The question is very simple: Should the definition of “marriage” be changed? Currently in the UK, marriage is defined as “as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman”.   But without any form of mandate (no political party had this in their manifesto), the UK Conservative Party seems to have gotten possessed by this issue which the majority of people clearly oppose, and is driving through this seismic change of the law to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. 

Even leaving my faith convictions aside, this is no way for a government to pander to political correctness pressure and bulldoze through such crucial legislation: without mandate, without consultation, against obvious majority resistance, against the weight of historic worldwide cultural understanding. Its arrogant, undemocratic, misled, illegitimate, wrong.

Previously I have been quite impressed by some of David Cameron’s statements in support of faith communities and the family, but this latest move supported and fuelled by him makes all that talk seem rather shallow and very disappointing. Politically it will (and in my opinion should) cost David Cameron many votes (and probably also cost Boris Johnson dearly  in May’s London mayoral election). This is not a trivial matter.

My view: Marriage is unique because:

• It recognises the biological reality of what it takes to bring children into this world. There is no other way for procreation, no matter what you believe or not believe.
• No matter how messed up our families and marriages are, the most ideal environment for a child to be raised in is with a committed father and a mother around. Nothing will change this. Lets keep the bar where it needs to be.
•  We were created (or even, if you wish, evolved…) as male & female.  Something – I say “marriage” – must surely be exclusively reserved to define this unique relationship between a man & a woman. If other definitions are needed, then let government come up with a new one, not hijack and change this one.
• And from a faith conviction, it’s a man who cleaves to his wife, and the two become one. I can’t change that, and advise that it stays as God intended.

You make up your own mind, but at the very least check out the Coalition for Marriage site here to keep yourself well-informed, and sign the petition if you have any convictions about this. And even if you totally disagree with this, you should be seriously concerned that any democratically elected government seeks to push critical legislative changes through in this way.