You cannot just opt out with God

God has not given His church an option, there are no options. So how could the churches have then turned around and said we are opting out? God forbid that they would instead have said 'We opt in'.

To perform such a marriage is morally wrong and contrary to God's word and the teachings of His son Jesus Christ. It is blasphemy. The churches' message should have been loud and clear, that of a resounding No; declaring that 'We will not perform that which is contrary to the will of God, we serve God not man'.

Instead they gave the appearance they would have opted in if they weren't bound by outside laws. The only laws that the church should be bound by are those of God, not of man. What they were saying was that they were bound by the laws of their various churches, laws of man; not the laws of God.

Marriage is not a tradition, it is the decree of God. How can the churches then hide behind tradition, tradition is not law and people break with tradition all the time.

Would the churches still claim to be bound by tradition if tradition brought on pain and suffering? I think not. Why then hide behind it now?

Same-sex marriage is not of God and the churches should have made this very clear and shown this within the reasons they gave as to why they were opting out, not have to have made excuses to try and satisfy the ears of this so-called enlightened age. Enlightened age or not, this new legislation will not change the fact that this is wrong.

If these relationships are not wrong, then why is legislation required to declare otherwise? Why in the past was it then necessary for such relationships to have been conducted under the cover of darkness?

It is only now and with the increase in numbers that such relationships have become almost the height of fashion as more come out into the open. Just because they now parade openly in numbers through the streets with pride does not turn wrong into right.

This is what the new legislation is to attempt, as it will now become legal to do that which is wrong. This comes in under the banner of having rights. This could be extended and carried on all the way down through the system.

Deputy Le Tocq said in the article that he has strong views and that marriage rights should be maintained. If this is the case, then why did Deputy Le Tocq vote for the legislation of 'same-sex marriage' and not against it?

The time to make such a declaration was in direct opposition to this legislation, not when the result of the legislation threatens to walk down the aisle of the church he represents. You cannot help open the floodgates and not expect the water to come in.

The States are seeking to bring in this new law next year making same-sex marriage legal. God teaches us that it is wrong. The churches failed to declare this with their poor excuses and claims of holding with tradition. God created man and woman, one for the other – who are we to stand against God?

JOHN DE CARTERET,

17, Delancey Court,

Rue des Monts,

St Sampson's, GY2 4HX.