Queen Signs Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Into Law as Nation Yawns

Queen Signs Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Into Law as Nation Yawns

WILL OLIVER/AFP/Getty Images

Take a look at Thursday’s front pages from Britain’s newspapers (you can see them here). The big news of the day? A golf club might allow women to join. The Queen wants her great-grandchild to arrive before she goes on holiday. Someone has won the final of the UK’s business reality tv show The Apprentice. And perhaps the most discussed subject: Summer is hot.

Some have more substantial news as well—the prospect of war in Syria, for example. But here’s one thing that you’d never know glancing at those pages—that the day before the Queen gave her assent to the “Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill,” meaning that it has now become law in England and Wales. Same-sex “marriages” will probably take place before summer next year.

To be fair, it did generate a lot of media coverage on its way to being passed into law. And it was no surprise that the Queen approved it—all of the big obstacles in its way had been cleared months ago. But this was still a huge change to the family unit—the major building block of the nation. But, browsing the news, you’d never know, unless you looked really hard.

The truth is, Britain isn’t really that interested in homosexual “marriage.” As America’s Supreme Court deliberated on same-sex “marriage,” thousands turned out to protest. As France legalized it, hundreds of thousands took to the streets. In Britain, it was just hundreds.

“The French like to make fun of the British, joking about their repressed ways in matters of the heart,” wrote the Associated Press. “But when it came time to debate same-sex marriage, it was France that betrayed a deep conservative streak in sometimes violent protests—while the British showed themselves to be modern and tolerant”—as the Associated Press sees it of course.

The push toward same-sex “marriage” came from Britain’s Conservative government—not from a left-wing party. It easily sailed through Britain’s House of Commons with the support of all the major parties—though most Conservative M.P.s went against their party leadership and opposed the bill.

Some expected it to meet more opposition in the House of Lords. Its members tend to be older. In theory, the Lords’ job is to scrutinize potential laws with the wisdom that comes from age and experience. Twenty-six bishops also sit in the House of Lords. The Lords cannot veto legislation that comes up from the House of Commons. But it can force the Commons to take another look at it.

It passed through the Lords easily.

There was little real opposition to the bill, because no one really cared. In fact, this was one of the most common arguments used against homosexual “marriage”—no one really cares much either way, so instead of making this law, why don’t we do more to help the economy.

It shows that family is not a big deal in Britain. Children are. Politicians stir up a lot of emotion when they fiddle with child care and education. But fiddle with family? No one really minds. It is schools and day-care centers that bring up children.

In France, it’s different. It wasn’t homosexual “marriage” per se that stirred up all the protests, it was the fact that homosexual couples would be able to adopt and rear children. In France, family is more central to society.

Not so in Britain. Single, married, cohabiting—it’s a lifestyle choice, like what kind of car you buy, what area of the country you live in, or what color you paint your walls. If the government wants to let people have polka dot wallpaper, who cares? The same goes for marriage.

But marriage and family is vitally important—to individuals, children, and to the whole nation. The Trumpet has a new booklet coming out soon called Redefining Family that explains why homosexuality is wrong. Until then, to learn more about why marriage is so vital, read our free booklet Why Marriage—Soon Obsolete?

Syria and the Realignment of Mideast Powers

By understanding Psalm 83 and Daniel 11, we can look beyond the current chaos in Syria and know how this bloody conflict will end.

The Night Herbert W. Armstrong Changed the World

The Night Herbert W. Armstrong Changed the World

PT

Seventy-six ambassadors met in the globe’s largest nation to hear Matthew 24:14.

One of the most significant moments in the fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy of Matthew 24, verse 14, came on the evening of Tuesday, Dec. 4, 1979.

As the internationally recognized ambassador for world peace, Herbert W. Armstrong was “the first church leader from the world of Christianity to officially visit and speak with top officials inside the People’s Republic of China” (Worldwide News, Dec. 24, 1979).

He called it “his most important trip to date,” which culminated in an address to elite Chinese leaders and wives, including 76 ambassadors, the most ever at any of his testimonial dinner speeches.

At the Great Hall, government headquarters building of the world’s most populous nation, in a dining room that Mr. Armstrong recalled was the size of a football field, the distinguished assembly awaited the historic delivery of the gospel message.

On most occasions such as this, a language interpreter had to be used, necessitating use of two microphones and the challenge of speaking a couple of sentences before pausing for the interpreter’s translation. However, on this night the audience understood English, enabling Mr. Armstrong to speak fluently without interruption.

“I gave them the ‘good news of the coming Kingdom of God,’ perhaps in even stronger and more plain language,” he recalled to millions of Plain Truth readers in the February 1979 edition.

He went on to note, “It is important to understand I was speaking to officials from 76 other nations this night. Many of the banquets and dinners of the past 10 years have afforded me the opportunity to speak to official representatives of many nations. There were ambassadors representing 19 countries at a luncheon in Ethiopia a few years ago.

“But, although in a Communist and atheistic-oriented country, I did not use Bible language, I did get over to them the gospel of the Kingdom of God, announcing the coming one-world government of God. Instead of the word ‘God,’ which might sound hostile to them, I spoke of the ‘unseen Strong Hand from someplace’ that will intervene and bring world peace.”

He didn’t accept the historic invitation to show approval or disapproval of communism. In the past, he had written in the Plain Truth against this form of government, atheism and its spurning of God. In the interim, he had come to understand more deeply Christ’s words recorded in John 6, verse 44, which declare, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” He saw that the world’s nations, other than those whose history emanated from the ancient tribes of Israel, were cut off by God from the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24).

That historic evening in Beijing was not to judge the government and many of the world’s leaders, their governments, religions and cultures. It wasn’t an evening of revival and attempted conversion from their belief. It was an emphatic pinnacle moment in history. The good news of the coming Kingdom of God was declared to the most distinguished and globally influential audience ever assembled! They were informed that this Kingdom was coming soon in supreme, divine power and authority! They witnessed the announcement of national and international, peaceful, joy-filled salvation forever!

The passionate pronouncement, eloquently delivered in plain, unoffensive English, was not only well understood but well received, with its listeners verbalizing that Mr. Armstrong’s message gave them “much to think about.”

“I have never heard such a message as I heard last night in the Great Hall of the People,” noted an audience member from an African embassy. “There are two ways of life. The way of getting causes all the troubles in the world, and the way of giving is the solution. I wish I could hear more on this subject, and I hope to hear soon that we may have an office of the Ambassador Foundation here. I have never seen such a man as Mr. Armstrong” (Worldwide News, op. cit.).

“When the prophecy says, ‘And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations’ (Matthew 24:14), it does not necessarily mean in all nations,” the unofficial ambassador emphasized in his February 1979 Plain Truth feature article.

The primary significance, he noted, was that “Much of that prophecy was fulfilled on December 4, when the good news of the Kingdom was proclaimed to official representatives of 76 nations! This included nations from Africa, Europe, Asia, South America, pretty well spreading out to all the Earth!

“I do try to explain that I am an ambassador for world peace, that I talk with many heads of governments, that they all have greater problems to face than any man can solve, that, meanwhile I am trying to assist and help toward more peaceful relations between nations now, but that solutions are beyond human ability to handle and that the ‘unseen Strong Hand from someplace’ (and they all know very well I mean God) will have to intervene to bring us real world peace and eternal salvation at last!”

That historic night over three decades ago ought live long in our memories as the internationally beloved white-haired patriarch shared the greatest words human ears could hear, impacting the largest audience possible. Request your copy of his greatest and final written work, Mystery of the Ages, to understand more of this royal vision.

The Little Book

The book of Revelation mentions a little book that was to be revealed by God just before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. This book has been revealed, and its contents will affect every person on Earth!

How Could the Temples Have Been Destroyed?

An annual Jewish observance commemorates the destruction of the first and second temples. Why did God allow the first and second temples to be destroyed?

When the Whole World Will Be Gay

When the Whole World Will Be Gay

iStockphoto

Gaiety will be a fruit of God’s way of living in the world to come.

When my daughter was born to much rejoicing by my wife and me, we agreed that my wife would give her the first name and I the middle name.

Curly-haired little moppet that she was, I chose the name Gay. I hoped that would be one of the blessings that she would enjoy in life at the human level—a life involving true gaiety and enjoyment in submission to God’s great law of love.

It never crossed my mind that the term “gay” would be perversely adopted to describe the lifestyle of those willingly in rebellion against God’s laws governing gender roles, marriage and family.

How did “queer” become “gay”?

Well in reality it hasn’t. Genuine gaiety is still that, gay behavior in its truest sense reflecting carefree happiness and joy.

Queer is still that—something which is out of sync with the traditional norms of society.

My 1993 version of the Oxford Concise Dictionary defines the adjective “gay” in its formal, primary sense as “lighthearted and carefree.” In a secondary sense, the definition is “mirthful, characterized by cheerfulness or pleasure.” Then in the sense of color, “brightly colored, showy, brilliant.” The only noun it attaches to this word “gay” is “gayness.”

That version of the Oxford Concise Dictionary then allows for a colloquial definition of the term “gay,” describing its informal usage thus: “homosexual, intended for or used by homosexuals. Generally informal in use, but favored by homosexuals with reference to themselves. Dissolute, immoral.”

In the 2008 edition of the Compact Oxford Dictionary, under a different, more liberal set of editors, that dictionary gives the formal, primary adjectival definition of the word “gay” as: “homosexual.” The secondary definition follows up with “relating to homosexuals.” It then creates a noun of the term “gay” with its definition rendered “a homosexual person, especially a man.” The Compact Oxford then defines as “dated” the definitions of “lighthearted and carefree,” and “brightly colored, showy,” which down through the ages since English has been spoken were once attached to its formal, primary meaning.

Thus in one fell swoop, a group of liberal dictionary editors, under the influence of the aggressive homosexual lobby, seek to change our language to make the perverse appear “normal,” and the normal appear perverse!

While it is true that God loves the sinner, ever recognizing the tremendous human potential that every human being has once sin is repented of, He absolutely abhors sin.

Sin is defined as the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4). That law encapsulates God’s basic law of love (1 John 5:3), His statutes and judgments. The laws and judgments pertaining to gender, social, marriage and family behavior are articulated in Genesis 2:21-25 and Leviticus 18:6-30. They are clear cut, allowing for no misunderstanding.

The term abomination is used in those verses to describe the Maker of mankind’s attitude to those practices which these judgments outlaw. The word means by dictionary definition “a feeling that causes disgust or hatred.” Thus infractions of these judgments result in sins that are literally hated by God as absolutely disgusting. Disgust as per its definition describes a practice that is regarded as revolting. Thus God’s—your Creator’s—view of such infractions of His judgments are that they are disgustingly revolting and are positively hated by Him.

But He still loves the sinner—to the point that He “gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

That which our Maker defines as an abomination can never be termed “gay.”

Herbert Armstrong made quite a point of this.

In his book Mystery of the Ages, Mr. Armstrong made a statement which was repeated in an article in the March 1986 edition of the Plain Truth. He stated:

God condemns homosexuality. He destroyed the whole populations of Sodom and Gomorrah for this sin. It is condemned in the first chapter of Romans, saying no such person can enter the Kingdom of God. Then we try to change the ugly, reproachful name homosexual, and call those who practice it “gays.” The public media and the public in general are coming to make this perversion acceptable by calling it “sexual preference.”

You cannot get a more politically incorrect yet totally truthful observation on the matter than that.

As for me, I shall continue to absolutely refuse to apply the term “gay” to those who adopt perverse lifestyles. I will continue to use the word “gay” in its truest sense, and label perverse behavior for what it in reality truly is.

Pray God that He will bring forward the day when the whole world will be gay in the truest sense of the word!