Scots Say NO to ‘Gay’ ‘Marriage!’ But Salmond Spurns His Own ‘Consultation’

Religious leaders have accused Nicola Sturgeon of ignoring the results of her consultation on gay marriage

 Nicola Sturgeon

After an incredibly busy week, time to look back over the news I missed. not least the way the SNP regime in Edinburgh has ‘done a Cameron’ and spat on the results of the so-called ‘consultation THEY initiated on the question of allowing queers to wed.

According to the Telegraph on 25th July, Salmond’s Deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, has dissed the views of over 77000 citizens, arguing that ‘other surveys‘ show Scotland must be rooting for the ‘right’ of sodomites to get hitched.

An analysis of the responses showed 64 per cent of people oppose gay marriage compared to 36 per cent who support it, but Miss Sturgeon argued that other surveys showed a majority are in favour.

A record 77,508 people responded to the consultation, three times the number who gave their views on the independence referendum.

So if Salmond respects  ‘other surveys‘ more than his own, why did he bother to spend tax-payers’ money on it?  I’m sure there are many other SNP activists who feel the same way as the man quoted in The Scotsman 2/8.

Robert Stewart, 66, a member for 22 years, was secretary of the Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch constituency association.

“SNP members have never been consulted as members. There is no party policy on the matter. National conference have not discussed the issue,” he said. “It is not an SNP manifesto commitment and I simply cannot understand how the SNP have a democratic mandate either from the party or from the nation to make such a fundamental change to a centuries-old institution. In short, I find the decision undemocratic.”

Mr Stewart, from Glen Urquhart in Inverness-shire, said he has resigned not in protest at the policy but in response to the way the decision was handled by leaders, which he feared could become an “elected dictatorship”.He said: “I am not a church person, am not married to the person I live with and been divorced twice. Some people might call me a hypocrite. But this is all about democracy and proper consultation, and that has not happened.

“I’m a great believer in grassroots democracy and not elected dictatorships. I had always believed the SNP was the only party that listened to people and I was besotted with the party, but this decision has come as a great shock to me and I’m finding it hard to get my head round what is happening.”

A “curt” reply was sent to him by party chief executive Peter Murrell, Ms Sturgeon’s husband, after he tendered his resignation.

  • Salmond
  • Sure, there have been opinion polls, usually based on random samples of a couple of thousand people, which declare there’s nothing Scottish folk see wrong with this bizarre agenda, but methinks they are about as reliable as some of the ‘mainstream’ media’s American surveys that show similar results. Strangely, when the issue is actually put to the only ‘consultation’ that counts, the ballot-box, Americans have rejected this decadent nonsense at every opportunity.

If Salmond and Sturgeon really believe the 64% figure is somehow flawed, their obvious recourse is to hold a referendum, which would indeed be irrefutably democratic – but they recoil from any such notion of popular sovereignty.

After all, as in the USA, the ballot-box is likely to hammer the abhorrent proposal – the only other country in Europe to put ‘gay rights’ rubbish to the people got a clear thumbs down from the citizens of Slovenia not that long ago.

No wonder the EUSSR does all it can to resist referenda!

Those who would destroy marriage don’t like rational argument. They denounce any input that reminds voters of how absurd so-called ‘gay’ so-called  ‘marriage’ really is – just this week, in the Herald  5/8, we see deviant fury at a rather obvious assertion from a Scots Bishop.

A Catholic bishop has sparked controversy by suggesting that, if the Scottish Government truly believed in equality, it could extend legislation on same-sex marriage to encompass bigamy and even incest.

Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Aberdeen asked why equality did not extend to “nieces who genuinely, truly love their uncles” and why men could not have two wives, adding such scenarios were not freaks of nature but might in fact occur in Scottish parishes.

Equality Network, the pro-gay marriage group, described Bishop Gilbert’s remarks as offensive and unwarranted.

Why? Incest, polygamy, and he could have added bestiality, are as offensive to normal people as homosexuality.

They all occur, and one of my liberal commenters tells me often that because aberrations occur they must be ‘natural,’ and thus deserving of our respect, if not admiration. And he extends his argument to say that therefore homos should be able to marry.



Hogwash! I love my cat, but I don’t want to marry her. Nor should I be allowed to.