Gay 'Marriage' - Thoughts on Interesting times

On the same subject as my previous post, it would appear that interesting times are afoot. I have just read the following in the London Evening Standard in an article entitled 'Law will make it illegal for Cof E vicars to conduct gay weddings'

Church of England clergy will be banned from conducting gay weddings under the same-sex marriage laws unveiled today.

Although the new legislation will make it illegal specifically for the Church of England, other churches and religious organisations will be able to “opt in” and host ceremonies...

Uniquely for the Church of England, both its own canon law and the law of the land would have to be changed if the Cof E decided to embrace gay weddings... 

Under the opt-in system, an entire religious organisation must agree before any of its individual clergymen [sic] or churches can offer a gay marriage. This means no Catholic priest could take part unless the entire RC church changed its mind.

[This last point could prove interesting, given that the Catholic Church claims Jesus Christ Our Lord as her Head, and incorporates not only the Church Militant but also the Church Penitent (which know the fullness of truth and are coming to terms with it, and their previous errors, through the fires of Purgatory) and the Church triumphant (who have the fullness of the Beatific Vision, and so cannot err or be decieved). Don't know how that would fare in a court of law, but then I don't think there is much chance of the entire Church Militant being decieved into changing their mind either.]

The article also quotes the following remark from Culture Secretary Maria Miller:-

“Marriage binds us together and makes society stronger. Our proposals will mean that marriage would be available to everyone.

“I feel strongly that if a couple wish to show their love and commitment to each other the State should not stand in their way.”
 

I can't help feeling that this is the sort of faulty logic of which governments are often guilty, and which can lead to failure to forsee potential consequences and calamities caused by legislation. It is the same faulty logic which the previous government used in connection with academic degrees:-

• University graduates are (were) at an advantage in the employment market and contribute to the development of society and the growth of the economy
• Let's massively increase the number of people with degrees (I think 50% of the population was suggested at one point) and more people will o as above
• Result (1) - people not really capable of, or suited to a  university education are given one, leading to debasing of academia, and a reduction in the value of a degree as a benchmark of ability
• Result (2) - what constitutes a degree course, or indeed a university, are subtly redefined
• Result (3) - there are too many graduates chasing too few jobs, many people are doing work for which they are vastly overqualified (to the exclusion of those for whom the work would be better suited), money has been spent educating those who are unlikely to use their education, intelligent people are unfulfilled (with the consequent possibility of depression, stress and mental health issues), and the whole thing is an economic disaster. (Here endeth the rant).

Of course it might be prudent to rememeber that while important, university degrees are not a fundamental part of human society, unlike, of course, marriage...