1 3 mins 11 yrs

I note the intervention of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, in the “gay marriage” debate;

“Lord Carey wrote that he was “baffled” by Mr Cameron’s statement at last year’s Conservative Party conference, in which the Prime Minister said: “I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

In his article, Lord Carey said: “Like many others, I was baffled by this statement. Not because I begrudge rights and benefits to homosexual couples.” He said he was baffled “because this Government’s proposal constitutes one of the greatest political power grabs in history.” He went on: “The state does not ‘own’ the institution of marriage. Nor does the church. The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.”

Interesting comment there from Lord Carey. However I am not sure I agree with him.

If the institution of marriage precedes the State or Church, from whence does it come? If it has no ownership then why should the State not seek to grab control of it? After all, the State can argue no one is losing out.

My view is that Church marriage DOES belong to the Church and therefore it can legitimately argue that it will not allow the State to tell it what to do. This is where my idea of separation of  Church and State comes into play. Cameron’s statement is the usual PR spin that he so good at – utterly meaningless. For an alleged Conservative to insist that gay marriage is something a Conservative would naturally support defies all logic but when one is appealing to opinion polls this is the sort of nonsense we can expect.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

One thought on “POWER GRAB

  1. Carey is certainly correct that the State does not own marriage. Until the French Revolution the State had nothing to do with it whatsoever, nothing at all. Up to then, and even much later in the more civilised parts of the world, it would have been the oddest idea that the State should involve itself in marriage.

    Typically, so-called conservatives not only defend the revolutionary idea that the State ought to sanction marriage but they wish to deepen and extend the State’s involvement. The conservative aim ought to be a total withdrawal of the State from marriage.

Comments are closed.