British lawmakers have tentatively approved a bill to allow churches to host same-sex marriages, prompting warnings that the measure would be one step from forcing clergy to perform the homosexual ceremonies.

Even the head of the nation's top homosexual activist group, Ben Summeriskill of Stonewell, is concerned about the implications for churches, according to the Christian Institute.

"Right now, faiths shouldn't be forced to hold civil partnerships, although in 10 or 20 years, that may change," he said.

The Christian Institute, a nondenominational Christian charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible, reported protests already have erupted from Michael Scott-Joynt, the bishop of Winchester.

"I believe that it will open, not the Church of England, but individual clergy, to charges of discrimination if they solemnize marriages as they all do, but refuse to host civil partnership signings in their churches," he said. "Unless the government does something explicit about this, I believe that is the next step."

Also concerned was David James, the bishop of Bradford, who said while the plan was being billed as an "available option," he had no confidence it would remain so.

"Even if this amendment says on the face of it that it only applies to those who choose to perform civil partnerships, that may not end up being the case, andclergy may end up facing very costly legal bills in order to defend themselves against lawsuits," the Institute's Mike Judge told the London Telegraph.

He continued, "The government has failed to understand the nature of religious liberty and has treated faith as nothing more than a matter of personal devotion. Now Christians feel let down and ignored. This is another step in the process of trying to force religions groups to abandon their core beliefs."

Other concerns came from former Home Secretary Lord Waddington, who feared the "costly litigation" bound to follow the change.

"As the law now stands churches and synagogues that are registered to conduct marriages could easily find themselves being sued for discrimination if they do not register to conduct civil partnerships," warned Neil Addison, who has done legal work on religious liberty cases, according to the Institute report.

"Local authorities could also refuse to grant or renew marriage authorization to churches and synagogues that do not also apply for civil partnership authorization," Addison said.

The Telegraph described the amendment as removing a restriction on same-sex ceremonies to register offices or "secular" venues.

Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance told the paper religious groups must not "be forced to betray their consciences by facing lawsuits if they fail to allow a civil ceremony."

While the amendment says it is not a requirement, the Equality Bill's assurance that there will be no discrimination in the "provision of goods and services," could trigger lawsuits againstclergy.

"We have seen countless cases where, as a result of similar sorts of legislation, religious adoption agencies have been forced to close and Christians have been forced out of their jobs for acting according to their beliefs," Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Center told the paper.

The plan still must be approved in the House of Commons.

Homosexual activists long have been working on such a change.

WND also has reported on the move in the U.S. toward "hate crimes" laws that would banish any criticism of homosexual activism. and could, according to critics, create danger for members of theclergy.

A bill was adopted under President Obama's direction last year. The law almost immediately sparked a lawsuit alleging it violates the civil rights of Christians and pastors, who according to the complaint now can become the target of federal investigations, grand juries and even charges for no more than opposing the activism of homosexuals.

The lawsuit was filed by the Thomas More Law Center in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette, James Combs and Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan.

Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, said at the time the lawsuit was filed, "There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law. Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. Moreover, [Attorney General] Eric Holder himself testified at a Senate hearing that the states are doing a fine job in this area."

He called it a "political payoff" to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Obama in the last presidential election.

"The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin. It elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy," Thompson said at the time.

The Hate Crimes Act was dubbed by its critics as the "Pedophile Protection Act," after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophiles from protection by the act was defeated by majority Democrats. In fact, during congressional debate, supporters argued that all "philias," or alternative sexual lifestyles, should be protected.

The law was promoted by its advocates as a crackdown on "bias" crimes motivated by a person's "actual or perceived" "sexual orientation" or "gender identity."

Obama signed the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" in October after Democrats strategically attached it to a "must-pass" $680 billion defense-appropriations bill.

The law cracks down on any acts that could be linked to criticism of homosexuality or even the "perception" of homosexuality. As Congress debated it, there were assurances it would not be used to crack down on speech.

Obama boasted of the "hate crimes" bill when he signed it into law.

"After more than a decade, we've passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are," he said.

The bill signed by Obama was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which called it a "menace" to civil liberties. The commission argued the law allows federal authorities to bring charges against individuals even if they've already been cleared in a state court.

www.wnd.com/index.php