I managed to get to the end of the Millbank article, and I have to say I found it amazing how magisterially he presented prejudice (gay people are such wonderful carers and so artistic), half-truth ("homosexuals are neither in a relation of solidarity with nor attraction to the opposite sex, but may well sometimes be in a relationship of rivalry") and outright lie (research shows that children are best brought up by heterosexual couples) with such learning and gravitas, in order to prove what he first thought of. This is as fine a demonstration of the validity of theology as an academic discipline as I have ever seen.

My favorite passage, though was this: "Christians are likely to frame the debate over gay marriage in terms of the true human good, the proper goals that human beings should aim for. Secular people, on the other hand, are likely to reject the idea that such goals can be objectively shared in common, and to frame the debate in terms of rights and private utility".

If I look at the evidence from environmental concerns, I would say that it is to secular people I would rather look for acceptance of the idea that there are objective common goals that human beings should aim for. Many Christians, on the other hand, appear happily to assert their individual rights to consume as much fossil fuel and to have as large families as possible, and hang the true human goood.