Scotland rejects cardinal’s call for gay-marriage referendum
July 18, 2012
As Scotland’s cabinet considers the legalization of same-sex marriage, the cabinet has rejected Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s call to bring the matter to a vote of the people.
“The dangers of the changes that are being proposed to the very meaning of marriage will entail a breadth of change that most people, including our politicians, have simply not reflected on,” Cardinal O’Brien said in a column published in The Scotsman. “Do people really understand that they will be sweeping the terms husband and wife from our marriage laws? Do they really understand that those who merely wish to modestly uphold their understanding of marriage could be disciplined in their places of work?”
“Do they realise that a public sector duty to promote the new vision of equality will cast grave doubt on the ability of Catholic schools to uphold their own ethos?” he added. “Do they really understand that equality laws have been so structured that it will enforce public sector workers to promote an understanding of marriage that leaves no room outside the government-dictated morality?”
The cabinet met and rejected the cardinal’s proposal, with a spokesman stating that any legislation would be brought to the vote of the Scottish Parliament, a majority of whose members are on record as favoring same-sex marriage.
“We are pleased that the Scottish government has confirmed that a referendum has been ruled out,” said the director of Stonewall Scotland, a gay advocacy organization.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Defender -
Jul. 18, 2012 5:33 PM ET USA
I always thought that the ability to have a national referendum would be a good thing for the people of the U.S. to have. I guess it doesn't matter what the people have to say though. California's Prop. 8, the Federal DOMA, etc, all prove that the people can vote for (or against something) and the Congress can approve something, but what the executive wants will reign supreme. What happened to "balance of powers?" I guess it no longer exists.
Posted by: normnuke -
Jul. 18, 2012 12:44 PM ET USA
Entirely predictable, considering the two most deadly dangerous forces against liberalism are free speech and the will of the people.