Thu 21st Aug 2014 | Last updated: Wed 20th Aug 2014 at 15:26pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Does ComRes really show Cameron losing a million votes and 30 seats over the threatened ‘gay marriage’ law? If we could prove that, we’d be home and dry

We need to be able to demonstrate what we claim. Otherwise we’ll just be ignored

By on Thursday, 3 May 2012

(PA photo)

(PA photo)

“The Conservative party risks losing Christian votes if it goes ahead with legalising gay marriage, a recent survey conducted by ComRes, on behalf of Premier Christian Media Trust, has shown. More than half of respondents (57 per cent) say they would be less likely to vote Conservative.” That’s how Comres gives the headline findings of the poll it carried out for Premier on a sample of around 500. It has also carried out a poll for Catholic Voices, which on a larger sample (2,000) found that

Seven out of 10 British people believe that marriage should continue to be defined as a lifelong union between a man and a woman, and more than eight out 10 think children have the best chance in life when raised by their biological parents, the ComRes online survey of more than 2,000 people found. The poll also found that people think the state should promote marriage, and that most people support the idea of civil partnerships.

“The results show that most people support the idea of civil partnerships for gay people while being firm that marriage should remain between a man and a woman,” said Austen Ivereigh, Catholic Voices coordinator. “The survey also shows that most people understand marriage to be a conjugal institution, which benefits children above all.”

The poll found “overwhelming” (84 per cent) support for marriage’s benefits to children raised by their biological parents, as well as strong majority support for marriage being promoted by the state. Pink News responded to this with a simple slur: that ComRes had conducted a “dodgy” poll, and quoted a Stonewall activist as saying that this suggested that “they’re worried they’re losing the argument”. ComRes demanded that Pink News remove this allegation and they did so immediately.

Well, I think we all knew that there was strong public opposition to “gay marriage”; but so what? Cameron was going to go ahead with it anyway, gambling that Tory voters wouldn’t actually desert him over it. But, according to Protect the Pope, the ComRes poll done for Premier shows that they will indeed desert him: “An opinion poll carried out by ComRes has found that PM Cameron’s plans to legalise homosexual marriage by 2015 could lose the Conservative party 1 million votes at the next election, and up to 30 seats in the Commons. For every disaffected Tory supporter attracted back to the party, it loses almost three because of its stance on the issue.” It could be that the source for this understanding of the figures comes from an analysis carried out by Christian Voice, the website of the Christian Institute, which says that “An analysis of the polling figures shows that the Tories stand to lose anywhere between eight and 30 Parliamentary seats, and could lose more than 1.1 million votes in a general election.”

The thing is that I couldn’t find any trace of this analysis in the actual ComRes poll, and this is unfortunate, since if we can actually convince Cameron himself that he really could lose that many seats (quite enough to put little Miliband into Downing Street) we might squeeze a U-turn out of him: he’s done it often enough before when he saw himself as being threatened by one of his own blunders (there’s going to be a sly U-turn, quite clearly, over the charitable giving of the rich). But ComRes doesn’t actually say it, and nor does Premier, so far as I can see, nor does Catholic Voices. So, Christian Voice – can we have the basis of your analysis? I’m not saying it’s wrong, not at all, just that I (who am absolutely innumerate in my old age, I got an A level in maths over 50 years ago, but it’s all gone now and I’m just a fuddled old man when it comes to numbers), I seem to be missing something. The actual figures can be found here.

There must be something else. Could you (or someone else) explain it to me?

Meanwhile, it is worthwhile reiterating that both polls really do show very heavy opposition indeed to this proposed change, and from all age groups. I know it was in the manifesto of both parties to the coalition: but everyone knows that all kinds of stuff gets through that way, hiding behind the major issues. Most Tory voters, if they noticed it (it wasn’t, as I remember, prominently reported) would have thought it was just part of the rebranding of the Tory Party (get us, just look how modern we are) but that it would never actually come to anything. This is how Pink News glumly reported the Catholic Voices Poll:

Support for continuing to bar gay couples from marriage was high among all age groups, at odds with many opinion polls which have showed more support for marriage equality among younger generations.

In the 18-24 age group, 66 per cent said they wanted marriage to remain between a man and a woman only. Eighty-one per cent of those above the age of 65 were in favour of retaining exclusively straight marriage.

Support was highest (81 per cent) among married people and lowest (53 per cent) among those cohabiting. Single and widowed correspondents favoured straight marriage by 60 and 71 per cent respectively.

The least support for maintaining the bar on gay marriage came from Scotland, at 63 per cent, where a public consultation on marriage equality finished in December.

Eighty-four per cent agreed children “have the best chance in life if raised by their own mother and father in a stable, committed relationship” and support generally slightly higher among people with children than those without.

Dr Austen Ivereigh, coordinator of Catholic Voices, said: “Our poll shows that the Government has no mandate to alter an institution which lies at the foundation of our society.”

We must just plug away at it. If you haven’t voted in the Coalition for Marriage petition (they didn’t make their half million by Monday target, but they will soon), do it now.

As I write, they’re up to 491,368. Nearly there; then on.

  • JabbaPapa

    As for the fellow Catholic who believes that opposition to the Church’s
    outdated views is a position contrary to infallible teaching, may I
    remind him/her that such matters have never been codified in accordance
    with the formula for infallibility.  They do not derive from infallible
    teaching, but from the ordinary Magisterium.  Yes, they are therefore
    powerful teachings, but they are not immutable and they are therefore
    subject to change.

    What utter tosh !!!

    Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church — it is by very definition a permanent teaching, and the doctrinal definitions of that Sacrament are very obviously endowed of the charism of infallibility.

    You cannot provide teachings that contradict ANY of the Sacraments and remain in a state of sacramental Communion ; suggesting that you could do so is quite clearly irrational.

  • JabbaPapa

    The Sacrament of Marriage is not first and foremost about sex.

  • gabriel_syme

    Hello????  The current 470,000 anti-gay marriage signatures represent,
    with reference to the current UK population, 0.65% of the
    population….  Yes, less than 1% and significantly so.  Doesn’t that
    teach all you homophobes a little something?
    ——

    Hello???

    Half a million people – the biggest petition in British modern history – is a large amount of opinion.

    In contrast, about 4,000 people have signed Peter Tatchells equal love petition.  What about applying your thinking to this paltry amount of people?

    Have you ever encountered the concept of “democracy”?  That is, rule by majority opinion?  Or perhaps you prefer Stalins methods?

    If the Government intends to force people by law to pretend that there is no difference between homo- and heterosexual couples, the burden of proof as to (i) why this is a good idea and (ii) demonstrating a mandate, falls on those proposing change.

    The pro-gay marriage petition is an embarrassing flop showing that almost no-one thinks this is a good idea.

    Wake up and smell the coffee.

    And you delude yourself that opposition is down to “hateful Catholic”.  No, the strong opposition is down to “the British people”.

    In addition to Catholics, all of the following oppose gay marriage and have said openly so:

    - the Church of England
    - the Scottish Episcopal Church
    - the Church of Scotland
    - the Destiny Churches
    - The Evangelical Alliance
    - British Muslims
    - British Sikhs
    - British Jews
    - many gay public figures and personalities
    - many atheists, agnostics and those not affiliated with a major religion

    The comparative petition figures clearly demonstrate this breadth of mixed social support.

    It is chilling that people such as yourself can willingly delude yourself as to this reality.  Worse, you clinging to your delusion is forcing you to become a hateful bigot – as per your bogus presentation and portrayal of Catholics (as hateful and as the sole opposition) above.

  • gabriel_syme

     Marriage can be a wonderful thing. Gay people should be able to enjoy it.  I’m totally convinced that God wishes this too.
    —-

    Totally convinced?  How hard did you think?

    Consider a marriage is: (and this normal definition requires no faith in God)

    - a relationship open to the possibility of creating new life
    - a relationship born of the attraction of opposites
    - a relationship strengthened by the complimentary nature of opposites
    - a relationship with a natural and important social role
    - the natural lifeblood of society
    - the natural order of things

    And a gay relationship is none of these things.  Indeed, a gay relationship is the literal antithesis of these things.

    Gay people cannot be “married” despite whatever pretences are introduced by law.

  • gabriel_syme

    Cameron was going to go ahead with it anyway, gambling that Tory voters wouldn’t actually desert him over it.
    —-

    I don’t think he is “gambling”.  Other than when it comes to money, there is little difference, if any, among the main parties in terms of policy. Cameron sees that if there is no different choice available, then people might not desert him.

    If all three main parties propose the exact same policies (as per gay marriage) then we essentially have a dictatorship by default.

    And dictators do not need to gamble.

  • gabriel_syme

     This is a good example of the kind of strategy the left uses on these
    sort of issues. Very rarely will they offer a substantive
    counter-argument. Rather they will tell you that your position is
    “offensive” and therefore should not be permitted to be spoken. This
    avoids altogether the question of whether it is actually wrong — the
    left takes that as axiomatic.
    —-

    Absolutely correct.

    A similar tactic is simply to dismiss dissenting opinion on the grounds that those holding the opinion are sub-human. 

    For example, we Catholic can be routinely dismissed out of hand – our points do not even need addressing – because apparently:

    - we are all sexual abusers
    - we all hate women and gays
    - our policies of monogamy and abstinence are responsible for the HIV pandemic
    - we started all wars, ever

  • gabriel_syme

     2+2 doesn’t equal 5, but homosexuality has been observed in animals i.e.
    nature. It might make no sense to you that this occurs, but evolution
    produces all sorts of apparent irregularities. It’s the way God made it,
    so praise his work!
    —-

    Hi karlf

    The apparent presence of sexual deviation in animals proves nothing.  Homosexuality is every bit as disordered in any other species, as it is in humanity.

    You said it yourself – homosexuality is an “irregularity”.

    It doesn’t mean gay people are bad or evil, but their being erroneously attracted to someone of the same gender is “irregular”.

    You espouse exactly the Catholic position.

    The Catholic Church doesn’t celebrate sexual irregularities as being central and fundamental to human existence and relationships, in the same way that sexuality regularity is.

    There, are well all agreed now?

    You actually agree with the Church, but somehow fail to realise it.

  • theroadmaster

    It would see more likely that socio-economic factors would be the deciding factor in the survival or not of the present Cameron administration at the next general election.  But we cannot leave out the potential of the Faith communities in general and the Catholic one in particular, to effect the outcome of the voting trends.  Issues like a putative legal redefinition of such a major social and religious Institution like marriage, can be a rallying point for the Christian and other Religious constituencies, in order to declare their opposition to such an ill-advised plan.

  • theroadmaster

    Well said.  You have covered all the bases with respect to the proper definition and vital importance of marriage in society.

  • theroadmaster

    Mother Theresa personally and through the Religious sisterhood that she created, just did not simply treat the physical ailments of her patients, but also provided much needed spiritual sustenance,  In effect, she treated people, no matter how materially disadvantaged, in both mind, body and soul.  

  • Nicholas Broad

    Gay marriage will happen / would have happened whichever of the main 3 parties are in power, and Dave and co will probably be thrown out at the next election regardless, so none of this makes any difference to anything 

  • Speakmymind

    Very well said!

  • Speakmymind

    This all kicked of after those two men hired by gay activists group to set up that poor Christian couple in England. They did not allow same sex to share a room as they did not believe in gay civil partnership as a marriage before the eyes of god. They still welcomed them into their b&b but those two men knew exactly what they were doing as they were fully aware of the conditions stated by the landlords. Those old dears were taken to court and fined a sad amount of money!
    This particular group are ruthless and have been building there crusade against the Christians stance on marraige for some time.
    They pay back handlers to mp’s hence this bill is looking to be forced upon society. This is a crusade on the catholic church as they know it’s the one thing that they see as ‘they are homophobes’ now all I can say is this from a catholic opinion I see the act of a man and a man having anal sex awful, it is not natural no child can be borne from this not to mention how unclean as fecal matter must be transmitted so therefore we cannot be forced into believing that it’s a normal human act the same for two women no children can be borne from the act. Now god teaches us that it’s fornication which is a sinful sexual act. Now given the fact that when living in sin one cannot receive the lord In Communion So how on earth can a gay couple receive the lord in a state if sin? They can’t but suppose in the case gay marriage is forced upon the church does that couple believe they then have the right to receive our lord? This is what is going to happen so you see from a catholic point of view my dislike of the act does not make me hate the gay person that would actually go against hat the lord teaches which is to love one another, I choose instead to pray for the gay person and I think gay couple ought to respect our beliefs and let us be just as they wish to be respected and left to be and accept that society has done enough to accept their beliefs by allowing civil partnerships, by being tolerant of the gay scenes in soaps and tv,tolerant of gay people kissing in the street infront of children who then turn to their parents in utter confusion as to why that is happening. Marriage in the catholic church is our right as straight people, it’s sacred ( sacrament) as god is in the holy spirit a witness to that marriage its been that way for 2000 years and more because as children of god we hold dear to the teachings of the bible so what right does a gay activist have over this? Do they think it will create equality? It won’t it will create anger and intolerance, the church will simply close her doors, no catholic priest will commit the sin of marrying to same sex people and what right does a gay person have to impose that? None no right at all and that’s not homophobia! We are not scared of the gay person because this word homophobe that gets thrown at us who don’t feel tolerant of gay marriage is utter nonsense! We are just fed up! Fed up of this crazy crusade.

  • JabbaPapa

    Equals one groat, actually.

  • Johnthehibee

    Whar next? A transgender who calls herself a man, is protected by the law where calling herself a man is concerned which then decides as I am a man I want to be a priest……that’s where this country is headed! Oh wait animals have rights too folks let’s get them down the aisle and have them ‘married’. Gay marriage let them have it, for one thing is sure the only spirit present between the couple will be that of the devils for this all Satan’s work, to lead a man and man to the altar to desecrate it with an unclean offering can’t get more ofan abomination than a married gay couple at the chapel being united in the `presence ` of our lord to then receive holy communion as marriage is a sacrement . The wrath if God will be tremendous as it was for sodom and Gomorrah and the egyptions, as it was in the time of Noah but not until the lord comes again to save the faithful and kind people who have repented their sins as Christians let’s pray for the forgivness of these couples and pray they save their souls in the hour of their death ……….

  • Charles Martel

    Yes, absolutely FED UP TO THE BACK TEETH. Homosexuals aren’t prosecuted any more for buggery – a remarkably tolerant policy. If they keep quiet and don’t try to spread their practices, no one is going to come hunting them down. That should be enough for them. I don’t see why anything more should be given.

  • Charles Martel

    And, by the way, Iain Duncan Smith, the supposed ‘Tory traditionalist and devout Roman Catholic,” now supports ‘gay’ ‘marriage’. Just to make this crystal clear to any Catholic who has heard this news and who might think that it’s OK to support homosexual civil unions or ‘marriages’, IT ISN’T. The bishops of England will probably say nothing about this, or at best put out some mealy-mouthed comment on the matter. No matter. Here is the teaching of the Catholic Church on the issue which you probably won’t hear from your bishops or priests:
    “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in
    any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of
    homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote
    and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of
    society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the
    same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant
    behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day
    society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common
    inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values,
    for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
    The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28,
    2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary
    Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication. Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
    Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his
    Companions, Martyrs.

    Joseph Card. RatzingerPrefect

    Angelo Amato, S.D.B.Titular Archbishop of SilaSecretary”
    Got that, Mr Duncan Smith? Insofar as you support deviant unions, you separate yourself from the Catholic Church. Why would anyone, for the sake of the approval of the Stephen Frys of this world, risk losing his soul? If, of course, Archbishop Nichols were to get on the blower immediately and tell IDS to publicly retract his scandalous support for Cameron’s insane plan – under pain of a publicly pronounced excommunication – it might do the trick, but of course, we are talking about Archbishop Nichols of Soho Gay Mass fame….

  • johnnewbery485

     You’ve missed the point, the Spanish Inquisition are not going to descend upon you in the middle of the night and declare you a heretic and thus beyond the pale. You yourself have done that already! Yes….. you have excomminicated yourself. You won’t even get a brown envelope through the post!

  • JByrne24

    I would say that these people are married.
    The relationship is a marital one. 
    This is marriage. One could use the adjective “Straight” or “Heterosexual” (marriage etc), but that would be unnecessary.
     
    [But these people would also be married if there were no children, for whatever reason.]

    Eventually, and probably sooner than later, Gay people will be able to enjoy marriage. Again one could use the adjective “Gay” or “Homosexual” (marriage etc), but that too would be unnecessary.

  • JByrne24

    “…..in a normal marriage this is always possible though other factors may intervene.”

    That which you call “a normal marriage” is simply how marriage has previously, and to this day, been understood.

    When Gay marriage comes, it too will be “normal”.

  • Oconnord

    The crazies are really out tonight!

  • James H

     It seems incredible that adults with a functional brain can think that a ‘marriage’ between two people of the same sex is even possible.

    “Both try to validate their religion and beliefs by the same means.”  – more stupidity. Following Aquinas (who laid the foundations of Western science), we know that the world is logical, ordered and worthy of study because it reflects the nature of its creator, who is likewise logical, non-contradictory and truthful. Islam doesn’t teach that, which is why science arose in Europe, and not the house of submission.

  • James H

     You’re not going to change the defiinition of ‘normal’ in this case. Get over it.

  • Oconnord

    You seem almost nostalgic for the days of the inquisition! As to me being a heretic… well church says no.. It’s near impossible to be labelled a heretic by the church anymore.

    Some people in Ireland have tried to claim official status as heretics, after being denied the right to “defect”, they were refused. 

    They weren’t even “threatened” with excommunication, as that is a “simple currency” the church can no longer spend. It’s a political move whereby anyone baptised, can be claimed as a catholic. It negates the right of any person to officially remove themselves from the church.

  • GFFM

    Fact are stubborn thing Daniel. I guess in your case ignorance of reality is bliss.

  • Daniel_Borsell

     I don’t believe that marriage is for same sex couples.
    “Both try to validate their religion and beliefs by the same means.” – of course they do, using ‘holy’ books which profess to be the word of God, when they are so obviously not. And both parties tell tales of how they know that the creator of the universe is overseeing and guiding their lives.

  • Daniel_Borsell

     Ignorance of what exactly? That you are involved in personal communications with the creator of the universe?

  • karlf

    God’s work is irregular – you agree with me

  • whytheworldisending

    Cameron is more worried about the 57 Liberal Democrat seats he would lose if he didn’t foist this “Gay marriage” rubbish onto Britain. That’s why Clegg is not giving his 57 Lib Dem MP’s a free vote. In order to succeed in blackmailing Cameron into dictating to both Parliament AND the British people, Clegg even HAS TO dictate to “his own party.” That’s not very Liberal and its not very Democratic. That is HE is not very Liberal or Democratic. The Liberal Democrats have lost their way. They need to get themselves a true Liberal Democrat to lead them, and in the meantime, stand up to Clegg and be counted as MP’s. Maybe then Cameron will have the courage to stand up for Conservative principles and steer his party – and Britain – back on course .