Marriage sham

This gave homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples.

However, it was a compromise, as it was not the same as marriage. Now, only seven years later we are told that that compromise is not sufficient and that homosexual couples must be allowed to be “married”.

The spirit of compromise does not run deeply in the actions of campaigners for what they see as the rights of homosexuals.

Christian people providing bed and breakfast accommodation were hounded because these campaigners were not prepared to compromise in any way. Catholic adoption agencies were put out of business because these campaigners were not prepared to compromise in any way.

Why should anyone believe them when they now say they are prepared to compromise and allow religious organisations the right not to conduct so-called homosexual marriages?

Michael Ryan

Campsie Drive

Glasgow

Surely (in reply to Mark Boyle’s letter, 15 September) the right of homosexual people to marry in church is – or in a fairer world should not be – debatable.

It is concerned not with any “pretext” that any group should feel “left out” but purely and simply with equal rights.

That means your rights, my rights, everyone’s rights, Mr Boyle.

Sylvia Dow

Cauldcoats

Blackness