The Attorney General: 'profound philosophical difficulties' ahead ...

The cat is out of the bag. Those keen to dismiss Ann Widdecombe's contribution to the current marriage debate may not find the Attorney General's concerns so easy to ignore; it would seem that as a society we really are sleepwalking into a civil liberties catastrophe because of the Coalition Government's plans (which have the full throated support of the  Labour Party, naturally)  to change the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

"The government's most senior lawyer has said the possible introduction of gay unions will raise 'profound philosophical difficulties' for some religious workers in the public sector.
Speaking at the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has suggested that the proposed introduction of equal marriage will create 'individual conscience' issues for workers who will have to obey the rule of law by carrying out their public duties, using their required presence at a civil partnership ceremony as an example.
Mr Grieve believes a serious debate is now needed on what parameters can be used by someone with a deep religious faith who works in the public sector, on the basis of them refusing to carry out an aspect of their job on the grounds of conscience."

Full report and interview here from Premier Radio 

It would be ironic beyond belief if a government which began life trumpeting its idea of the 'Big Society' should end up excluding traditional religious believers, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, from certain areas of public sector employment altogether  and ensuring the disappearance of their ethical and moral views from the public square.  These issues have simply not been addressed. Opposition to the redefinition of marriage has nothing to do with homophobia or bigotry and, in truth, support for it has very little to do with gay rights save in a cosmetic sense or in terms of its presentational, propaganda value - hence the use of the tendentious phrase 'equal marriage.' Yet in a truly amateurish fashion (worryingly, there is an increasing tendency in this direction on the part of those who frame our laws and by political policy makers) the full implications of the proposed changes have simply not been thought through.  Knee-jerk liberal emotionalism (now de rigeur, it seems,  in all three major political parties in Britain) in terms of perceived 'rights' is an inadequate basis for the determination of social policy: it  now threatens our freedoms.