Archbishop Cranmer (a British blog that has graced our blogroll from the outset) has three posts in succession on the topic of legislation favoring homosexuals.
First comes news of a heterosexual couple denied the right to enter into a civil partnership. The law establishing civil unions requires that the couple be of the same gender.
The Conservative Party attempted to add an amendment to the Civil Partnership Bill; one which would have granted siblings the same rights as homosexuals. Cheryl Gillan was concerned with such instances as two spinster sisters who have lived together all of their lives, or a bachelor brother and spinster sister who care for elderly relatives. The amendment was defeated, since the sole purpose of the legislation was to grant a state-recognised union to homosexuals alone.
Second, the EU is taking measures to punish Lithuania for passing a law that “prohibits promotion of ‘homosexual, bisexual, polygamous relations’ among children under the age of 18.”
Astonishingly (or perhaps not), the European Parliament has considered ‘Article 7’ action against Lithuania, which could have resulted in Lithuania’s suspension from the European Union. And all because they have dared to confront what they deem to be insidious homosexual propaganda. . . .
[T]he European Parliament voted 349-218 to condemn the new law because they say it contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. They insist that the law should therefore be repealed: it is inconsistent with EU membership.
Finally, Cranmer has a video clip of Lord Waddington. It is tempting for Americans to presume that some equivalent of the First Amendment protects free-speech rights in other Western countries. Yet the Waddington Amendment has been unpopular and controversial because it puts limits on the proposed “hate speech” law and permits people to criticize the homosexual lifestyle. The amendment states:
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.
Of course, the amendment and those who support it are criticized in the vilest terms. The criticism is frequently accompanied by the argument that those who fail to acknowledge homosexuality as equally good to heterosexuality are merely ignorant religious bigots who should be drummed out of polite society.
As with other issues dear to the left, the debate is being declared over, and the last murmurings of opposition will be made criminal.
{ 1 trackback }