Backbench rebellion threat to Cameron
MPs have voted in favour of the Coalition Government’s plans for equal marriage, but the scale of the backbench Tor y rebellion poses problems for Conservative leader David Cameron.
The House divided in the second reading with 400 in favour but 175 against, most of whom were Tor y MPs. Initial estimates suggest that as many as 150 Tories voted against the plans, more than the Tories who voted in favour.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron, did not personally appeal to his backbenchers, but several other frontbench Ministers did. Their appeals, however, failed to sway the vote. The debate now moves to the House of Lords, where the Bishops are certain to add their votes to the dissent.
Hours of fierce debate preceded today’s vote, with protection for the Church of England mentioned by many Members of Parliament who stood to speak.
David Cameron was frequently criticised even by those within his party, for bringing the legislation forward, meaning the second reading only had four hours to be thrashed out before the vote.
In moving the Bill, the Culture Secretary Maria Miller said: “Equal marriage should not come at the cost of freedom of faith, nor freedom of faith come at the cost of equal marriage.”
Ms Miller went on to claim the Church of England had been fully consulted over the details of the Bill, and had asked the current protections for them were upheld.
But the Labour MP, Stephen McCabe, Birmingham Selly Oak, agreed more protection was needed for faith groups opposed to holding same-sex marriages.
Fiona Bruce asked how such protection could be assured for registrars who opposed same-sex marriage, given the recent case of Lillian Ladele who was taken to the European Court of Human Rights for telling employers she would not be able to conduct same-sex Civil Partnerships.
“Why should people of good conscience end up in this position?” she asked.
However, supporters, particularly MPs from Labour and the Liberal Democrats, quoted the protections in the Bill: • No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marr y same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises, • Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marr y same-sex couples unless their organisation’s governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so, • Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marr y a same-sex couple, • The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marr y same-sex couples
There were over 10 openly gay MPs who stood to give their personal stories, including Mike Freer, Conservative, Finchley and Golders Green, who described the day he entered into his Civil Partnership with his partner of 21 years ‘the proudest day of his life’.
He urged the House to stop amounting this to mere legal protection, asking whether they asked their partner to marr y them merely for the legal and financial benefits. Mr Freer said this was about equality. Other supporters asked why they should be allowed to engage in the institution of marriage, but homosexual people should be excluded.
David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, said he was supporting the bill because he was a Christian.
Although he did not think Britain was necessarily a pro- gressive country; it was a country with small-c conservative instincts, gay marriage was, in his opinion, a concept that was consistent with this mentality, because there was now widespread support for it.
The doctrine of “equal but different” was wrong, because in the past it was used to justify discrimination against blacks and against women.
Mr Lammy said: “The Jesus I know was born a refugee, illegitimate, with a death warrant on his name, in a barn. He would stand up for minorities.
“That is why it is right for those who are of religious conviction to vote for this bill.”
Steward Andrew, a gay Conservative MP from Pudsey, said this would not undermine the institution but ‘strengthen it, and ultimately create a better community for us to live in’.
Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative for Totnes, asked: “Will your marriage feel any less acceptable because we offer it to other people?”
Ms Wollaston said: “Homosexuality is not a forbidden love, and it is time this House recognises that.”
She said if it matters to one person, it should matter to the Government.
Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough) said he was concerned with the ‘ democratic deficit’ of the vote, though.
Mr Bone added he did not believe one day was enough for a Second Reading, particularly with the four-minute r ule that was imposed.
He agreed with some other MPs that an adjournment was needed. Others stood to say there was no mandate for this. Sir Gerald Howarth quoted Daily Mail statistics, claiming gay marriage was a priority for only one in 14 voters.
Furthermore, Sir Gerald said the YouGov Poll showed the issue was particularly low on the agenda of those from ethnic minorities, ‘the very people this party is trying to woo’.
Bob Stewart agreed, saying while most of the population ‘did not care’, those who did, in his own constituency, were those writing to beg him to vote against the Bill.
Campaign 4 Marriage was criticised by speakers, who claimed the movement had threatened those who were planning to vote in favour of same-sex marriage.
The Evangelical Alliance briefing was also quoted, agreeing that this Bill would be a ‘Pandora’s box’ for legislation, by Stewart Jackson MP.
Ian Paisley stood to give an impassioned speech against the Bill, saying it was not about love, which gay people could find without the legislation.
He also criticised the current opinion in society that being a Christian made you homophobic.