Bullies and the new Comintern

Prime Minister David Cameron [here] seems to see himself as the head of a kind of same-sex marriage Comintern. It seems counter-intuitive, to say the least, for a 'conservative' politician to advocate the export of the sexual revolution around the world.  Where? The mind boggles. Perhaps it could be made a condition of the next arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Somehow it seems more likely that it will be the poorer, and therefore less assertive, nations of the world who will be on the receiving end of any trade-linked ideological bullying recommendations. Doesn't it make you proud to be British ...?

It's hard, it's difficult, it's embarrassingly inconvenient, but if the undoubtedly growing intolerance and intimidation of those unfashionable enough to hold on to the traditional (Scriptural /natural law)  definition of marriage (see the link below)  is not resisted, then the bullies will inevitably take away our freedom of speech and religion here at home. The problem is not so much the proponents of redefined marriage (and, it seems, on one interpretation, the new legislation itself) insisting that everyone approve of the change, but, to put it bluntly, the cowardice of us all in the face of the fear of litigation and social isolation. This is Alan Craig's take on the situation. 

And a heartfelt plea by journalist, Selina Gray [here] to Mr Cameron's deputy, Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg (happily married himself, but on this occasion not in favour of exporting the wedded state to others) not to oppose marriage incentives and to visit the housing estate where the writer was brought up in order to “witness the devastating effect on people of a society that does not value marriage”.  
Anyone who has ever worked or ministered in areas of multiple deprivation knows first-hand the social, emotional and economic problems caused to families and whole communities (particularly to that most neglected social group of all - young working class males) by the absence of fathers and the presence of (sometimes abusive) serial boyfriends. It isn't in the least 'progressive,' much less is it compassionate, to turn a blind eye to this. 
No one imagines that tax breaks for married couples would be any more than a signal - a small indication - that society cannot afford to be morally neutral where it comes to the welfare of children and the preservation of the social fabric in the face of atomisation and disintegration. It's a symbolic action, but a necessary one, and one the Church should support.