David Craig, on March 29th, 2014They seem to be having collective multiple orgasms on BBC news programmes at the moment over the fact that same-sex marriage (SSM) will be legalised this weekend. But the one thing none of our rulers dare mention is the reason why Cameron pushed so hard last year to get SSM (not to be confused with BDSM) legalised – pressure from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). They don’t mention this because they know there would be a massive surge in support for UKIP if people knew that a European institution�was the driving force behind a measure which many find distasteful and/or unnecessary.
In May 2013, you might have noticed an almost unseemly rush in both the British and French parliaments to legalise SSM. What a coincidence that�two major EU countries�were doing this at almost exactly the same time! So, here’s the real explanation why both countries are�hurrying to legalise SSM:
One of the human rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights is�Article 8 � �The right to respect for private and family life�.�Just so you know �Private Life � includes �relationships between homosexuals and their partners with or without children�. Thankfully, for the moment, the Convention makes clear that:��Private life does not extend to the relationship between an owner and his pet”. Though, that could (and probably will)�change in the future.
The�ECHR had already�announced that�SSM would be a �human right�, as soon as a few countries had legalised it.�By 2013 SSMs were already legal in Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and�Sweden. So�the�ECHR�decided that �the recognition in national law of same-sex relationships had, by our present day, reached a degree that justified a broader understanding of family life as that term is used in Article 8 of the Convention�.
The British Government along with several other governments were committed to �full implementation� of this policy no later than June 2013. That�s why�SSM laws were rushed through in several EU countries including Britain and France (click to see more clearly)
If the Government had not passed SSM legislation, then gays could�have gone�to other EU countries that allowed SSMs and then come back to the UK and demand that their marriage be recognised here. The ensuing legal challenges against the British�Government�and the resentment against EU interference in our laws that would inevitably follow would have hugely embarrassed our�europhiliac politicians � Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.
So, they all supported SSM, but�didn�t and still don’t dare�mention the real reason why � that this is being forced on them by their EU bosses. And when our leaders claim they�re legalising SSMs because �it�s the right thing to do�, they�re lying.
In France, they were being fed the same lies. President Francois Hollande said �I have taken [the decision]; now it is time to respect the law of the Republic�. But was it “the law of the Republic”? Or was it the law dictated by the wasteful, corrupt, self-serving bureaucrats in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg?
Category: 
Despite claims to the contrary, I believe most people do not support SSM. However my son watched Question Time this week (I cannot watch it anymore, it’s just too painful) and he hold me that a woman politely explained she did not support SSM as it contradicted her Christian beliefs. The rest of the audience reacted like she’d just admitted to burning down an orphanage for blind children.
They must surely hover around Karl Marx’s tomb scooping up mourners in order to fill the studio audience for QT.
As is usual, UKIP occupies the adult ground in this discussion as with almost everything else.
“Human rights” is a daft concept. We on these islands have had 800 years of the Magna Carta, which is how human rights should be presented.
Human beings are far more important than political constructs and the idea that sovereign human beings should look to the local “junta” for advice on how to live is not only sickening, it is a bit weird… So Magna Carta unites us human beings against government and tells government what its limits are… Not the other way around.
I would not wish to set myself up as a judge of someone else’s behaviour, and under Magna Carta, I don’t have to, if I decide that I want to marry another man and the government has not expressly forbidden it, I should be able to… And just for the sake of consistency, if I am a priest who does not approve of “gay marriage” and I choose not to carry out such ceremony and the government does not expressly forbid me from following my conscience, then I should be able to tell said couple to go and find another priest.
I have watched two UKIPpers talking about this subject over the last few days, and I reckon that Nigel is not uncomfortable with the concept, but Roger Helmer probably is, and yet both were pointing out that it is the malevolent presence of the ECHR which unites them, rather than the act.