Bishop Hugh of Aberdeen: Some More Equal than Others

The Catholic Herald's Morning Reads give those in the headlights of the redefinition of marriage train hurtling towards us (yes, we have been tied to the tracks) reason to be cheerful.

Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Aberdeen has called out the 'equal marriage' consultation to which the Church and other opponents were invited as nominal contributors.

If homosexuals and lesbians are to have 'equal marriage', he asserts, then is it not discriminatory to deny this equality of marriage to bigamists and that persecuted minority in incestuous relationships?

Of course, what he has said has caused 'anger' among the more vociferous elements of the community that would like the resistance to please shut up now and hopefully either be unemployable or arrestable (preferably both) later on.

What is interesting is the reaction of Bishop Hugh's critics. There is 'outrage' caused by the idea that the homosexual relationship fails to meet the criteria for marriage in a way similar to a possible appeal by those committing bigamy and incest. What Bishop Hugh has said is, to the 'gay community', highly offensive. But, have they fallen into the trap set by a clever Bishop's line of attack? Because, if it is so 'offensive' to say that if gay relationships qualify for marriage, then why not bigamy and incest, all things being equal, then the LGBT lobby must have some kind of objection to either bigamy or incest or both. If the lobby which dare not cease proclaiming the wholesome goodness of the gay lifestyle are saying that Bishop Hugh's comments offensive then they are saying that bigamy is offensive and morally wrong. They are also suggesting that incest is offensive and in some way immoral. The Bishop can't associate all three or defend the equality of bigamous or incestuous relationships because, er, bigamy and incest are, wait for it...wrong.

So, let's hear it from the Stonewall crowd. What possible justification do you have for moralising to bigamists and those committing incest that their relationships are wrong or immoral? Aren't you being a little judgmental here? You should know what it feels like to be alienated from society for your forbidden love. Now you are asking for equality, but the sexual love shared by brothers and sisters is surely natural and profound. Why shouldn't a woman be able to share a man with another woman, or a man share a life with loads of women in marriage. Nieces, uncles, nephews, aunts, cousins, brothers, sisters. It's love! These people have been the victims of prejudice and discrimination for years, perhaps generations and having secured your right to marriage, you would turn round and deny that right to those who share a love they believe is natural and even sacred?

Surely those against giving equal marriage to bigamists and incestuous brothers and sisters are just blinded by their own prejudice? Love is love, after all. Yet, the LGBT crowd suddenly believe that there is an objective morality after all and that, wait for it, some sexual relationships are not in line with the natural law and the State should deny brothers and sisters the right to marry. And, if its not a natural law argument the LGBT crowd would raise in objection, then I'd love to know what the objection is. Social? Political? Religious? Surely all these would just be an expression of bigotry?

Well done, Bishop Hugh. Bishop takes pawn, or is that queen, but I doubt either David Cameron or the LGBT community will ever consider resigning.