Saturday, May 12, 2012

Coalition for Marriage: Some Speech is Freer than Others

The Coalition for Marriage is campaigning, in response to government consultations and moves on the issue, to preserve the current legal definition of marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.

A link on the C4m home page, which enables people to respond to the government consultation on proposals to enable same sex 'marriage' has run in to 'technical problems', with over 4000 responses to the consultation being blocked as spam by Home Office software.

Meanwhile Cranmer has been reported to the Advertising Standards Authority for carrying a C4M advert (below). This is pretty appalling: whatever your views, if someone can't advocate marriage without being accused of being 'homophobic and offensive' then we're in a bit of a pickle. Echurch blog is keeping a running list of the number of bloggers posting in support.

(Update: the ASA have issued a statement on the case)

I don't see how it's possible to have a consultation, or a discussion of any sort, once we get into people threatening/taking legal action against positions they disagree with. Last time I looked we were a democracy in favour of free speech, though I'm starting to wonder.


  1. Good grief. Not you as well, eh, David?

    I agree that the ASA shouldn't be trying to ban the ad; the ad itself isn't homophobic and offensive: it's what's at the other end of it, the Coalition for Marriage Inequality. It's a coalition of dunderheads, reinforcing the view that the church is an exclusivist club for bigots.

    Way to go, Christians: batten down the hatches, keep out the gay infestation!

    Lord, have mercy on your asinine disciples...

  2. Good grief not you as well Phil? I was hoping there was somewhere to have this discussion without the word 'bigot' being used, but maybe the blogosphere isn't it. This is precisely the reason I've steered clear of the subject so far.

  3. Just to clarify: I haven't called you a bigot; what I've said is that the C4M campaign simply serves to reinforce the view that the church is ... as I said.

    It's an unnecessary campaign and wrongheaded: check out Peter Kirk's recent post for a good exposition of the problem, Gay Marriage: Why Christians Shouldn’t Try to Ban It, and, if you will, my blog for an honest and civil conversation about it: Shadow Dancing: A conversation about faith, hope and gay love in the church (but be aware: it's long).

    Conversations don't need to degenerate into open warfare :)