Government ignored majority view

While I accept that such a consultation is not legally binding, what is the point in holding it in the first place if the decision has already been made to reject the majority opinion?

No wonder the SNP and  the pro-gay marriage lobby were so keen not to hold a referendum.

Your editorial (26 July) describes the SNP’s reaction as “progressive”.

Personally, I call it hypocritical and, by ignoring the wishes of the majority, it does nothing to dispel the cynicism that many people feel about politicians in particular, and politics in general.

David Hamill

Preston Cottages

East Linton

I have to ask the Scottish Government: why have a public consultation on so-called “gay” marriage and then ignore the results?

When it revealed that 67 per cent of those responding were against it, while only 32 per cent were in favour, it showed that the SNP is not in favour of social democracy, but social engineering.

The people were hood-winked, and will get their  revenge at the next election.

Ian Hannah

Upper Kinneddar

Saline, Fife

When Alan Hinnrichs (26 July) writes: “The Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland don’t even speak for the majority of their followers on this issue, never mind the rest of Scotland”, he chooses to ignore the fact that in the biggest public consultation since devolution, approximately two-thirds of all respondents were against gay marriage and this SNP Scottish Government has decided to proceed anyway.

What now for the consultation results around future  independence?

Richard Allison

Braehead Loan

Edinburgh

At THE expense of rational discussion, Angela Innes  (Letters, 26 July) claims those who oppose same-sex marriage are “religious bigots”.

Such terms act as thought-terminating clichés that smear their target as merely antidiluvian and hateful, and thus chill debate by  encouraging those who hear them to ignore those against whom such words are  employed.

The irony of this unfortunately widespread method is that it generally reflects more on the person using it, showing them to be unable to empathise and understand the other viewpoint, and is itself a form of bigotry which constitutes a profound social disability, and prevents reasonable, calm and productive dialogue.

As for the news that the Scottish Government is  pressing ahead with plans to redefine marriage, no-one has the right to redefine  marriage for all of society; marriage predates the state – our laws recognise it, they didn’t create it.

It is truly a dark day when our government is so prepared to turn its back on the truth of nature, reason and religion, and we are very much on the slippery slope into a wider moral abyss.

Martin Conroy

Oldhamstocks

East Lothian

Many doubted whether the Scottish Government had the political courage to legalise gay marriage in the face of fierce opposition from Roman Catholic and Muslim leaders.

Yet I suspect our wily First Minister realised that the Catholic hierarchy and imams, like the Kirk’s General Assembly, had become detached from the faithful over the issue.

Alex Salmond’s claim that an independent Scotland would be a beacon for “progressive” opinion was treated with derision, but his resolve over gay marriage has been admirable.

Now Catholic MSPs and members in constituencies with a large Muslim population will be personally targeted and we will see if their fortitude matches that of their leader.

The deplorable comments of Archbishop-elect Philip Tartaglia give some inkling of what lies ahead, and it is to be hoped the faithful will remain on the moral high ground.

(Dr) John Cameron

Howard Place

St Andrews

According to Nicola Sturgeon, we live in a parliamentary democracy, and parliament makes the decisions. The question every thinking Scot is asking in the issue of same sex-marriage is: who formulates those decisions?

The answer which emerges with blinding clarity is that we are no longer living in a democracy in Scotland but in an autocracy, an uncontrolled authority with decisions contrived by those two exponents of double-speak, Salmond and Sturgeon.

Two-thirds of the people who stirred from the national inertia to answer the consultation on this critical issue were firmly against a decision which will upturn 2,000 years of religious belief on the part of Christian believers here, and as many secular upholders who see the abandonment of the traditional habits of gender and familial relations as a pernicious  development in the body politic.

It is to be hoped that Salmond, Sturgeon and the cardboard crew of all  parties who blindly follow their diktats in the Scottish Parliament may well have to face rejection at the next election.

Alastair Harper

Lathalmond

by Dunfermline