Gay Prayer Remarks for Prince George Described As “Un-Christian and Anti-Constitutional”

LONDON — A prominent Anglican cleric and gay rights campaigner Reverend Kelvin Holdsworth said that people should pray for Prince George age 4, be gay to help the Church of England recognize same-sex marriage. But his comments about the four-year-old, who is third in line to the throne, have been described as “unkind” and “destructive”.

The backlash comes after an article on LGBT website Pink News suggesting the young prince was a ‘gay icon’ was branded ‘sick’ earlier this year.

Mr Holdsworth aged 51, provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow, which voted to allow gay couples to marry earlier this year became the focus of controversy on Friday after reports he believed Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay. In his blog post, he urged people to pray for him “to be blessed one day with the love of a fine young gentleman” as it would help the Church of England become more inclusive.” A royal wedding might sort things out remarkably easily though we might have to wait 25 years for that to happen,” he wrote.  “Who knows whether that might be sooner than things might work out by other means?”

Gavin Ashenden, a former Christian chaplain to the Queen and Episcopal Church bishop, told the BBC:

“To use prayer as a mechanism for wishing this on Prince George is an unkind and destructive thing to do.” “It doesn’t have the prince’s best interests at heart, but uses him as a gender-political football to please 1.7% of the population.”

He further stated,

“What is especially odd and incongruous is the fact that it is suddenly OK to pray for someone to be gay, but totally unacceptable to pray for them to be free from being gay and to resume a sexuality that was in tune with their biology. “This seems not only contradictory but hypocritical.”

While same-sex marriage is permitted by law in most of Britain, the Church of England says on its website, “it remains the case that it is not legally possible for same-sex couples to marry” in its churches.

Mr Holdsworth told the BBC he first wrote the blog post over a year ago but it gained traction after he tweeted it again following the news of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s recent engagement.

In his clarification, published on Thursday Mr Holdsworth said it had not been his intention to cause hurt, and expressed regret that the post had led to a focus on the young Prince.

Media Headlines

Gay prayer for Prince George remarks ‘unkind and destructive’ – BBC News

“Anglican Minister Urges Prayers for Prince George to Be Gay.” – New York Times

“I was very disappointed that he was prepared to bring a child in to this same-sex marriage debate” – Susie Leafe, the director of the conservative evangelical group Reform.

“The comments made by Provost Holdsworth were made on his personal blog.” – Rt Rev Dr Gregor Duncan, Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway.

“Pray for Prince George to be gay, says LGBT campaigner priest.” – The Express

“Pray Prince George is gay says leading clergyman as it would force the church to be more inclusive.”  – The  Daily Mail

“Anglican minister sparks outrage by urging prayers for Prince George to be gay.” – The  Christian Post

“It was a ‘cynical, secular, and sinister in its approach to spiritual matters.” – Lee Gatiss, director of the Church Society, a conservative Christian body

“Anglican minister clarifies ‘un-Christian’ remarks over Prince George.” – Sky News

His suggestion was widely reported in the British media on Friday, though the blog on which he made it was inaccessible Friday morning.

LGBT inclusion remains a divisive topic in the Anglican Church which commits to uphold “marriage between a man and a woman” and, as a global communion, does not allow gay marriage.

 There has been no immediate comment from the royal family.

European Court of Human Rights: Same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a human right

European Court of Human Rights: Same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a human right

STRASBOURG, France, June 29, 2016 (Godinterest) Unanimously, the World Court of Human Rights has established, verbatim, that “there is no right to homosexual marriage”, making it clear that homosexual partnerships do not, in fact, equal marriages between a man and a woman.  

The 47 judges of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, which are members of the full Court of Strasbourg (the world’s most important human rights court), issued a statement of great relevance that has been surprisingly silenced by information progressivism and its area of influence.

In fact, unanimously, the 47 judges approved the ruling that “there is no right to homosexual marriage” as announced June 9 in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, and closed out a discussion dating to 2004.

The court’s decision was in response to an unlawful same-sex “wedding” conducted June 5, 2004, by Noël Mamère, mayor of the French city Bègles and a member of the Green Party and  based on a myriad of philosophical and anthropological considerations based on natural order, common sense, scientific reports and, of course, positive law. Within the letter, in particular, the judgment was based on Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mamère had advocated same-sex “marriage” since 2002 and chose to approve the 2004 “wedding” despite 4,000 letters sent to him. “I take the risk, I accept to be a provocateur,” Mamère said. The “marriage” was canceled shortly after and the mayor was suspended from office for one month.

This month, 12 years after the incident, the European Court has put an end to the matter with a ruling that is  equivalent to the articles of human rights treaties, as in the case of 17 of the Pact of San Jos and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this historic but not disclosed, Resolution, the Court decided that the concept of family not only contemplates “the traditional concept of marriage, that is, the union of a man and a woman”, but also that they should not be imposed on governments to “obligation to open marriage to persons of the same sex”.

As for the principle of non-discrimination, the Court also added that there is no discrimination, since “States are free to reserve marriage only to heterosexual couples.”

The decision of the European Court for Human Rights should bring to a halt pressure exerted by the ILGA and similar groups, especially in Eastern European countries, who fight for legislation that recognizes the uniqueness of a marriage between one man and one woman.

 

As seen on