOTHING if this becomes LAW.
    UNIFIED response from ALL Christians (the irony is that Muslims and other Faiths would join in).
    At the same time a continuous Vigil of Prayer and fasting in reparation for the offence against God of this secular definition of Marriage.
    Think of Cardinal Manning!

    Like

  4. kathleen says:

    Hi Mimi,
    Yes, I shall certainly pray for you all in Eire that the demonstration goes off well, and that hearts and consciences are touched fitfully enough to vote against this horrendous evil. Well done to you, and everyone else who takes part, for sticking up for your Catholic beliefs!

    Yes Roger,
    Prayer Vigils and sacrifices are what we need in abundance to storm Heaven in supplication.

    Like

  5. Toad says:

    “You can no more have ‘same-sex marriage’ than you can have mountain-climbing fish or pigs that fly.”
    Mr. Koswicki has clearly never enjoyed a RyanAir flight from Stanstead ro Valladollid. However, despite this, and his somewhat relaxed reading of Alice’s Adventures, he makes some valid points.

    Nobody should be forced to do things they don’t believe in, be they Catholic or Gay, or neither, or either, or both.
    This cuts several ways, of course. And everybody cannot ultimately be pleased.
    And it all depends on the things people want to do, or want not to do.
    And is a great deal easier in theory than in practice.

    “We may find ourselves doing as they do here in France, going to a civil registrar to establish a marriage in law, and then to a Church for a sacramental marriage.”
    How terrible an eventuality would that be?
    The ladies would probably need to buy two sorts of ridiculously expensive hats, but what else?

    Like

  6. Toad says:

    Unorthodox views on the (loony) media are to be strongly encouraged, Golden, or so I would strongly suggest. Legalised like “Gay Marriage” in fact? Well, why not?

    Shaw (excellent surname! A relation, I hope!) is a good enough writer, but I have to disagree mildly on the picturesque, but quixotic, notion of The Media getting clandestinely together in some smoke-filled den or stew in Downtown Chinatown to communally plot the downfall of ,The Catholic Religion, behind closed doors.
    Probably because nobody ever asked me to be part of such a deplorable, but fascinating, undertaking.
    My loss, to be Shaw. (Maybe, with my actual surname, they thought I might be a fifth-columnist?) But there you are.
    Anyway, didn’t happen.
    But then I may be wrong.
    And maybe it did.

    Like

  7. Frere Rabit says:

    Yes, Toad, that is the sort of inanity I had in mind when I first mentioned the problem. Well done. I am sure you are much amused by your comments. There is a real issue here which you are obscuring with nonsense.

    Meanwhile, the substance of this blog post is a very serious one and deserves more sensible appraisal. Every day of my teaching career I have seen the gradual decline in the ability of children to cope with the basic social structures that we have in place for their education. Their learning begins with the family.

    The “equal marriage” fiasco is the last nail in the coffin, as we fight our constant battle to socialise children in school when they have no social input at home. Devalue marriage and you release the social dogs of war,

    Like

  8. Toad says:

    Whether or not The Dreaded Media really is masterminding a giant conspiracy with the intent of destroying The Catholic Church, Marriage As We Know It, and thereby the entire fabric of Western Civilisation – is a matter of some concern to Golden and myself, Rabit.
    Possibly, it may be of interest to others on CP&S as well.
    I’m sorry that it doesn’t apparently interest you.
    But there we are.
    I do try to look on the bright side, certainly. But my inane attempts at humour usually conceal a serious intent or point.
    To put it In a nutshell, (where it belongs) there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

    Like

  9. Toad says:

    “Programmed by Ideology” is the headline on Mr Shaw’s article, linked above by Golden.
    If The Catholic Church itself does not itself represent its own ideology, what on earth does it represent?

    I suppose it all depends on what is meant by “ideology.” Back to Humpty again.

    Like

  10. Roger says:

    Toad points out the problem but doesn’t follow through on the logic.
    “..Nobody should be forced to do things they don’t believe in, be they Catholic or Gay, or neither, or either, or both.
    This cuts several ways, of course. And everybody cannot ultimately be pleased.
    And it all depends on the things people want to do, or want not to do.
    And is a great deal easier in theory than in practice. ..”

    For Nobody replace with SELF.
    Self is your enemy SELF comes from Original Sin and fragments and challenges SELFINTEREST.
    So Human Rights is the road to HELL because it is the road of SELF.
    Why Self because GOD alone is I AM and that is what Self says I Think therefor I AM.

    Beware of anything be it pyschology or reglion , mediatation that says Self (awareness), (esteem), (knowledge). It is the road to Hell.

    Free Will isn’t about accepting perversity its a choice between Heaven and Hell. Self and Selflessness.
    The Natural Law pertains to all men and this stands against Toads argument. Your argument is that anybody can believe anything, in effect do anything crap they no right from wrong.
    Lets have 6 billion individuals all with 6 billion rights to do whatever they want to whomever they want.

    Like

  11. Toad says:

    One problem is, Roger, that you sound the same as ‘fanatical’ Muslims do.
    Or, at least, you do to me.

    Anyway, I can neither understand, nor interpret, any exterior (or interior, come to that) phenomena except through the medium of (MY)SELF.
    And neither can you.

    Like

  12. kathleen says:

    Toad @ 7:16

    What on earth are you talking about? Are you trying to pretend the subject interests you, when your comments picking out banal details irrelevant to the subject in question, show just the opposite…. and then accusing Rabit of your own fault!! Really Toad, you are incorrigible.

    Rabit hits the nail on the head when he effectively points out how this (re-defining the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples) is a vitally important issue. It is one which sadly we just cannot begin to imagine the coming disaster for our western civilisation if – or should I say ‘when’? – it comes to pass.
    We should not forget that it was basically the slow giving in to self-indulgence and licentiousness (sins of the Devil) that was the fall of the Roman Emperor. Has history taught us nothing?
    ________

    Nor can you write off Roger‘s comments in the same way.
    He is quite right when he says that the “non serviam” of Adam is at the root of all sin. (He called it SELF, but it’s the same thing.)

    Like

  13. Toad says:

    Virtually everything interests me, Kathleen. Too many things, too often, in fact.
    Rabit seemed uninterested in The Dastardly Media Plot To Corrupt The World, not “Gay marriage.” But maybe I’m reading it wrongly. If so, sorry.

    And isn’t Western Civilisation already a disaster?
    Of course, you are entitled to assume that it could yet become an even bigger one.

    Like

  14. golden chersonnese says:

    If The Catholic Church itself does not itself represent its own ideology, what on earth does it represent?

    I suppose it all depends on what is meant by “ideology.” Back to Humpty again.

    I think, Toad, religion is mostly distinguished from ideology, or at least I have found it so. Hence my consternation when my own feminist fraternal (or ought that really be “sororal”?) twin sister, now in a secure position in the History dept. of a premier Australian university, innocently assured us one Christmas dins, that “it (i.e. ‘everything’) is just ideology!”. But that was before her mastectomy.

    Ideology. Toad, we suspect, is more concerned with insisting upon a set of rather precise, confident, intense and all-pervading assertions regarding the social and/or political spheres. That doesn’t strike me as an adequate description of the Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism or the animism I am mostly familiar with, (but with Islam you may have a point at least partially, as it can be quite political/juridical, at least that is so here).

    I think the thing about Catholicism is that many think it is not political or social enough. It is too weakly spiritual. This is in spite of Jesuits intending otherwise since 1973 and liberation theology and suchlike.

    Oh taste and see how gracious the Lord is! Blessed is the man who trusts in Him. Not really the usual stuff of ideology, eh Toad?

    Like

  15. Roger says:

    Salvific History is the restoration of a Paradisaical Theocracy.
    Our Lord , Son of David. Also placed above his Cross King Of The Jews.
    Heaven is a Kingdom of course of Love. Hell an Anti Kingdom on Hate. The Papal crown is a triple crown and the Papal powers given by Our Lord include binding on Earth.
    Polis (of the City) has become to mean theories of governance and as we should now realise without God.
    Today with the contraction of Faith and especially the serious reduction in the reparation for Sin what does the Faith reveal about what must happen?
    If Wars are a punishment for Sins then again what must happen?
    Of course Catholicism is a Social Order around the Church as was the Mosaic Church around the Temple. What is the Communion of the Saints unless it is a Social Order.
    Malachy Martin expressly drew attention to
    Second Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Thessalonians
    Chapter 2
    [3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,
    [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.

    The Revolt? the Great Apostacy, the turning away from the Faith. Same Sex Marriage is an evidence of the rejection of Christ in the modern world.

    Man as created is an Eternal Creature. The Passion Death and Resurrection of Our Lord proves that Man survives the Death of His Body! This Eternity has to be won through Our Free Will choice.
    God will not permit the taking away of Free Will contrary to human minds.
    There is a moment when God will intervene and we know through Fatima “..IN THE END..” that at this time the Triumph Is to be through Our Lady (because so God decrees).

    Toad man today is in revolt against his Creator and the west has NO excuse for this because it is a rational choice and rejection.

    This isn’t about Free Choice and Gay’s this is the deliberate and calculated rejection of Christs Passion. These men are thus choosing the state of Fallen Man and doing so Hell for Eternity. The result is and watch as it begins to unfold a Hell on Earth.

    Like

  16. golden chersonnese says:

    Roger, you seem to ignore the fact that prophethood and propelled-by-the-spirit-hood have already been exclusively bagsed by Catholic dissidents for at least the last 40 years. Do try and keep up,

    Like

  17. Frere Rabit says:

    “Rabit seemed uninterested in The Dastardly Media Plot To Corrupt The World”

    I didn’t get where I am today by going off at a tangent. Indeed the “The Dastardly Media Plot To Corrupt The World” is of very little interest to me. The issue of the deliberate and cynical undermining of the institution of marriage, by a minority group who have a very clear anti-Christian agenda, is what we need to focus on.

    If you don’t see any need to focus, that is understandable, as you have your own chosen role as court jester, so you are excused any role in the battle. We do at least have the commonsense to realise that Toad is hopelessly stuck in no-mans-land without any sense of direction or commitment. To regard that muddy quagmire as the moral high ground is the only mistake Toad seems to make.

    In my Rabit view, of course. Rabit may be wrong, of course. Of course, of course.

    Like

  18. Roger says:

    Golden I actually suggest going further back into the 18th and especially the 19th Century. The mistake being made is that of only looking from a contemperary view point. Look Prophecy is often only understood years after it has happened! Look at the Passion of Our Lord how many Jews recognised in the Passion the ancient Prophecy’s. How many even knew of the virgin birth? Look do you think that the virgin birth was common knowledge?
    I ignore the vast majority of opinions handed out in the last 40 years over Prophecy.
    But right now what is happening in the governments of the world is a rejection of Christ. This is being done in two ways
    1/ Out right rejection on grounds of material and modernism
    2/ The Masonic pluralism (which pagan Rome had) ALL religions equally valid.
    But just look at the Lords Prayer and ask what are Temptations? Where do these come from? How do you discern True from False.

    We are seeing the rise of a pluralist (many or no Gods) Rome (treaty of Rome is behind Europe). on the wreck of what was Christendom. This began especially 500 years ago and accelerated during 19th century into the bloodiest century ever know 20th.

    The secular governments and human rights which are place before and are superior to Gods Rights.

    Fatima and what happened in 1917 was at the level of the Old Testament! That should reverberate as a warning to mankind. Look is the Faith growing or contracting? Because this is another way of saying in the battle against Sin who is winning?
    Sin is encoded in the laws! Understand that perversity of this that it means Persecution is inevitable. It also means we are seeing a Great Apostacy before Our eyes.
    Fatima? This was Romes position we believe in Fatima! BUT we do not have to Obey any message passed to Us by Children!
    Rome Disobeyed Our Lady even after the Sun Danced! Before 1960 you could rely on Holy Obedience. After 1960 (and especially the list of significant Masons in the Curia) Blind Obedience would be very very dangerous.
    The Austerity has created a generation of young whom are without religion and without jobs! Were will this lead to?

    Like

  19. Toad says:

    “I didn’t get where I am today by going off at a tangent.”

    Oh, come on Rabit! Going off at a tangent is precisely how you got where you are today.
    Enjoying a splendid and sybaritic life in the sun, with noble donkeys as a companionable bonus.
    And you have earned it.

    (This sounds suspiciously like what the late, great, JH would have called “irony.”
    But it is not. Well, not very.)

    Like

  20. Roger says:

    Lets not mince words here.
    This is a direct attack on Marriage and the Holy Family with an intent to destroy the Trinity. Its is pure Satanic. The Holy Family is at the heart of Christianity and Our Lords first miracle was at the Marriage at Cana. Fatherhood, Motherhood , Sons and Daughters.

    It is the worst level of Social Blasphemy pure Satanism and at the level of Sodom and Gomorrha.
    Wickedness beyond measure.

    How appropriate in that the year 2013.

    Genesis 13 verse 13
    And the men of Sodom were very wicked, and sinners before the face of the Lord, beyond measure.

    Lets not forget Akita and the Fire from Heaven! Then consider this Blasphemous marriage

    Jude 1:7
    As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

    Apocalypse 11:8
    And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified.

    It is a very significant sign of the level of wickedness and darkness that has now been reached.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s