I watched some of the debate yesterday, I was quite impressed by a few of the Christian MPs contributions, I was a little shocked by most of the Catholics who seemed to side with the Redefiners. I felt quite sympathetic towards all those homosexual MPs who wanted to get married, the Redefiners seemed to argue for the most part from touchy feeliness.
I have no problem with the Cranmerian Book of Common Prayer definition of Marriage, with its presumption that it was between a man and woman, which until yesterday was what formed the basis of Marriage in English Law
Yesterday that was swept aside and has been replaced by something vague and ill defined, described as "loving committment" between two people.
- First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
- Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
- Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
Whatever most of the MPs in yesterday's debate were speaking about and what won the debate is something quite contrary to what the Catholic Church and the Christian tradition understands by "Marriage".
I am with Fr Tim, lets get out of that thing which the State now defines as "Marriage", the State can do whatever it likes but it is not something I in conscience recognise as Marriage and I want nothing to do with this thing that is now touted as "Marriage". It is contrary to God, to the Naural Law and my conscience, I want a divorce!