Here we go again! By seeking to define the true meaning of the word marriage and not the true nature of the institution of marriage, I am accused of being ‘homophobic’, ‘bigoted’ and holding ‘archaic views of a religious lobbyist’.

Welcome to the world of ‘political correctness’ which seeks to re-define perfectly good and understandable English words and a sacred institution that has lasted for well over 2000 years!

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘marriage’ as ‘the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife.’ Jesus Christ Himself agrees when he states in the New Testament: ‘a man shall have his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they shall become one faith.’ Nothing archaic or conflicting in those two statements!

All the major faiths agree: Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and many others. All have united and protested to the Prime Minister that he should not go ahead with the legislation of so-called gay marriage.

You accused me of being un-Christian because I refuse to join two gay people in holy matrimony. I believe implicitly in marriage both Christian and secular. What you hadn’t realised was that I am a retired Church of England Vicar. As a legal registrar, I have married hundreds of couples. In fact, I vigorously promoted marriage in the 1990’s by introducing ‘cut price’ weddings.

Under the caption of “From hairdressing to honeymoon in one healthy package” I was able to offer a complete package which included hairdressing, wedding gown, video, marriage ceremony, reception and catering in the church hall, and honeymoon for just £500.

Couples who thought that they could not could not get married because they had been living together or had been through divorce were legally married by me. Obviously, the media got interested in all this and I was invited on to radio and television programmes and was able to promote marriage as a non-commercial operation affordable by all.

I was never bigoted against any couple.

This leads me to another of your accusations. I told gay couples face to face that I could not undergo a marriage ceremony with them because it would not be true marriage. Further, I affirmed this to thousands of other people, while partaking in various radio and television programmes when asked by one or two people if I would perform such a gay ceremony. I stood by my Christian beliefs, as Christian registrars and Christian teachers might have to do in the future.

But you, Mr. Halton – Smith and Mr. Pommell, I am not homophobic or bigoted. When I got married, my best man, who was a college friend, was gay. I have gay friends and acquaintances. I and other Christians always seek to love our neighbours and ourselves. Remember, it was not the politically correct lobbyist that first invented inclusiveness.

If you read your bible or history of the Christian church you will find that the Christian church, as long ago as the 1st Century A.D., invited slaves to partake in their fellowship meetings.

That was at a time when Romans, Greeks and many others treated slaves as no more than human tools. May I assure you that if there has been a proper debate , most people would have come to the same conclusion.

The Church of England, myself and most Christians have accepted civil partnerships which give the same rights, legal and otherwise, to gays as to heterosexual married couples. In fact, you have more rights because you can swap your pensions which heterosexual couples can’t.

I repeat, I am not homophobic or bigoted, as I hope you will not be Christophobic.

RL