Plans to allow gay couples to marry or register their civil partnerships in church have been condemned as unChristian and unConservative by senior Tory MP,Edward Leigh.

The MP for Gainsborough, a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, stressed that he was not criticising the rights of homosexual couples to “get on with their lives”. But he continued: “This does not extend to mangling the language of marriage so that, for the sake of the tiny number of gay people who prefer marriage to civil partnership, everyone else in society must have the definition of their own marriage altered forever. I am astonished and disappointed that a Conservative Government, albeit a coalition one, has announced it is consulting on whether to do away with traditional marriage which has always been between a man and a woman. Once we have departed from the universally understood framework of marriage, there is no logical reason why the new alternative institution should be limited to two people. Why not three? Or thirty-three? Same-sex couples already have all the rights of marriage in the form of civil partnership. Why must they also have the language of marriage? No doubt because it is an important symbol to them. But it is also an important symbol to many other people. Must the religious and cultural heritage of the whole nation be overturned to suit the demands of a minority even of the gay community itself?”

COMMENT: Mr. Leigh is either rather dense or a bigot. If he really believes that gay people being allowed to marry will lead to thirty-three people insisting on getting married to each other, he is certainly dense. If he is just scare-mongering, then he is the nastiest of bigots, even by Conservative standards.

You see, the reason why gay people want to use the language of marriage is because they want traditional, two people, in sickness and in health, till death do us part marriage. For a heterosexual to claim that gay couples will have a different view of marriage to heterosexual couples is displaying both arrogance and a complete lack of human understanding. The last thing that gay people will do, should they ever be allowed to marry on exactly the same terms as heterosexuals, will be to undermine marriage by insisting on the allowance of the ridiculous. Because to do so would undermine their own marriages as much as anybody else's. I am absolutely certain that should the Association of Thirty Three Times Bigamists ever try to get their evil way, it will be the newly married gay couples who will be leading the campaign against such rot.

Mr. Leigh is, of course, not that stupid.

Mr Leigh is the closest thing to Sarah Palin in British politics.

He is even trying to get ripping foxes to shreds made legal again.



  1. I fail to see how my marriage is undermined by gay or lesbian people being accorded the privilege of marriage. I just do not get it. I can only think some people feel their own marriages are soiled by having people of the same sex also getting married. I can’t make that leap of insanity, for insane it is, since I should think serial monogamy and multiple divorces would have, by that understanding, already soiled marriage beyond repair. (Being a remarried divorcee, please understand, I don’t actually go in for the “soiled” language in the first place.)

    So, as MP notes, this is for the sake of stirring up people just for the sake of having power over other people, plain and simple. I do not, I do not give people like Mr. Leigh the benefit of the doubt of having principles which he is upholding. I can just hear him counseling a hetero couple not to marry, because they will be lowering themselves to the level of a gay couple. It’s all about power, and losing it, and the faster that power is lost, the better.

  2. A young woman in Florida explained to me years ago that being married is hard. She explained that having to give up some of her independence, being a mom and even being faithful were difficult. Then she said that if anyone even gays could do it, then the value of her, “sacrifices” (that was her word) was diminished. She needed to know that this was something only she and others like her (superior folks) could do and that the “sacrifice” was valuable.

    I listened in near shock but I also realized her sincerity. Her ability to be “good” was predicated on knowing that lesbians could not, at least in part. She needed to feel superior.

    I have my suspicions about what was really going on there. If she had been secure in her straight identity, maybe she would have felt differently. But in any case she is not the only one.

    The mindset is that if anyone can be married, it is less valuable to them. I have found it other places in a (sometimes way too long) life.

    I recall when Kiwanis, Rotary and the other “business men’s charities” began admitting women. A number of men dropped memberships. If “mere women” could be members the club was not exclusive enough for them. Made me wonder why they had been members? Was it to do good for folks and advance themselves, or simply to know others were not in the circle?

    Seems like we have the same sort of persons on both sides of the pond.


  3. the reason why gay people want to use the language of marriage is because they want traditional, two people, in sickness and in health, till death do us part marriage

    And they’ll probably do about as well at it, as the hets do. Which is to say, craptastically!

    [Sorry kids, Valentine’s Day is over, and I certainly didn’t get any—so it’s back to raining on EVERYBODY’s parade! ;-p]

    [Have I mentioned that, in 10 days, it’ll be the 10 year anniversary of my ex walking out on me? (See, IT, it’s really for the best I can’t make it to the Blessing of Your&BP’s Marriage! ;-/)]

  4. JCF we will miss you and we love you. And we wish you could come.

    And ALL of us want the challenge and structures and strictures of “real” marriage. Why They don’t get itI do not know.

  5. You know, I’ve worked with quite a number of couples (and individuals whose main issues had to do with their marriage) throughout the course of my ministry and not once have I seen a marriage negatively affected by someone else’s view of marriage.

  6. He is even trying to get ripping foxes to shreds made legal again.

    Oh well, he’s not a complete loss then.