UNITED KINGDOM
such decisions were for the Government.
Mr Stewart Hosie, MP The hearing lasted for over
three hours. On its conclusion the Committee announced that it endorsed the appointment of Mr Carney and wished him well in his role. It intends to publish a report in the coming months examining some of the issues that arose during the hearing.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill A “free vote” of the House of Commons is one in which party leaders and whips do not ask their members to vote along party lines. They are relatively rare and are generally held on matters of conscience. The Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, held on 24 January 2013, was one such free vote. The Bill would allow couples
of the same sex to be married either in a civil ceremony or in a religious ceremony on religious premises with the agreement of the religious organization concerned. The Bill contained provisions preventing a religious organisation from being obliged to conduct such services and a further provision preventing the Church of England and Church of Wales from conducting such services.
Supporters of the Bill argued
that it would remove an obstacle to equality between same sex and heterosexual couples. Moving the Bill’s Second Reading, the
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Rt Hon. Maria Miller, MP, (Con), said that marriage should be embraced by more couples. “The depth of feeling, love and commitment between same- sex couples is no different from that depth of feeling between opposite-sex couples. The Bill enables society to recognise that commitment in the same way, too, through marriage. Parliament should value people equally in the law, and enabling same- sex couples to marry removes the current differentiation and distinction.” Similarly, the Shadow
Secretary of State, Rt Hon. Yvette Cooper, MP, (Lab), said: “Call us hopeless romantics or call it the triumph of hope over experience, but most of us think that when people love each other and want to make that long-term commitment, that is a wonderful thing. Why would we prevent a loving couple from getting married just because they are gay?”
Many other points of view
were expressed. Mr Nick Herbert, MP, (Con) argued that “the defenders of marriage” should be welcoming with “open arms” same sex couples who sought the commitment and
Rt Hon. Ben Bradshaw, MP Rt Hon. Maria Miller, MP
stability of marriage. Rt Hon. Ben Bradshaw, MP, (Lab) said it would have been “completely perverse” to prevent religious communities who wanted to
create equality – it would create two different forms of marriage, heterosexual and homosexual. He argued that marriage was about more than just love and commitment, if that had been the case, he said, the state would not take an interest at all. He concluded: “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman that is open to the creation and care of children—not in all cases, but fundamentally that is its intrinsic value. This Bill will fundamentally change that […] I believe that it creates inequality and that it does not tackle an existing inequality on the basis that the current legislation has been tested in the European Court and it has been shown that there is no inequality.” Mr Tim Loughton, MP,
(Con) said he had supported the introduction of Civil Partnerships
undertake same sex marriages from doing so, whilst Rt Hon. Sir Menzies Campbell (Lib Dem), asked: “We discriminated against women, we discriminated against Catholics, we discriminated against people from ethnic minorities, but very gradually and not always completely but perceptibly, this House has passed legislation to remove such discrimination. Is not this evening yet another example and another opportunity to do so?” Opponents of the Bill argued
that the nature of marriage was that of a heterosexual union. Mr Robert Flello, MP, (Lab), argued that the Bill would not
for same-sex couples in 2004. He argued that the 2004 Act
Mr Michael McCann, MP
“should have been introduced earlier.” However, he argued that it has been a “historical truth” that marriage “is the union of one man and one woman” and questioned whether this legislation was required or appropriate. Concluding his speech, he said: “I do not claim that my church marriage is superior to another Member’s civil partnership. “It is not; it is equal in the
eyes of the law and society, just different. Let us get away from the basis that we need things to be the same to be equal. It is not the same thing.” Some Members, such as
Mr Michael McCann, MP, (Lab), argued that they did not believe the state should have any role in marriage at all. Some, including Mr McCann, were concerned that the safeguards designed to prevent religious organizations being forced to conduct marriages would prove ineffective. Mr Peter Bone, MP, (Con)
argued there had been a “democratic deficit” in the way that the legislation had been brought forward, without any place in any parties’ pre-election manifesto. At the vote Second Reading,
the House overwhelmingly supported the Bill by 400 votes for to 175 against. The Bill will now go to a Committee, which will also take public evidence on it.
The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue One | 73
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92