The Catholic magazine The Tablet is reporting today that the government is about to bend to religious pressure and change the terms of the consultation on same-sex marriage to include a question about whether such a move is desirable at all.
When the consultation - to be launched later this month - was first announced, the Home Secretary, Teresa May, said that the decision to legalise gay marriage had been made and was supported by the prime minister. The consultation would only be about the finer details, not about the principle of whether it should happen or not.
Since then, the government has been under sustained attack from the Church of England the Catholic Church to drop the proposals. Cardinal Keith O'Brien caused an outcry last week with his intemperate, almost hysterical, attack on the Government's plans.
The Tablet says it was unable to get confirmation from the Home Office that a question about whether people are in favour of or opposed to gay marriage would be included in the consultation, but it said that it had been told by inside sources that this was the case.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church is gearing up for a major campaign of opposition. A letter will be read out to everyone attending Mass on Sunday from the Archbishop of Westminster, explaining why it is a Catholic duty to oppose same-sex marraige. Later a leaflet will be produced to urge every Catholic to take part in the consultation and stand against the coalition government's proposals.
Catholic Voices, an organisation set up to propagandise and make excuses for the Church's excesses, has produced a ComRes poll that apparently shows that 70% of people oppose gay marriage. But all may not be quite as it seems with this survey, as this analysis of the question finds.
But even if 70% of the population do oppose gay marriage (when asked a loaded question), does it matter? Does this country allow the human rights of minorities to be steamrollered by the prejudice and ignorance of the majority? Or is it that the majority are, in reality, indifferent, and only express an opinion when asked?
Last week the United Nations issued a report arguing that state-sponsored religion was undesirable because of the almost inevitable deleterious effects it has on minority rights.
What is equally undesirable is the Church imposing its will on legislators in this way.
The National Secular Society will be writing to David Cameron urging him to stand firm against this religious assault. If he gives in to this, the Churches will feel emboldened to move on to their next target, and what we have come to see as a progressive and modern society will fall prey to reactionary demands.
There are already moves to impede women's access to abortion.
If the government is defeated on gay marriage, you can expect to see Nadine Dorries back in action - with more confidence that, this time, she can win.
Peter G Tatchell: Catholic Archbishops Have Misled People on Gay Marriage
Dr David Ison, new Dean of St Paul, backs gay marriage
The gay marriage debate is primarily a way to advertise your values
A roaring silence no doubt??
I have no problem per se with gay couples entering into Civil Partnerships, allowing them to write wills leaving their assets to their life partners. I know of gay couples who've been together longer than many 'straight'. This does not however validate same sex partnerships to the same level as heterosexual ones. The majority - when the gay + SC activists bother to ask a 'straight' question on whether the two types of union should be made equal - inevitably answer with a resounding NO, much to the chagrin of of the gay and SC MINORITY lobby.
"The National Secular Society will be writing to David Cameron urging him to stand firm against this religious assault. If he gives in to this, the Churches will feel emboldened to move on to their next target, and what we have come to see as a progressive and modern society will fall prey to reactionary demands."
They may not feel emboldened, it isn't a slippery slope. Surely it's just a case of allowing gay people to call themselves "married".
Let's leave the rhetoric to those who need it.
"We" are the people who have to live with society's rules and their effects. We don't have any obligation to live with old rules just because they're old; our obligation is to try and make the best possible world for everyone to live in.
Given the state of heterosexual marriage these days, it's just not good enough to say "marriage between a man and a woman is what works and we need to keep it". Relationships are changing, sexuality is changing, and we need to change how we think about these things.
It was only in the 4th Century, as Rome became more Christianised, that legal prohibitions against gay marriage began to appear.
Early Christian churches performed a number of gay marriages. Check out christianity-revealed.com.
If anyone has redefined the traditional idea of marriage, it's the Christians.
Dawkin's recent MORI poll showed that 61% of Christians are in favour of gay marriage.
All christian churchs interpret New Testament for their own purpose. This is their right. With regard to Marriage we also have a legal civil marriage. Anyone can choose this. ALL churches change their dogma from time to time but you don't have to wait for them. What more doe's anyone want?
There are always lots of willing liars for Jesus.