NOM BLOG

Prime Minister Cameron Faces Tory "Disaster" and "Rebellion" Over SSM Vote

 

The UK Christian Institute:

David Cameron suffered a “disaster” tonight, as most of his Tory MPs failed to back his Bill to redefine marriage.

Early indications suggest that more Tory MPs voted against Mr Cameron than supported him.

Colin Hart of the Coalition for Marriage said: “This result is a disaster for David Cameron.

“Despite a personal plea from the PM his MPs have overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage. Mr Cameron must think again.

“The scale of the opposition against the Government’s profoundly undemocratic plans is astonishing, and sends a clear message to the Prime Minister that he faces a lengthy and damaging battle to redefine marriage.”

Colin Hart, Director of the Christian Institute, and Andrea Minichiello Williams, founder of Christian Concern, are to be commended for their amazing leadership in Britain! The UK Christian Institute points out that British papers are focusing on the strength of the "no" vote.

Even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge the unprecedented opposition to Cameron's plan:

"...Although 127 of the 303 Conservative lawmakers voted for the bill, 136 voted against, with 5 abstentions and 35 who registered no vote at all. Those voting against included two cabinet ministers, eight junior ministers and eight whips. The opening to the revolt came when party leaders decided to make the issue a so-called free vote, allowing lawmakers to break with their party without fear of disciplinary action.

... In modern times, however, few prime ministers have faced such an extensive rebellion in their own ranks, and the outcome seemed likely to add to the growing ferment among backbench Conservatives about Mr. Cameron’s leadership on a wide range of issues, including Britain’s shrinking defense budget and its increasingly uneasy ties with the European Union.

The bill will now be debated by the House of Lords where opposition is expected to be even stronger.

11 Comments

  1. Phil
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Why should conservtives even vote in the next election in Britain(or here for that matter) if they are just going to get the other parties' ideas becoming law?

  2. John
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    This will be a big boost for the British National Party. When people feel disenfranchised at the center, they move to the margins.

  3. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

  4. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    The word "gay" is the wrong word to identify people of the same sex who engage in sexual relationships. The correct word to use is "homosexual".
    Secondly, we are born with heterosexual equipment. Therefore by definition, choosing to act out one's homosexual desires is perversion,

  5. flanoggin
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Um----I am gay and happy....seems a great word to me!

  6. Chris
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    I had no idea that 30% opposition was considered a "disaster"

  7. Posted February 6, 2013 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    LonesomeRhoades: Though i agree with your scriptural teachings, i don't agree with the noun 'homosexual'.

    Since i don't agree with that term, it follows i also do not agree (scientifically) with the word 'heterosexual'.

    Once we are branded as 'heterosexual', it leaves room for the figurative 'homosexual'. This is a particular social class' terminology, and though it is obvious the self-professed social class exists and will continue to exist, it is unique not because of its nature but because of its behavior (which the minority claims is due to their nature, but cannot prove it scientifically.)

    The self-pronounced 'gay' is a particularly bothersome, though generally fun-loving, creature/person: This person will believe their view of sexuality (heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual) is the correct view, and if someone does not accept it, it must be because there's something intellectually or morally wrong with that person. Their view more general. They have managed to convince many shallow people that their view is the correct view. But it is not the only way to interpret the data of behaviors. They have no genetic basis for their ideas.

    So, please don't fall for their terminology. 'Homosexual' is an adjective, and their behavior is homosexual behavior, due to a homosexual persuasion - a mindset.

    You will notice in 1st Corinthians 6 that the 'effeminate' are listed, but the 'homosexual' is never mentioned in the entire Bible. Instead, the Bible refers to the homosexual behavior which is different than 'effeminate', and proceeds to describe the behavior as 'burned in their lust one toward another' - lust being something one chooses to generate, leaving the natural 'use' of the woman type. This means women like to be used in this way, within certain boundaries and under protection.

    This social class, calling itself a minority, will press for their view of sexuality to be accepted as 'natural' for whoever says it is 'natural' for themselves. It is circular reasoning. From there, it follows that they should also try to make their relationships "equal" to marriage, though the appropriate term would be, if at all, "equivalent". The problem is: one cannot require "equality to marriage" under the law, if their relationships are only (in their own eyes) equivalent. So, they'll never use the term 'equivalent', for it simply betrays their pretension to "equality to marriage".

    Lastly, they are indeed already treated individually "equally", because each adult of their social class can marry a person of the opposite sex, and therefore they have equal treatment under the law. But this, they don't want to hear. Well, no one is forced to get married against his/her wishes.

  8. KAK1958
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    I figured religious folks would be pleased with this vote since the law will "specifically exempt the Church of England and other faiths from an obligation to perform such ceremonies." Isn't the argument always that churches shouldn't be forced to do something that violates their faith? Well, looks like they have the right to refuse.

    While I'm sure there are some polls that point to the effect on SSM on Tories, I'm also sure that the failure of Mr. Cameron's economic strategy to lift up the British economy is more to blame for his party's current woes. Otherwise the labor party, which supports SSM, would not have picked up so many seats in the last election.

  9. Ash
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    "Isn't the argument always that churches shouldn't be forced to do something that violates their faith? Well, looks like they have the right to refuse."

    SSM is still not exactly a great idea.

    http://www.nomblog.com/32835/

  10. Publius
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    "specifically exempt the Church of England and other faiths from an obligation to perform such ceremonies."

    And how long do we think that compromise will last for the Church of England? How long before we are told that compromise is simply bigoted, hateful, homophobic, backward, on the wrong side of history, and quite unacceptable?

    Denmark went from civil unions to requiring the Danish state church to craft and implement a gay wedding ceremony in about 23 years.

  11. Jane
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 1:10 am | Permalink

    Cameron has finally realized that his colleagues have more morals in their fingernails than he has in his entire body. Hopefully he won't be around for long.