Widow of Top UK Liberal-Democrat Quits Party Over SSM


The UK Christian Institute:

The widow of a former deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats has resigned from the party after almost 50 years because of its plans to redefine marriage.

In a letter printed in a Scottish national newspaper last week, Lady Joan Johnston said gay marriage was the ‘straw that has finally broken the camel’s back’. She had been a Lib Dem member since 1964.

She made the decision following a recent email from Nick Clegg, in which he claimed one of the party’s achievements will be the first homosexual marriage before 2015.

... Lady Johnston said: “I also take strong exception to the fact that if the Party advocates the redefining of “marriage” in this way, it follows that this will be promoted in schools as being on the same footing as traditional marriage between a man and a woman.”

She argued that one of the purposes of marriage as the union between a man and a woman is the procreation of children.


  1. Ash
    Posted March 20, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    A wise and principled woman.

  2. Bryce K.
    Posted March 20, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Well, I hope she doesn't plan on getting married. Old women aren't likely to procreate.

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 20, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    A woman of integrity.

  4. ResistSSA
    Posted March 20, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    @Bryce -

    Old women might not be LIKELY to procreate, but you never know; and hopefully she will get married before she does, because her children should have their mom and dad.

    Homosexual couples will never procreate; we know that, 100%, so it's not important for them to form committed couples. THAT, my friend, is the difference.

  5. John Noe
    Posted March 20, 2012 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    What would be even better is for her and those like her to form a new party that reprsents the will of the people.

  6. Good News
    Posted March 21, 2012 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    My hats off to you Lady.

    A work in progress (1 of 3)
    Marriage is a one human species in its entirety; acknowledging, through its two minds, that it will indeed be one. Marriage is not a purpose, it simply is!

    This one human species, marriage, clearly denoted by name and visibility in the society gives to every child and person in the society an images of where he comes from. Whether he be a boy or girl, that child can know that he comes from both male and female; the one human species. And that he as well, if he decides to, can become that one human species – get married; even if he is parent-less, or was created in a laboratory.
    And with his opposite sex spouse he as well can become a one human species, completed. No purpose – he will simply be that thing. And we call it, marriage. Saying someone is married is expressing to the listener that that person has become that one human species.
    Now, it is because this one human species (male female together) can reproduce, and has created in and of itself all of mankind, that it can (with out any State authority) show itself to be a symbol to all children, and to all of us, of from where it is that we have come from. Adoptive children are given first to a man-woman union because we want to offer the child their own personal symbol of where it is they come from. And if they grow up in an orphanage or under the care of people who are of only one of the sexes, we do not want to encourage onto them the false idea that they did not come from the male and the female. And so in these cases more effort, not less, should be given for the child to know that he comes from the two sexes, and to help him come into contact with that sex that is missing from those who are raising him.

  7. Good News
    Posted March 21, 2012 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    A work in progress (2 of 3)
    So marriage is a valid symbol in and of itself of from where it is that we come from. But marriage is also a physical and living reality; it is the one human species. The word marriage is simply identifying that thing itself, and not any purposes. But further, indeed, because the one human species can and does reproduce itself, by itself, it is 'unique', and it can, it does, and it will 'serve' a purpose, but the purpose dose not define what it is. At best it is a part of a larger definition that comes ONLY after the man-woman exclusivity of the union is unequivocally established. (All the intricacies that make up the strength and beauty of a good family, and in part the fulfillment of that life creating, one human species, called 'marriage', should be introduced here. As well as the validity of the importance of the symbol of the man-woman union within a family. But time does not allow it). Any male female (or scientist) coming together for a few minutes might create a child. At which we could say that it is the States purpose to raise these children... The State might at times 'serve' the purpose of raising children, but that is not what defines the State.

  8. Good News
    Posted March 21, 2012 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    A work in progress (3 of 3)
    Here is where our fight divides into two. And where the one must not be lost in the other.
    Our first fight is to have one word that uniquely names the man-woman life long (in theory) union. (In order for us to continue to identify ourselves in case soon find ourselves living in a society where 'everything' and 'anything' is given legal license.) This one word is (and will be) our number one tool and arm. So it must be clear and free of contamination. Sadly and frighteningly we are losing today this one essential tool, the unambiguous word of 'marriage'. Our arm (and our love) has been turned against us in a tough battle where logic is not highly regarded.
    Of course my reflections are outside the judicial domain. But my heart tells me that I am having a fundamental right, a civil right, a human right, (you tell me what kind of right it is) that is being unjustly and violently taken away from me. The right to name who I am. “I am married”. Today, in America, this does not allow me to express what I am (at the most intimate level of my soul)! Is this just?

    The second fight that must be understood as a 'different' or separate fight, is that of the education, birthing and upbringing of our children and those of our society. For we all affect each other. And so all social changes affect our own family and children. And most especially when these changes our given legal authority and so are then encouraged and disseminated through judicial education, public school education, national education (through funding educational efforts toward those outside of school), and last but not least, through the education of our media and our extremely influential commercial markets who are possibly the first to celebrate, and put into financially profitable action through manipulation, the new doors opened to them (and in very large part for them) by the government (and western world government).

  9. Stefan
    Posted March 21, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    "Old women might not be LIKELY to procreate, but you never know; and hopefully she will get married before she does, because her children should have their mom and dad.
    Homosexual couples will never procreate; we know that, 100%, so it's not important for them to form committed couples. THAT, my friend, is the difference."
    What a bunch of BS. If she were to have a child again, that child would have a mother and father whether or not they got married. You do not need to be married to have children. You can be married and not have children. Children can have horrible married parents, and on and on and on. The things that are said on these blogs are incredible. Are you regular posters really that ignorant? Seriously?

  10. ResistSSA
    Posted March 21, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Poor Stefan. Sounds like yet another homosexual from a broken home.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.