Pembrokeshire's two Tory MPs: Why we voted no to gay marriage (From Western Telegraph)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WT NEWS to 80360, or email
us
Pembrokeshire's two Tory MPs: Why we voted no to gay marriage
3:51pm Wednesday 13th February 2013 in News
Pembrokeshire's two Conservative MPs have explained why they voted against their party in last week's controversial vote on gay marriage.
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was voted through by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, last Tuesday.
However 136 Conservatives, including Pembrokeshire's Simon Hart and Stephen Crabb, opposed the bill.
MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, Simon Hart, said he had voted against the bill because he felt it was not particularly well considered in terms of the law and didn't make a great deal of sense.
"It is not simple and not a particularly straightforward decision," he said.
"In things like this which make such a huge difference to people on both sides of the argument it should have been in the party's manifesto before the election.
"I didn't feel comfortable that we had done things we should have done in the way of consultation," he added.
"We haven't put it in the manifesto, we haven't got consensus from religious groups and churches. I had a huge number of letters from people in the constituency expressing concern and I felt I couldn't go ahead with it."
Preseli Pembrokeshire MP Stephen Crabb also voted against the bill saying it would be wrong to force churches to change their beliefs.
Mr Crabb said: "With the exception of Withybush Hospital, this issue has caused more constituents to write me than any other in the last five years. The vast majority have expressed opposition but there is no doubt that those in favour of the Bill represent a growing strand of public opinion. I have considered both sides of the argument very carefully.
"Around a third of all marriages in Britain take place in churches which believe that marriage is between a husband and wife. It would be wrong for Parliament to force churches to change their beliefs.
"But I am not convinced about the safeguards currently in the Bill to protect churches from legal challenge in the future, once the government changes the definition of marriage. Somehow a better balance needs to be struck between equality for same-sex couples and protecting religious freedom."
Comments(15)
Tina2
says...
6:48pm Wed 13 Feb 13
These two MPs have shown their true colours. I hope all gay residents of this county are kicking themselves if the voted Tory.
quentin
says...
7:12pm Wed 13 Feb 13
Andrew Lye
says...
8:20pm Wed 13 Feb 13
Its not compulsory and the divorce statistics show that marriage between a man and woman is not all that some MP's like to think it is, through their rose tinted glasses.
Why any same sex couple would wish to get married in a church is beyond me and the hypocrisy of the churches who marry many who don't even go to church. They speak out against same sex marriage, but are happy to take the money of those who dont attend church.
Hyper-injunctions
says...
11:05pm Wed 13 Feb 13
AdmiralFoley
says...
7:54am Thu 14 Feb 13
Bead
says...
9:39am Thu 14 Feb 13
Flashbang
says...
11:27am Thu 14 Feb 13
AndrewArmitage
says...
11:31am Thu 14 Feb 13
Crabb is a self-confessed religiophile, so his arguments are going to be suspect (I didn't say wrong - though I believe they are - but we have to take into account any possible bias from another aspect of his life, in this case his avowed superstitions).
Equality is equality. We know why Cameron wants it: it's because it fits nicely with making all relationships nice and easy as targets for commercial purposes and therefore further oils the wheels of capitalism. It also encourages gay people to marry and therefore declare more of their business to officialdom. If I as a gay man had a partner I would not wish to commit that to paper and have the government privy to it. That, however, is a separate argument, and those who wish to marry should be able to marry and call it marriage.
As instanced by Hart and Crabb, there is still the element of "the Nasty Party" in the Tory Party, and we must not forget this (New Labour are not much better). Yes, the party could have done it better, and it were better it had been in the manifesto; the fact is, it wasn't, but it's high time for change, and change is now inevitable.
As for "forcing" preachers to marry same-sex couples, well, they're licensed to conduct marriages, just as registrars are in civil cases. The registrar who lost her job (rightly, I believe) for refusing to splice a gay couple should now consider her case in law, because on the one hand we're saying she should have done her job and on the other hand we're saying another who is licensed to conduct marriages, the priest, should be exempt.
Sorry, but if someone is entrusted with an office and part of that office is to perform marriage, and marriage then becomes something gay people can lay claim to, he/she should have to do it, or resign. The reason I think the registrar should look at her case in law is that I'd like to see it tested in the courts, and show up this Con-Dem government's nonsensical idea that there should be exceptions for religions.
Another reason for the unfairness of the opt-out is that C of E people cannot be married in church while, say, Unitarians or Quakers can. Is that fair?
Tttoommy
says...
9:56pm Thu 14 Feb 13
Tttoommy
says...
10:03pm Thu 14 Feb 13
. Indeed if you continue to complain about how we behave you will lose your job or go to jail just like those cops on the gate at No. 10
Hyper-injunctions
says...
10:54pm Thu 14 Feb 13
If I felt they were being honest about their reasons I too would congratulate them, however this is pure political shape-shifting.
They are clever enough to not come out and say openly that they hate gays, but they are stupid enough to think that people will believe their hasty, cobbled together backtracking is true. I would sooner trust someone who told me they hated me to my face than trust someone who attempts to appear like an angel but is in fact a devil.
The WT should do a reader poll.........
jan 2531952
says...
12:33pm Fri 15 Feb 13
believes in same sex marriage and i agree that if they don't then they shouldn't perform the ceremony but they should find a registrar who will that is their job and i do not believe that someone should loose their job just because they have their own beliefs.
AndrewArmitage
says...
1:04pm Fri 15 Feb 13
jan 2531952 wrote:You write, ". . . it is not out of the question to find a priest who believes in same sex marriage . . ."
I truly believe we should stick to our beliefs weather straight or gay it is not out of the question to find a priest who
believes in same sex marriage and i agree that if they don't then they shouldn't perform the ceremony but they should find a registrar who will that is their job and i do not believe that someone should loose their job just because they have their own beliefs.
Ah, but, as the government wants it, those who believe in same-sex marriage but are stuck within the C of E or the Church in Wales will not be able to conduct a legal marriage of two women or two men. This is unfair to those within the C of E or C in W who wish their unions to be recorded and, indeed, solemnised within their chosen denomination. So the Quaker, say, is at an advantage. Why? So it's unfair on C of E and C in W devotees, who may consider just any old Christian priest not good enough, wanting one from their own denomination instead – and quite rightly, too. I suspect it will be challenged.
quentin
says...
10:01pm Fri 15 Feb 13
chizy says...
5:33pm Wed 13 Feb 13
Last time I checked we were currently in the 21st century, the views expressed by the elected and their fellow 'No' voters is so dated and Victorian. I'm in no way a Tory,nor shall ever be, but good on their party colleagues for voting this one through.