Rather than progression, this was regression backwards to a Greco-Roman- Pagan view of the world. This was, at best, a confused and muddled attempt to make a statement which will undermine that most basic of human institutions, marriage; and at worst, the next step in the retrograde and twisted efforts of those who think that a secular utopia can only be achieved when the last vestiges of Christian teaching and influence are removed from society. 

Tuesday 5 February was an historic day in the UK parliament. MPs voted by 400 votes to 175 to in principle approve same sex marriage (SSM).

Given the amount of pressure and propaganda from most of the mainstream media (along the lines of, ‘if you are young, progressive and loving you will of course support SSM’), this was not a surprising result.

Watching the debate on BBC Parliament yesterday there was much to be learnt. I observed:

The Good

Maria Miller was the lamb to the slaughter – given the impossible task of justifying such a radical social change in the name of conservatism.  She did well and is owed a great deal by her boss.

It was especially encouraging to hear her declare “The introduction of ‘equal marriage will not marginalise those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No teacher will be required to teach or promote something which goes against their beliefs.”

It will be interesting to see whether this promise is actually carried out, especially since 40,000 teachers have indicated that they will not be prepared to be the indoctrinators for the new morality.

I was astounded at the quality of the speeches from some of the opposition, in particular Labour MPs Michael McCann, Stephen Timmis and Robert Flello. Of course these received little or no publicity with the media sticking to their pre-set agenda of Tory party squabbles and the return of the nasty party. Yet they were models of compassionate, logical and compelling argument.

I was also delighted that my local Labour MP, Jim McGovern, voted against. This has certainly caused me to rethink my fear that I would never vote Labour again. Any of these men would have my vote.

Likewise whilst there were some Tory MP’s who spoke against who made you cringe that they were on your side, there were others who spoke brilliantly – none more so than David Burrowes MP whose speech was an articulate, informative and relevant contribution, setting out the main issues clearly. If I had an MP like him I would even be prepared to take a deep breath and vote Tory!

Likewise Edward Leigh’s excellent contribution. I was also impressed with some of the arguments put forward by Ian Paisley junior of the DUP whose contribution was (to me) surprisingly lucid and clear.

In all 22 Labour MPs voted against, 4 Liberal and 136 Tories (40 Tories did not vote or abstained). The fact that more Tory MPs voted against (70% of backbenchers) and that only 127 out of 301 voted for Cameron’s flagship and defining policy is the main political consequence of this story.  He will reap at leisure what he sowed in haste.

The Bad

Here I was astounded at the lack of coherent and rational argument put forward for the motion. Much of what was said was along the lines of the emperors new clothes – just as those who saw the emperor were told that if they were intelligent and wise they would be able to see the clothes, so we were told that if we were compassionate, loving, liberal and tolerant, then we would of course support the bill.

I counted at least three mentions of Alan Turing as a latter day saint, several mentions of how this is a message we will send to the world that we are against homophobic bullying, and several emotive stories of how being gay was so difficult. The trouble is that none of these stories had anything to do with the issue of why we should redefine marriage.

Ed Miliband came out with the usual mantra, “This is a proud day and an important step forward in the fight for equality in Britain, the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs supported this change to make sure marriage reflects the value we place on long-term, loving relationships whoever you love.”

Likewise Nick Clegg who declared this is ”‘a landmark for equality in Britain’. No matter who you are and who you love, we are all equal. Marriage is about love and commitment, and it should no longer be denied to people just because they are gay”.

The trouble is that whilst these Disneyesque soundbites are lovely touchy feely stuff for the media, they immediately fall apart on any logical scrutiny.

Neither Nick Clegg, David Cameron or Ed Miliband actually believe that no matter who you are and who you love we are all equal and should all be able to marry who we want. If they believed that then they would have to allow a brother who loved his brother and wanted to marry to do so – or the bisexual man who wanted to marry both his male and female lovers because he was committed to them both – or the mother who wanted to marry her adult daughter.

Of course immediately one says this the journalists, bloggers and politicians go nuts – claiming that we are equating homosexuality with incest or polygamy. They miss the point. We are applying their own criteria, their own re-definition of marriage.

The fact that most of our political leaders are too dumb to see that is profoundly disturbing. Whilst the elites scream with outraged emotion every time this is suggested (for now) the logical consequences of their beliefs are taken up by others.

Whilst tweeting during the debate yesterday I was astonished to be told – yes so what if brothers want to marry – let them do what they want.

Another disturbing factor was the attempted negation of democracy. Given the importance of this subject it was astonishing how empty the chamber was at times.

It seems as though most of the MPs had had their minds made up by opinion polls, focus groups and party whips, and so could not be bothered to actually hear the debates.

It was particularly disappointing to see that the main political leaders, including David Cameron, did not bother to turn up for the debate nor to take part in it.

The heart of British democracy is the House of Commons and our representative MPs making their voice heard there. It seems as though the modern elites have little time for such democracy. Who needs Parliament?

The contempt and arrogance of the government in this respect was further demonstrated by several MPs who pointed out that such an important subject was only given one afternoons debate, and that instead of being preceded by a Green paper and further scrutiny, this measure was being rushed through, in order to get it on the statute books as quickly as possible.

The House of Commons showed why democracy is such a brilliant way to govern;  the coalition government demonstrated how elite control, media compliancy and unelected bodies (the Supreme Court, EU Commission etc) are in danger of creating a more sophisticated form of elite dictatorship, where anyone who dares to go against the conventional norm is sidelined and disempowered.

Sexless Marriage

One other thing that I had not noticed until yesterday was how the redefining of marriage has in effect taken sex out of marriage.

As was pointed out several times, the bill does not allow for gay couples to divorce on the grounds of adultery. Apparently it is not expected in gay marriage that couples will remain exclusive and faithful to one another in a sexual sense.

Coupled with this the view that marriage is not about the pro-creation of children, just merely a civil contract between two people who ‘love one another’ (and you will notice that love is never defined), and you come to the incredible conclusion that our government has just passed a bill which redefines the meaning of marriage as having nothing to do with either sex or children!

The Silly

This was sadly and superbly provided by the Labour spokesperson – Yvette Cooper, who gave a performance worthy of Monty Python.

Apart from the usual hyperbolic illogicality “Today parliament has the chance to give support to loving couples who want to get married” (see the point above), and refusing to explain why it is ‘equal’ that homosexuals can have either civil partnerships or marriage but heterosexuals can’t, she came out with the amazing declaration that civil marriage is not about the procreation of children.

Indeed she went on so much about the fun and joy of the wedding day that it seemed as though she had trivialised marriage to a one day party and a good time together, with children having nothing to do with it.

Let me include in the silly, the use of Jesus to justify SSM by Tony Perkins Labour ‘what greater example of the equalities agenda could there be than Jesus himself?!’

Of course one is used to communists, white supremacists and all kinds of nutters claiming Jesus as one of their own, but it still does stick in the throat. Jesus as the Lord of the modern day liberals ‘equalities agenda’?  Really? The Jesus who declared that marriage is between a man and a woman, is the Jesus who would say that everyone has the right to marry whoever they want? It really does take a special kind of blindness to believe that.

Incidentally I do think Jesus had and has an ‘equalities’ agenda – it is just a whole lot more radical than our correct PC one. Jesus declared that we are all equally made in the image of God, that we are all equally in sin, that we all equally need salvation and that that salvation comes only through Him.

The Ugly

There is a real ugly side to this debate. There are those who are just filled with homophobic hatred. They don’t like homosexuals, the very thought disgusts them, and their passion on this issue is driven by that hatred and fear. It would be foolish to deny that that is the case. And we should utterly abominate and disown such homophobia. (and indeed our churches should do what we can to help and support those who are victims of that homophobia).

However it is not the case that all or even most who are opposed to SSM (including many homosexuals), are de facto homophobic bigots. Instead we have become the victims of what I can only call ‘liberal hatred’ – this is not a hatred of liberals, but a hatred by and in the name of liberalism (if you want to feel the hate just go to an anti-hate rally!).

Take for example the Liberal MP Sarah Teather who voted against the bill. The outpouring of hatred and vitriol towards her on the twittersphere and other social media is chilling. This bullying and intimidation is rife in elite circles and was not helped by Maria Miller refusing to confirm that opponents of the bill are not homophobic when she was given the chance to do so.

Regression not Progression: 

This was indeed an historic day. Not because, as some commentators opined, this was the last piece of the jigsaw of a free and tolerant society being put into place; but rather because this demonstrated the further unravelling of the rich tapestry of our Christian heritage, upon which the United Kingdom has been based.

This was not a great leap forward towards a fairer society. For that to happen then our ‘progressives’ would need to find a way to progress towards more social and economic injustice, instead of creating self-perpetuating elites who moralise for others whilst making sure their own interests are well protected. This was not an inevitable step in mankind’s evolutionary progression towards perfection.

Rather than progression, this was regression backwards to a Greco-Roman- Pagan view of the world.

This was, at best, a confused and muddled attempt to make a statement which will undermine that most basic of human institutions, marriage; and at worst, the next step in the retrograde and twisted efforts of those who think that a secular utopia can only be achieved when the last vestiges of Christian teaching and influence are removed from society.

It will not end here. God have mercy on us.

Rev David Robertson is director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity and minister of St Peter’s Free Church in Dundee. Follow the latest updates from Solas on Twitter @solascpc or visit their website by clicking here.