Writing to my MP

Here is the text of the letter I have sent to my MP, the Rt. Hon. Andrew Smith, who sits for Oxford East, about the legislation being considered today on its Second Reading by the House of Commons to redefine the nature of marriage.

Dear Mr Smith,

I am writing to you as one of your constituents about the proposals being brought before Parliament to redefine marriage.

I am not certain as to how you intend to vote on this matter but I would strongly urge you to vote against such a significant change in the law.

Amongst the criticisms which can be made of this proposal there are three to which I would ask you as my MP to give consideration.

Firstly none of the main political parties proposed this dramatic change in their manifestos at the 2010 General Election. There is no popular mandate for changing the law, and in this case it is one which will ultimately have an impact on very many people's lives. It is as if the proponents of such a change knew it would not receive majority backing and deliberately kept quiet about it. That does not show much respect for the electoral process.

Secondly there is already provision for same-sex Civil Partnerships to ensure property rights and other benefits. The "fairness " argument really does not work. To redefine something as important as marriage to satisfy the aspirations of a minority of a minority is to unbalance social structures in an extremely dangerous way.

Thirdly, and most importantly, such a change will be a fundamental change to our society. As a historian it is, I think, accurate to assert that all previous societies across the world and the vast majority of contemporary ones, whatever their religious or ethical background - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or humanistic - view marriage as  between a man and a woman, their essential complementarity leading to the birth of children and the future of the society. This is true for polygamous communities - there too marriage is between two members of the opposite sex. Marriage is not just about companionship, it is the fundamental building block of society and ensuring the future. Morally I believe it is beyond the competence of an Act of Parliament to seek to change a universal practise and understanding - the Sovereignty of the law does ultimately have limits. Such a change would be rather like Parliament legislating that the Moon is made of green cheese and everyone must accept, teach and believe the fact because it has been made the law of the land.

In addition to these points I would add the concern that if this legislation is enacted there will be the real risk of discrimination against those who cannot in good conscience accept it. What enforceable safeguards will be given to Registrars, teachers, clergy, charities, and many others which will not be overturned in the name of a newly invented Human Right?

I look forward to receiving your comments and indeed to seeing how you have voted on this issue.

Yours faithfully,
John Whitehead

Forty Hours for Marriage

The parish of SS Gregory and Augustine in Oxford will hold the Forty Hours Devotion from Wednesday February 6th to Friday February 8th. The specific intention is to be "in defence of God-given marriage".

Image; luzarvestments.co.uk

The programme of devotions is as follows:

Wednesday February 6th  Sung Mass of Exposition in the Extraordinary Form at 6.00pm followed by Exposition 7.00pm - Midnight.

Thursday February 7th  Votive Mass for Peace in the Ordinary Form at 9.30am followed by Exposition 10.00am - 10.00pm.

Friday February 8th  Mass of the Blessed Sacrament in the Ordinary Form at 9.30am followed by Exposition 10.00am - 6.00pm.

High Mass of Reposition, Procession and Benediction in the Extraordinary Form at 6.00pm.

A Plenary Indulgence, with the usual conditions of sacramental confession, Holy Communion and prayer for the Holy Father's intentions can be obtained by those who spend at least half an hour in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament exposed.

Royal Wedding - Christian marriage

One feature of the Royal Wedding that was very striking was that this was emphatically a Christian marriage, and that the service addressed that unashamedly.

Such a Royal wedding is clearly going to be according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England by law established, but this ceremony was much more emphatically so than some have been in recent decades.

The fact that it was exclusively Anglican, with other church men as guests rather than ecumenical participants, stressed the fact that there is an Established Church with claims to address the nation. The prayers offered, the choice of hymns and music, the liturgical choreography and, perhaps above all the Bishop of London' s sermon, ending with its quotation of the prayer composed by the Duke and Duchess, stressed that this was a serious Christian marriage. The Archbishop of Canterbury had commented on the seriousness of the couple's approach in an interview a few days previously. He may, perhaps, have had at the back of his mind Archbishop Runcie's later comments to his biographer about the personal ill-preparedness of the Prince and Princess of Wales in 1981.

However much of this can be credited to the Archbishop, the Bishop and the Dean of Westminster, I am sure that the lead, and the final approval, for such an approach must have some from Prince William and his bride. That augers well for them and their attitude to both their marriage and to the life-long task that faces them.

Furthermore a huge audience worldwide witnessed and heard an exposition of the traditional Christian concept of marriage. The modified, but succinct and classical Prayer Book language with its outline of the purpose of marriage, as well as the in the ceremonial and spoken acts that surrounded the sacramental union of man and wife, expounded the theology and high seriousness of the calling being entered into. The fact that the couple to be married combined that understanding with obvious love for each other underlined the point. Their position may be exceptional, but the essential human simplicity of marriage came accross - the idea was made accessible to anyone watching in a way that was unmistakeable.