U.K. Homosexuals Suing to Force Churches to Host Same-Sex ‘Weddings’
BRITAIN — A wealthy homosexual activist has decided to take legal action in order to force churches in the U.K. to host homosexual “weddings,” citing that he is “still not getting what [he] wants.”
[He sounds like a petulant three-year old throwing a tantrum because Mother simply won’t let him fly out the window even though he told her three times he’s Superman – but in reality we know such homosexual louses have great destructive adult power]
Barrie Drewitt, who shot to fame in 1999 when he and another man were named on the birth certificates of children they hold, is vowing to take on churches and work to force them to recognize and affirm homosexual relationships.
In 2006, Drewitt has reportedly donated around £500,000 to groups lobbying for homosexual “marriage.”
“The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church. It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us,” Drewitt told Essex Chronicle. “It upsets me because I want it so much—a big, lavish ceremony, the whole works. I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”
Last year, the Church of England warned that the government’s plans to redefine marriage could trigger legal problems and end the 500-year link between church and state.
Freedom of conscience and religion simply do not exist in a society that normalizes homosexuality and other kinds of dysfunctional and perverted sexualities.
As has been remarked again and again, people with a homosexuality problem fight to have other people submit to their deformed views on sexuality because they want to run away from dealing with their own internal psychological problems related to sexuality and relationships. If no one externally can question their deformed views, they believe they can suppress entirely their conscience about how deformed they are.
Thus any external questioning must be crushed, including by the most repressive methods, which abolish freedom of conscience, thought, religion, and speech.
In June 2012 Crispin Blunt MP, who was then a Justice Minister, admitted that the government’s plans could lead to legal issues, stating that the government is “seeking to protect, indeed, proscribe religious organizations from offering gay marriage,” but he continued: “That may be problematic legally.”
Heh. From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
[Not where the gay pigs have taken over power]
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
[Not in any environment controlled by liberals with a homosexuality agenda]
Perhaps one of the best comments I’ve seen so far:
Josh McGee says:
August 2, 2013 at 2:49 pm (on The American Conservative – a site that censors my comments – measure taken especially by the utterly hypocritical Rod Dreher)
If the 1st amendment is so harsh and rigid as to prevent a gay man or woman from getting to marry in the church of his or her hopes and dreams, then it is surely as bigoted as any Jim Crow law and ought to be repealed. I mean, what sort of wicked, evil law would block people from getting what they want, when they want it?
I mean, all the guy wants is a lavish ceremony. What sort of petty priest would allow his conscience to get in the way of a man’s lavishness? The bigoted kind, and that is all.
1st Amendment = Jim Crow law of our time.
Gee whiz folks, I’m pretty sure there are just enough people scattered throughout judiciary who sees a lot of living and breathing going on in the text of Thou Holy 1st Amendment….
This march is based on base emotion and desire. Upon reading the 1st amendment, those involved will not say, “Oh reason, and history, won’t you rule over me now?”
Those of you resting on the 1st amendment are assuming that those living three generations from now will be just as in love with it as you are. Of course, those living three generations in the past scoffed at the possibility of gay marriage, as you now scoff at those who doubt the Sacredness And Security of Thou Holy 1st Amendment. Well, maybe they will love it just as much as you do. Maybe they will love it even more. Then again, maybe they will hate it with a fiery passion because of the limits it imposes on their desires. You can’t possibly know the answer because the only thing guiding modern Secularism is passion and desire, and who knows where those flames will be directed in the future?
There is no foundation to any of this. There is no reference point. There is no limiting principle. It is a wildfire that will burn until it goes out of its own accord. And not one soul on this forum or any other knows where that might be, or when.