both ways, though you’d find it shockingly lacking in twitter comments concerning the Church of England’s stance on gay marriage. You are more likely to be called or thought a bigot at worst and intolerant at best.

Yet, probably due to Church leaders’ fear of expressing their mysticism, the main focus is on ‘equal rights’, when the only ‘equal rights’ in mysticism are in the God spirit within.

Says Richard Lane from Stonewall: “This is simply for two people who love each other to commit to each other publicly.’

How disingenuous! What does civil marriage do if not allow two people who love each other to commit to each other publicly? They call themselves married because they are legally married. Just not in a church and not with the mystical value placed on the actual service of marriage. But then why would they want it since that same religious marriage thinks homosexuality is a sin?

Less spiritually, there are also legal ramifications.

Give an inch and before you know it – and there is form with these activists – they would be rushing off to the European Court of Human Rights to demand their right to marry in churches which expressly forbid homosexuality. Well not Islamic ones as they seem too scared of Muslim fury. Not sure why they are not picking on the Jews either.

And where does that leave the Queen if separation of church and state get past Parliament? Would she break her Coronation Oath to pass it as law?

The Queen took an oath to “maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law, and to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England”

Read “doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof…” – doctrine which expressly forbids homosexuality.

Yet – to repeat – homosexuals can currently marry – even in some churches – so you have to ask why they are so determined to change the wording of the law of the land – which could eventually lead to far bigger changes and the potential for serious law and disorder.

Cause and effect.

If the monarchy is also destroyed – along with the Church – due to a vociferous minority and their liberal puppets, I wouldn’t hold my breath on how long we would last before severe social unrest rears up.

Unsurprisingly, many Twitter cohorts including those with nary an original thought in their head, are following the activists’ party line.

A Sunday Times’ journalist tweeted: “The Church has a stranglehold on our schools and marriage. Now it leads protest against gay marriage. Outrageous bigotry. Shut it down.”

Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly!), I responded with: “And in its place you’d presumably put the Church of Gaydar with their mores and values?”

The rest of the twitter exchange went something like this:

Shldn’t dignify ure twt with a response @euphrosene but if gay community was setting up a church (!?!) it wld be more tolerant than this one

From me: You can be tolerant without having to change your faith to suit current mores. Tolerance works both ways!

@euphrosene current mores? Wow. I don’t think we’re going to make any progress here.

From me: Evidently not. There is civil marriage which gives all marital rights so why attack the Church? And not Islam or Judaism?

No further reply.

The Church of Gaydar was less offensive to him than using the words ‘current mores’. Yet isn’t that rather how many of us have grown up with what we know of homosexual behaviour? George Michael, anyone? Cottaging rights in public places? Multiple partners purely for sex?

Francis Maude said he wanted a change from the way his brother had lived his life – with multiple partners and the seediness of illicit sex. And he’s an arch driver for gay marriage so I am hardly being provocative saying ‘current mores’. (And Maude too is being disingenuous as higher profile homosexuals like Dirk Bogarde managed to live with a loving partner for most of their lives without making a song and dance about it. Maude’s brother probably wanted such a racy life and paid the price.)

Of course there are many who have one on one committed relationships – and I’ll bet they, in the main, are the ones who are happy with the status quo . Unfortunately, activists use ‘black symbology’ as a cross-reference – when it is nothing like the same.

But all these arguments are by the by. Majority views on even that has all long changed. ‘Current mores’ allow civil partnerships ( which I agree with – and why have fewer than 2% availed themselves of it?) and same-sex adoption (which I don’t agree with – also unsurprisingly!) so, again, the real beef with Stonewall and co seems to be with the Church.

It’s also no surprise that most of their vehement heterosexual allies seem to hate everything to do with God and religion but back gay rights to marry in church.

Apart from the illogicality of it, it is an attack on a channel of God.

As a spiritual warrior (long story), my only fight is a spiritual one. You cannot claim to want God’s blessing when you
do not adhere to God’s rules – as laid down by all the main faiths.

To the guy who said they wanted to profess their love to God, God prefers the quiet voice – in order to be heard in return. God does not need the panoply of High Mass except as a celebration of faith – not the other way around! But then I also hold the view that priests should be male (as channels of the yang of potentiality) and celibate (for purity of channel). Yes, I do believe in women as channels of the divine too – just not as that kind of priest.

Spiritual values to many these days means living in total tolerance of a range of beliefs and lifestyles. It includes equal rights to those who would deny them to others (eg some sections of Islam). It includes multiculturalism (when it should mean just diversity) yet paradoxically denying our own generous culture which allows genuine freedom to these others.

If a couple really wants to celebrate their love for each other and their perceived love of God, they can do so already in the Unitarian Church.They have the same rights maritally and in at least one church, so why force anything more on other faiths who hear a different majority message from God?

How long before gay activists take opposing faiths to the European Court of Human Rights? They managed to kill off Catholic Adoption Agencies – which quite rightly wanted children to go into Catholic homes where Catholic teaching was followed. Yet the human rights of the activists were paramount. See what I mean about giving an inch?

But spiritual values to me is putting our en theos first. It means to forgo today’s desire for instant gratification and public shows of emotion and to put our God first by listening to our still small voice. Religion should be about focusing on spiritual values not kowtowing to earthly desires – if only for a few minutes each week – and certainly when sharing vows.

Sadly, lack of vision seems to affect the mass mind as well as those we put in power. They make decisions for ‘now’ with no thought for the tomorrows of future generations. The Leveson Enquiry regularly highlights the low vision of our power makers while gay rights activists are perfect role models for give it to me now and sod the future. Puns unintended.

The Christian Church again seems to be the main brunt of its firepower because they are too cowardly to take on Islam. I am bemused why the latter is so quiet on the subject. Perhaps because they know they are untouchable?

There are times when we should not turn the other cheek, otherwise whatever you hold spiritually dear will collapse into the sands of time.