By Robert Whiston FRSA Feb 2nd 2013
France – Gay marriage and adoption
As British politics gears up yet again for another ‘push’ to promote solely gay and lesbians rights to marry within a religious setting, and not just have civil partnership agreements, France and America are doing the same, and in so doing we are beginning to lose sight of how and where all this started.
Wolverhampton born Marie Miller MP, bizarrely once shadow Minister for Families (in 2007), had the thankless if not divisive task of breaking the news on Dec 11th 2012 to surprised Conservative MPs that the coalition government was to introduce a gay marriage Act.
Speaking only a few days earlier at an event in Redditch, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, signalled his government’s intention saying:
- “I’m a massive supporter of marriage and I don’t want gay people to be excluded from a great institution.
- “Also let me make clear, this is a free vote for Members of Parliament but personally I will be supporting it.”
There had been no ‘lead-up’ or preamble or mention in the party’s election manifesto. And as for “a great institution” had he never fully understood the religious and cultural concept when he married ?
The proposals appear to have come like a bolt from the blue and left his backbenchers seething. Where is the quid pro quo of the promised re-introduction of the Married Man’s Allowance ? No where to be seen. Surely Cameron is smart enough to know not to divide his party or alienate his grass-roots supporters who turn out the vote for him ? But apparently not. So is this an aberration or deviant behaviour by the PM ?
In contrast, France is actually being convulsed by the arguments for and against, while here in the UK people have given up on having their opinions listened to, and backbench MP are said to be either seething or ‘incadencent’.
The UK government, in true Tony Blair fashion, has from the beginning been ‘economical with the truth’. It claims that:
- “During the course of both the consultation and the drafting of the legislation, the Government has had numerous and detailed discussions with stakeholders about the provisions within the Bill. . . “
In reply to this claim the Catholic Church, and others, e.g. pro-life stakeholders etc, are adamant that this never happened:
- The only consultation has been of the meaningless type where the Government announces in advance that it will, whatever the cost to – or views of – the people, churches etc. push through same-sex marriage, though it will listen to views as to how to ‘implement’ this.
Having been on several stakeholders groups over many years, this I know is how they operate and how they then claim, despite vehement opposition, that a favourable consensus actually existed.
Bemusingly, the French socialist administration of François Hollande is citing Cameron and Britain as the reason it is bringing forwards its own highly unpopular gay rights legislation. France’s parliament, against popular street demonstrations (with some organised by the Catholic Church), is currently adopting new laws to legalise not only gay marriage but also gay adoption of babies and young children. This seems unnecessarily elaborate when the French already have “PACS” (pacte civile de solidarité, or civil solidarity pacts) which replaced the ‘certified concuninage notoire,’ regime. PACS is a form of civil union between two adults, which can be adopted by either same-sex or opposite-sex couples. It brings rights and responsibilities to the parties, but less so than marriage. (NB in 2012, 94% of all PACS were between heterosexual couples meaning only 6% of same-sex couples used the protection it offers).
Too much of a good thing ?
In defending his position David Cameron maintains that homosexual marriage will not undermine normal marriage – but he has forgotten the dynamics of “Pareto efficiency” – succinctly put:
- “no one can be made better off without making at least one individual worse off”
One might think that one can never have too much of a good thing but this is not true. There is another natural law that kicks-in namely ‘Gresham’s Law’ where bad money chases out good. Put more prosaically:
- “When a government compulsorily overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation.”
Life and the social sciences mimic all too many aspects of economic law. Put another way, the well-documented story of the world’s wealthiest ruler of the 14th century – Mali’s emporer Mansa Musa (c. 1280 – c. 1337), can here serve as more than just a parable.
Two thirds of the world’s gold came from his empire of West Africa. When he passed through Cairo in July 1324, enroute to Mecca, he was reportedly accompanied by a hundred strong camel train many carrying gold bars and coins. His procession was reported to include 60,000 men and 12,000 slaves who each carried 4-lb. gold bars.
On his arrival he gave away so much gold to the general population that it destabilised Egypt’s economy. The gold price in Egypt was depressed for over a decade leading to business failures and personal bankruptcies. For a 12 year period the gold price in Egypt (and worldwide), was depressed and in an attempt to adjust to the newly found wealth that was spreading throughout the local population the result was ‘inflation’. 
To rectify the gold market, Musa was forced to borrow all the gold he could carry from money-lenders in Cairo, at high interest. So trying to make all men equal can backfire and can carry a hefty price.
Covering for Clegg ?
Only when you begin adding up these types of events does one begin to understand why political pundits are given to stating that David Cameron is ‘under the cosh’ and not master of his own destiny.
If David Cameron is not master of his own destiny it is not for want of trying. He does not have a majority in the House and his partner, Clegg, more than a little accident prone with one foot in mouth gaffe followed by another (‘no student fee’ etc).
Stonewall, the gay activist group, struck a deal with New Labour before the General Election in 1997 to pass pro-gay legislation if elected. The Blair era was a golden age for pro-gay Bills.
But it was Clegg’s clumsy ‘bigot’ speech in Sept 2012, that probably gave rise to legislation for gay marriage, rather than any second secret deal with the Conservatives. In a speech written and distributed by his office. Mr Clegg had hoped to cash in on the success of the London Olympics by suggesting that its success had “helped make the case for allowing homosexual couples the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.” Mr Clegg planned to say:
- “Continued trouble in the economy gives the bigots a stick to beat us with, as they demand we ‘postpone’ the equalities agenda in order to deal with ‘the things people really care about’. As if pursuing greater equality and fixing the economy simply cannot happen at once.”
In a Telegraph poll on 11 Sep 2012 which asked; “Should Nick Clegg step down for branding those who oppose gay marriage as bigots ?” over 68% of respondees agreed with the option:
- “Yes, people feel strongly about the issue and it’s wrong to label them as bigots.” 
Fiscally, the demands of the homosexual community have in large measure been met. They too can benefit now from Inheritance Tax protection but married man with the added burdens of wife, children and mortgage has yet to receive his confiscated Married Man’s Allowance or recognition that his covenant with the state saves the state billions of pounds in subsidies.
The French debate now underway (2013) over gay marriage has redefined marriage as being between two adults and not, as formerly, as between a man and a woman. This begs the question why did the ancients of any civilisation you care to name not see the light of our enlightened politicians of today ? Why did they “stupidly” limit human freedom (if that is what it is) to marry as being between a man and a woman ?
The answer is that sexual congress usually results, at some future point, in pregnancy and child-birth. Civilisations throughout eternity have realised that while conception is easy child maintenance is not. They have also realised that while hedonistic lifestyles might be fashionable for a cohort, one of the first duty is for the state to reproduce itself and then defend itself. To do this one has to somehow ‘tie in’ the father to support the mother and child otherwise she becomes a burden on her immediately family or the state. Marriage, in whatever guise is the state’s instrument to formalise this process. The married man is the ‘engine of wealth creation’ and out -performs single men. And if this communal wealth attracts envy it can be protected by force of arms, generation after generation. An army made up from sterile same-sex couples, i.e. unable to reproduce, would not survive 2 or 3 murderous Sparta-type engagements with an enemy, e.g. Thermopylae, before being wiped out. All this is glaringly obvious and it is painful to have to point it out to politicians.
“Nick Clegg’s office attempts to withdraw ‘bigot’ comment about opponents of gay marriage”,Telegraph, 11 Sep 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/9536368/Nick-Cleggs-office-attempts-to-withdraw-bigot-comment-about-opponents-of-gay-marriage.html