Wyre Forest MP to vote against same-sex marriage bill (From Kidderminster Shuttle)

Grumpy Old Blogger says...
5:19pm Mon 4 Feb 13

If anyone could enlighten me I would possibly be interested in this topic. What is the difference between civil partnership and 'marriage'? I have a niece who went through a civil partnership. She calls it a 'marriage' Why all the fuss?

Report this post »

archieromantic says...
6:32pm Mon 4 Feb 13

This does not surprise me, but it does sadden me. The majority of the country is by far in favour, roughly 70%/30% depending on which poll you look at.

I don't think we can talk about the sanctity of marriage as a reason for voting against as so many do, when so many heterosexuals are allowed to use this privilege so flippantly.

It is also very interesting to look at the support by age category. It is impossible to look at those figures and not see that the vast majority of the opposition to the reforms comes from the older population whose opinion is based solely on old-school bigotry.

We have a choice, be a generation our young people will look upon fondly and with pride, or be a generation labelled as backwards bigots opposed to civil rights.

I very much hope MPs do what they are supposed to do and represent the views of their constituency, not just those who write them letters!

Report this post »

Stephen Brown says...
7:52pm Mon 4 Feb 13

The Bill is flawed because in my view it does not go far enough in offering equality across the board. However, it is the best of a bad job and in that, a step in the right direction at least.

But this response from our MP is another example of him being simply spineless.

I quote Mark from a 'view' he posted in the Shuttle in 13th December 2012 here: "For myself, I suspect that I fall into the group of people who are broadly relaxed about the issue. Whilst this is not something that I would have proposed in the first place, I suspect that in a 21st century society, it is not unreasonable that marriage could be broadened to include gay couples".

Mmmm, no contradiction there then.

Maybe with his rants about the EU, disdain for workers rights, love of the free market, his new found right wing friends on his European project group and now this, he should join UKIP? He'd be right at home there.

Responding to public pressure is a good thing but in this case it is a minority view going against the majority and prevailing direction of travel (so I don't understand his logic at all) and is a view held by a certain section of our community which the more enlightened and majority amongst us disagree with.

I would also remind Mark there were plenty of other things not in his party manifesto before the election but where it suits party ideology and his career he has gone along with them.

Hypocrite is the word I would use. If I were being kind I'd just say he ain't got his finger on the pulse at all has he.....

The next election is gonna be very interesting in Wyre Forest.

At least we know now that if he gets enough letters, that's the way he'll vote.....not.

Report this post »

Jon D says...
8:16pm Mon 4 Feb 13

You beat me to it Stephen. Absolutely spineless. This more than anything else shows Garnier up to be the shallow careerist that he is, only interested in climbing the greasy pole. You can read the full, "hey i'm easy with gay people" here;

http://www.kiddermin
stershuttle.co.uk/ne
ws/westminster/10103
262.View_from_Westmi
nster__December_13__
2012/
What's clear is the louder than expected rumble from the Tory core vote yesterday has made him think 's*it I might not get elected if I upset the country set'. We shouldn't be surprised, as a Hedge Fund manager Garnier must have the flexible morals of a....well, dodgy banker.
What's worse, as his original thoughts on the matter where only published a few weeks ago he's taking his electorate for fools. Did he really think that people would forget in such a short time? The man is a colossal dunce.

Report this post »

FranOb says...
8:38pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Certain members of the more bigoted religious communities in Wyre Forest have orchestrated a letter writing campaign to the MP. These are the same people who would deny a woman, pregnant as a result of rape, the right to an abortion.
All they managed was a miserly 300 letters and, as a result of their sad campaign, our MP is changing his mind and letting down those who were relying on his vote!
This is a really sad day for democracy in Wyre Forest!

Report this post »

John Herbert Smith says...
9:04pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Surely Mark realises - as Fran says- that more people write letters AGAINST things than in favour?

The anti-gay campaigns will have organised letter writing.

It's sad, as there I have yet to hear a valid reason not to be in favour of gay marriage!

Hmmm, I'm very disappointed.

Report this post »

walkerno5 says...
9:21pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Popular democracy in action. Which is why i've come to the conclusion that you just can't trust the people, and I am going to start a campaign to withdraw the vote from 99% of the population.

Report this post »

FranOb says...
9:48pm Mon 4 Feb 13

I do not believe those letter writers would have been Tory voters anyway! More likely ICHC or UKIP!

Report this post »

Jon D says...
9:56pm Mon 4 Feb 13

I'm certainly coming round to walkerno5's view after some of the arguments I've had recently.

Personally, I don't believe it's anything to do with the amount of letters he's had, he's just using that as an excuse. Let's face it this man can slip this way and that, he's relying on a core vote strategy to get reelected and conscience has gone out of the window, largely because it doesn't look like he's got much of one.

Report this post »

Tom_K says...
10:45pm Mon 4 Feb 13

I am deeply disappointed and upset about Mark's u turn on this issue.

In an email on 18 January last year he assured me that he would be voting for equal marriage. He said "The Tory party is changing (here, at least). The right wing fanatics are a dying breed and the new intake, in the main, are much more modern and broad minded." and that "the case against is weak and bigoted".

It seems that Mark has caved into this weak and bigoted argument and joined the right wing fanatics.

His professed concern that religious institutions not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages is a nonsense. Garnier knows full well that the Bill contains such protections for religious organisations. The Church of England is given a 'quadruple lock' which makes it illegal for them to perform same-sex marriages and makes it impossible for them to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. There are many LGBT Christians who I would imagine are disappointed that this is in the Bill, and I myself am disappointed that the CofE is still so homophobic, but the protections for religious institutions which he is adamant about are in place - there is no question of that.

Report this post »

JKay00 says...
11:01pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Mark is a nasty, lying pathetic excuse for an MP, who again had lied to the electorate.

65%-70% of the UK population support equal marriage, including those in his constituency, why is he not supporting it?

Of course, Mark is clearly angling for some greater position within Parliament, so will do whatever he wants to obtain what he desires.

Report this post »

Jon D says...
11:15pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Basically, through Tom K's e-mail, he's admitting to being a nasty bigot. Hoist by his own words.

Report this post »

minydon says...
11:23pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Oh what a relief to see that our MP has the courage to stand up against the 'sheep'. It is very 'un-pc' to voice any opinion against gay 'marriage' even though so many same sex couples are, in fact, against it too. Marriage is between a man and a woman and bigoted ideas have nothing to do with it. It is a fact.

Report this post »

JKay00 says...
12:03am Tue 5 Feb 13

Minydon, so because some straight people are against heterosexual marriage , it means that no one should have it?

I'm perfectly for people stating that they don't like equal marriage, but don't be so lazy as to turn this into some Daily Mail, political correctness debate.

May I point out that same sex marriages were performed during the Ming and Zhou Dynasties of China. Also gay couples in ancient Rome were married. Even Emperors Nero and Elagabalus had same sex marriages. They were also performed in ancient Greece and Egypt. Two men were married by the Catholic church in Spain on 1061.

Marriage also used to define women as men's property, equal to that of chattel. Marriage was once about forming alliances and passing a woman as property from one man to another. This whole romantic love notion is a relatively modern thing. Shall we go back to that?

You are in no position to define what marriage is.

Report this post »

walkerno5 says...
12:14am Tue 5 Feb 13

@minydon

"Marriage is between a man and a woman and bigoted ideas have nothing to do with it. It is a fact"

And we used to enslave black people and deny women the vote. Those were facts too. Until the bigots lost the argument, just like they have here.

Oh, and "Sheep" my arse. Within living memory for some, being gay was essentially a crime. It's taken an enormous effort against a tidal wave of hatred to get where we are with this today. Let's not halt the progress now because a few fools like MG here and some of his other blue chums think it will upset the real sheep, the average tory voter.

Report this post »

davewal says...
7:56am Tue 5 Feb 13

It is simply bigoted. No career move in voting against the PM. There is barely a reference to homosexuality in the bible anyway. And lets not forget Christians believe in the world being 4,000 years old and that magic is real. I don't think anyone who is in that state of mind can have a well informed and rounded view on anything can they? So as MP surely Mr Garnier can spot a fanatic at ten paces or he is just massively out of touch with the real world up on his pedestal?

Report this post »

Grumpy Old Blogger says...
9:00am Tue 5 Feb 13

I don't give a **** about same gender marriage. Live and let live is my byword but some of the hatred and bile written in this forum is vile. Mark is entitled to his opinion even if it is for political expediency. To be vilified by those who have an opposite political opinion is disgraceful. These are the same sort of people who would have gathered to watch heretics burn and witches drowned. There are bigots on both sides of this political divide mudslinging only shows that the slingers have a poor argument.
It is unnecessary legislation thought up by the Prime Minister to gather votes. Now there's an interesting idea! Both sides are doing it to please the majority. They both can't be correct or can they?
The vast majority of people really don't care less about this subject. Only the lawyers who draft the legislation will be the winners.

Report this post »

BewdleyBugle says...
9:09am Tue 5 Feb 13

This is more about Garnier trying to shore up his (increasingly ageing and less open-minded) heartland of votes than it is about responding to the views of the Wyre Forest electorate as a whole (which is his actual job). Shame he can't be honest about it.

However, it's nice to know he'll respond to a letter-writing campaign. I'm assuming that a similar ratio of letters demanding his resignation would have the desired effect?

Does anyone know the views of other senior Conservatives in the district?

Report this post »

FlipC - The Mad Ranter says...
10:05am Tue 5 Feb 13

@GOB - It's a matter of nomenclature; within legal documents civil partnerships cannot be referred to as a "marriage"; in this instance the differentiation is ridiculous. For some the more important matter is that religious trappings can not be including in such a civil ceremony.

@minydon "It's a fact" taking the first part of your sentence (marriage) - no it's a socially (religiously?) constructed definition. You can't *prove* that marriage is between only those of a different sex.

Taking the second part (bigoted) given that it is only a construct holding on to such definitions is, by definition, bigoted in that you are intolerant of altering such.

Either way neither is a fact.

Report this post »

Red Flag Dan says...
10:34am Tue 5 Feb 13

Mark is clearly concerned about changing the institution of marriage.

But marriage has rightly changed many times over the years to make sure it is relevant to the society it serves.

I wonder if Mark would have risked upsetting constituents by supporting the introduction of non-religious civil marriages if he had been an MP back in the 1830s?

Would he have dared to stand up to them by allowing married women to own property if he had sat in the House of Commons in the 1880s?

Would he have voted to outlaw rape within marriage in the 1990s?

The last government introduced civil partnerships in the face of significant opposition, but they are now widely welcomed and accepted. Would Mark have voted against the Civil Partnership Act in 2004?

Mark - don't find yourself on the wrong side of history. Now is the right time to take the next step in addressing discrimination and support same sex marriage.

Report this post »

Flash-man says...
11:15am Tue 5 Feb 13

We have a chance to build a modern society. A society where all are equal, and colour, sex, sexual orientation and background mean nothing.

We have that chance now, or we can stay an old fashioned and socially backward country, where the ideas and attitudes of the 19th century still determine how we live our lives today.

We NEED to build a country fit for the future. And equal rights for all is part of that. Bigots and homophobes have no place in the society of the 21st century. We all, hopefully, accept that racism is wrong. We know that slavery is wrong. Most of us know killing animals for pleasure is wrong. Outmoded ways of thinking are falling by the wayside.

Not one opponent of gay marriage will be affected by by gay marriage. Not one will have their their life affected in any way. They just 'oppose' it because it doesn't fit into their cosy little 19th century world view.

I'm not gay. But if I can get married, then I see no reason why, in a free and modern society, which claims to be civilised and educated, a gay person cannot have that same right.

Report this post »

Mary79 says...
11:48am Tue 5 Feb 13

i think our mp is totally out of touch and showing his true colours. he always does one thing then trys to pretend hes something else. just look at his record and some of the rubbish he has spouted over the last 2 years. a man of no substance whatsoever. what a sheep bah bah bah.

Report this post »

Grumpy Old Blogger says...
2:03pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Those who, in this forum, use the word bigot about Mark Garnier should really look up the true meaning of the word. They are showing themselves to be bigots.
In the first posting in this thread I asked for someone to explain the difference between a civil partnership and marriage. No explanation so far............. Does anyone have an idea or is all of this a waste of time?

Report this post »

davewal says...
2:42pm Tue 5 Feb 13

bigot.
noun:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Until now it has been banned for civil partnership ceremonies to include religious readings, music or symbols and forbidden for them to take place in religious venues, regardless of the views of the building's owners. In Scotland, which has its own legislation, some church parishes offer blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

So therefore if a christian gay couple wanted a full white wedding they would not be permitted it. Through intolerance.

Report this post »

Stephen Brown says...
3:17pm Tue 5 Feb 13

@ Grumpy:

Not everyone is calling Mark Garnier a bigot. I for one call him a hypocrite.

That's because what he is doing now is the polar opposite of what he has been saying for over a year, publicly and in private actually. Especially so, now we are at the sharp end of this debate and he has to make a decision - and in the view of many he has made the wrong one in a long line of bad choices when it comes to representing the best interests of his constituents. Had there been a party whip he would have most certainly voted with the Government...go figure!

However, many are increasingly also alarmed at the kind of thing Mark is getting involved with and allying himself to (me included). These are now marking him out (sorry about the pun) as moving ever towards the right and holding views that are alien to the liberal values of a 21st century democracy. His comments about the benefits of certain arab countries over our own (less citizens rights and protective laws), his views on workers rights, his/the EU 'pet project' debate (some odd people involved in that one) and now this...there is a pattern developing here that lead me to think he's not too strong on thinking some of this stuff through properly.

He may well not be a bigot (I don't know him well enough to judge) but there are those who oppose gay marriage who are that he is now allied to. So, it makes Mark's decision making processes highly suspect and people have a right to challenge how he came to that view given all he has said up to this point. Such challenges go with the job. Not least because his current reasoning in this debate is about as slim and self interested as it gets, and we deserve more from our elected representative in Parliament on important issues of the day.

You can try this for an explanation of the differences from a BBC report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-18407568

There are legal (rights) and technical differences, the conduct of the ceremony is different and hence its status, there is no international standard for recognising civil partnerships compared to marriage and the religious aspect for many is the most controversial issue in the context of recognition.

And I think most people do care about equal rights issues actually....

@ Grumpy: Not everyone is calling Mark Garnier a bigot. I for one call him a hypocrite. That's because what he is doing now is the polar opposite of what he has been saying for over a year, publicly and in private actually. Especially so, now we are at the sharp end of this debate and he has to make a decision - and in the view of many he has made the wrong one in a long line of bad choices when it comes to representing the best interests of his constituents. Had there been a party whip he would have most certainly voted with the Government...go figure! However, many are increasingly also alarmed at the kind of thing Mark is getting involved with and allying himself to (me included). These are now marking him out (sorry about the pun) as moving ever towards the right and holding views that are alien to the liberal values of a 21st century democracy. His comments about the benefits of certain arab countries over our own (less citizens rights and protective laws), his views on workers rights, his/the EU 'pet project' debate (some odd people involved in that one) and now this...there is a pattern developing here that lead me to think he's not too strong on thinking some of this stuff through properly. He may well not be a bigot (I don't know him well enough to judge) but there are those who oppose gay marriage who are that he is now allied to. So, it makes Mark's decision making processes highly suspect and people have a right to challenge how he came to that view given all he has said up to this point. Such challenges go with the job. Not least because his current reasoning in this debate is about as slim and self interested as it gets, and we deserve more from our elected representative in Parliament on important issues of the day. You can try this for an explanation of the differences from a BBC report: http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-18407568 There are legal (rights) and technical differences, the conduct of the ceremony is different and hence its status, there is no international standard for recognising civil partnerships compared to marriage and the religious aspect for many is the most controversial issue in the context of recognition. And I think most people do care about equal rights issues actually.... Stephen Brown

Report this post »

Respectable says...
3:21pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Having been married for 20 years with two kids and also having three homosexual friends I can honestly say I am a definite neutral.
What ever makes you happy I say..

If this is a question of morality we could delve long and deep into the parlimentary history books. Many married M.P's from all three parties have treated the institute of marriage as a conevinet cover for a more hedonistic, shag-fest life style. Allegedly Mr Prescott, Paddy Pants Down, John Major, Edwina Curry, Speedy Hume to name but a few all at it...
Let him without sin cast the first stone and all.

Seems their thoughts on marriage are rather questionable. I'm more disturb by the unconventional marriage currently puddling around Westminster as the Coalition Government. Now that should be banned..!

Report this post »

FlipC - The Mad Ranter says...
3:33pm Tue 5 Feb 13

@Grumpy Old Blogger - you mean except for my comment four above your second one?

And in the same comment my reply to minydon pointing why being intolerant of another based on a changeable definition is bigoted. Otherwise known as the "It's not racist/bigoted if the law says black/gays/Jews/etc. aren't as good as white/hetero/Christi
ans"; yes, yes it is.

Report this post »

davewal says...
3:39pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Can Grumpy Old Bigot (sorry blogger) tell us why he objects to Gay marriage? or is it too difficult to explain without being intolerant?

Report this post »

FlipC - The Mad Ranter says...
4:02pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Presumably because it's not traditional
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=OFkeKKszX
Tw

Report this post »

Jon D says...
5:56pm Tue 5 Feb 13

The quality of the Tory commenters is truly appaling on here, they seem to have the attention span of a goldfish. Grumpy O B objects to people calling Mark a bigot but if he'd actually read the posts he'd have realised it was Mark himself who called opponents to gay marriage that. He says "To be vilified by those who have an opposite political opinion is disgraceful" seemingly skipping through most of the comments. If he'd read them he'd have seen that most of the objection up to that point is the fact that he's misled the electorate and in doing this so brazenly he is treating his constituency with contempt. He has done this on countless occasions, this time last year he told the Shuttle he'd voted one way while in fact he'd done the opposite. Shameful.
He obviously thinks everyone in Wyre Forest are like the witless buffoons who are saying that "i'm not a Tory but I think Mr Garnier ee the best man for the job as he turned up to his Q & A session." Don't let your advisers tell you that the majority are all like that Mark....well I hope they're not, you never really know...

Report this post »

archieromantic says...
7:43pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Glad to see I'm not the only sane-minded person in the Wyre Forest. Let's go for a drink some time. First round's on me for having restored my faith in humanity.

May I also point out the current results of the Kidderminster Shuttle vote:
For 60%
Against 37%
Don't Know 2%

The MP vote was 400 For and 175 Against. This is truly a great day to be British.

Report this post »

BewdleyBugle says...
9:08pm Tue 5 Feb 13

And, yes, he did vote against, putting himself on the wrong side of history

Report this post »

jon cooper says...
11:37pm Tue 5 Feb 13

The result tonight proves that democracy can actually work, without any hypocrisy or bigotry being on show !

However, for a certain prominent local politician to tarnish groups with bigotry; and then come out with a comment like this:-

"I do not believe those letter writers would have been Tory voters anyway! More likely ICHC or UKIP !" ...

Is the biggest example of bigotry that has been on show during the comments that have been put forward today !

How sad you are Fran Oborski !

Report this post »

Grumpy Old Blogger says...
8:25am Wed 6 Feb 13

Davewal, where have I stated that I am against gay marriage? I am ambivalent. Having been married for 47 years I am past caring what other people wish to do especially when it is none of my business. I just don't understand, why all the fuss? It just seems to me that all the usual suspects come out with such strong opinions about a subject that probably does not concern them. How many of the Garnier bashers are considering getting married to their same gender partners? These are the only people who really are involved. There are too many do-gooders campaigning on behalf of others who have not asked for their help.
I'm sure that another bandwagon will be along in a week or two.

Report this post »

Jon D says...
8:27am Wed 6 Feb 13

I'm afraid it isn't an attack of bigotry in the slightest. Fran thinks that the people writing to Mark to urge against gay marriage were UKIP & ICHC - that's not bigotry that's opposing the view held on here that they would probably have been Tories. The letter writers haven't done anything wrong, that's their opinion, speculating what party they belong to obviously isn't bigotry. Besides I feel she is wrong to include ICHC and wrong to say they weren't Tories. The majority of Conservative MP's voted against the bill last night after a large campaign by right wing activists so if one wants to deduce that Mark's letters were written by those from the same field that's just honest speculation & nothing more. What last night's vote shows is the nasty party is well & truly back & in the driving seat :-)

Report this post »

Jon D says...
8:32am Wed 6 Feb 13

@Grumpy - "There are too many do-gooders campaigning on behalf of others" - in a nutshell the perfect example of unchristian Tory values, 'only help yourself, sod the rest'. Shameful.

Report this post »

davewal says...
8:44am Wed 6 Feb 13

I apologise GOB. I thought that from your pro bigot and pro Garnier comments that you were against the vote. But you are so ambivalent that your neutrality ooozes through in your retorts. *cough*
As you say you don't understand. Perhaps you could try to understand rather than remain ignorant.

Report this post »

Flash-man says...
9:14am Wed 6 Feb 13

Jon D wrote:
@Grumpy - "There are too many do-gooders campaigning on behalf of others" - in a nutshell the perfect example of unchristian Tory values, 'only help yourself, sod the rest'. Shameful.

Presumably, Jesus was a do-gooder ?

Funny how so many people who 'claim' to be Christian, or who 'claim' to be upholding Christian values, despise do-gooders.

If society has nobody doing good, what do we become ?

A Thatcherite society, I suppose........

Report this post »

Red Flag Dan says...
11:03am Wed 6 Feb 13

Just received this cut and paste job from his intern / assistant:

Thank you for contacting Mark Garnier MP about the same sex marriage bill.

Mark shares the views of many people across Wyre Forest on this subject. It is not something that people seem to be clamouring for. Mark has made no secret that this is something that he is broadly neutral on. However, Mark is adamant that the freedom of choice for places of worship must be maintained - that no church is forced to undertake these ceremonies against their will.

Mark has received many letters on this subject and he has written in his Kidderminster Shuttle column that he is keen to hear from people on both sides of the debate - those in favour as well as those against. Mark has listened carefully to the submissions, and made some enquiries amongst the gay community as well. He has even had a number of conversations with the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Whilst most people seem ambivalent about the issue of same sex marriage, those who do have an opinion feel passionately about it. They are very concerned about the implications. As a broad indication of the responses Mark has had - and he has had about 300 letters on this - those against Equal Marriage outnumber those in favour by about 100 to 1.

It is for this reason that Mark Garnier MP decided to represent those people who have come to him, and voted against the second reading of the Equal Marriage Bill when it came before Parliament on Tuesday, 5th of February.

Yours sincerely,

James Evans
Office of Mark Garnier
Member of Parliament for Wyre Forest
House of Commons | Westminster | London SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 7198

Report this post »

Doug_Hine says...
11:31am Wed 6 Feb 13

Based on what Mark wrote previously I was expecting him to abstain or vote for this bill. I am shocked to discover today that he has voted against.

Are all his votes in parliament going to be governed by the weight of letters for and against arriving in his office in future? I want to know so that myself and my friends can review upcoming legislation and influence him accordingly.

Report this post »

HowardM says...
11:40am Wed 6 Feb 13

I've watched this blog over the last couple of days and resisted the temptation to contribute since others were quite eloquently mirroring my views.
I support equality. I believe in the rights of people to "be" who they are. I do not believe the state should tell anyone how they should live their lives when what they are doing is lawful. So if two human beings want to make a life time or long term commitment of love and partnership to each other in civil or religious services why on earth should politicians have the right to stop them?
However, fo me, the issue in this blog is not about marriage. It is about the role of our MP and just who he thinks he was representing yesterday? He was "in favour" until a few days ago of equal marriage. Then he got 300 or so, allegedly, stage managed letters "against" - so he changed his mind. There are 80000 voters in Wyre Forest, so why did he think the lobby was representative? I believe, that on issues such as this, which were part of no election promise or party manifesto, the MP has no predetermined mandate and therefore should vote on what a consensus of his constituents prefer. In this case the best indicator is the Shuttle poll, much more representative than a few letters.
I would have some sympathy with him being deflected by the lobbying if he were consistant, but he isn't! What, for instance, would this community consensus view be on the planned destruction of the NHS, sending people with disabilities for assessment by ATOS, cutting their benefits the Bedroom Tax, cuts in child support, putting children into poverty, pension changes, cuts in education, cuts in support to local Councils, the closure of Remploy factories, the list is endless - on every one of those the MP voted against, clearly, the best interests of Wyre Forest residents in support of the Tory ideology of austerity and attacks on the poor and needy. Before anyone jumps to his defence, I am surethere are those in Wyre Forest who do support his line on this, but I am also sure that a much greater number do not. How, therefore, is he representing the residents of Wyre Forest? Fact is, he isn't. This current issue could prove the beginning of the end for him in Wyre Forest.
As a footnote, I noticed in the list of MPs voting against, just before Mark Garnier's name, Sir Edward Garnier the MP for Harborough. It seems the line taken yesterday was the agreed family line. Nice to see family values being protected. What a great shame that family life, and its protection in all its forms, is not to the forefront of decision making by our MP when it comes to the protection and interests of those he actually represents.

I've watched this blog over the last couple of days and resisted the temptation to contribute since others were quite eloquently mirroring my views. I support equality. I believe in the rights of people to "be" who they are. I do not believe the state should tell anyone how they should live their lives when what they are doing is lawful. So if two human beings want to make a life time or long term commitment of love and partnership to each other in civil or religious services why on earth should politicians have the right to stop them? However, fo me, the issue in this blog is not about marriage. It is about the role of our MP and just who he thinks he was representing yesterday? He was "in favour" until a few days ago of equal marriage. Then he got 300 or so, allegedly, stage managed letters "against" - so he changed his mind. There are 80000 voters in Wyre Forest, so why did he think the lobby was representative? I believe, that on issues such as this, which were part of no election promise or party manifesto, the MP has no predetermined mandate and therefore should vote on what a consensus of his constituents prefer. In this case the best indicator is the Shuttle poll, much more representative than a few letters. I would have some sympathy with him being deflected by the lobbying if he were consistant, but he isn't! What, for instance, would this community consensus view be on the planned destruction of the NHS, sending people with disabilities for assessment by ATOS, cutting their benefits the Bedroom Tax, cuts in child support, putting children into poverty, pension changes, cuts in education, cuts in support to local Councils, the closure of Remploy factories, the list is endless - on every one of those the MP voted against, clearly, the best interests of Wyre Forest residents in support of the Tory ideology of austerity and attacks on the poor and needy. Before anyone jumps to his defence, I am surethere are those in Wyre Forest who do support his line on this, but I am also sure that a much greater number do not. How, therefore, is he representing the residents of Wyre Forest? Fact is, he isn't. This current issue could prove the beginning of the end for him in Wyre Forest. As a footnote, I noticed in the list of MPs voting against, just before Mark Garnier's name, Sir Edward Garnier the MP for Harborough. It seems the line taken yesterday was the agreed family line. Nice to see family values being protected. What a great shame that family life, and its protection in all its forms, is not to the forefront of decision making by our MP when it comes to the protection and interests of those he actually represents. HowardM

Report this post »

Stephen Brown says...
12:46pm Wed 6 Feb 13

This discussion has developed into a debate about our MP's abilities to represent the wider interests of his constituents.

There are plenty of us who think he doesn't and the list is growing - along with the growing list of why.

As one of the '3' who seems to have bothered writing to him putting the 'equality' aspects of why he should vote in favour, albeit I think it does not go far enough, I am dismayed he voted the way he did.

Maybe there would have been more people writing to him in support of this Bill if he had been honest enough to come out with his intentions first off, rather than claiming he is 'relaxed' about it and making comments signalling what I believe was an intention to support it.

I quote Mark again:

"For myself, I suspect that I fall into the group of people who are broadly relaxed about the issue. Whilst this is not something that I would have proposed in the first place, I suspect that in a 21st century society, it is not unreasonable that marriage could be broadened to include gay couples".

Not only is he a hypocrite, I think he has actually misled his electorate on this matter if all of this was pre-mediated! If not, how can we take our MP seriously or trust what he says if this is the way he deals and rationalises such important issues?

Report this post »

FlipC - The Mad Ranter says...
12:51pm Wed 6 Feb 13

"that no church is forced to undertake these ceremonies against their will."

Has Mark actually read the bill? The first two parts detail how this doesn't force any religion to conduct a same-sex marriage.

Report this post »

FranOb says...
2:30pm Wed 6 Feb 13

My comment about what I thought were the most likely voting habits of those writing to Mark were based on my knowledge of one of the congregations involved!

Report this post »

Jon D says...
4:27pm Wed 6 Feb 13

I wonder if I could get 300 people to renationalise the public utilities or heavily regulate the finance industry Mark would be equally willing to represent us?

Report this post »

neilhar says...
10:45pm Wed 6 Feb 13

From the reply from MG as above... "He has even had a number of conversations with the next Archbishop of Canterbury."

I am howling with laughter here and being slapped in the face with a wet fish by a big chunk of irony. One thing is for sure. The next archbishop of canterbury is a bigot. Because he opposes same sex marriage too. Plus, the only reason that Mark is talking to him in the first place is that he too is a 'reformed' banker.

It's not the inmates talking over the asylum, It's the W@nker Bankers!! (so perplexed I used 2 exclamation marks. Some are even intolerant of that)

@GOB. Lucky that you've been able to bemarried for 47 years. Open your mind. It's 2013. Why can gay people not get married is your first question to ponder.

His hypocrisy here is appalling. 300 letters got their result? How come the thousands of letters, emails, petitions and campaigns to save Wyre Forest didn't get theirs? Why did Mark not listen to us then but does now?

Report this post »

neilhar says...
10:55pm Wed 6 Feb 13

blimey, that looks like I oppose the bill. I categorically do not. I fully support equal rights of all kinds.

Someone above said that, in the main racism was now accepted as wrong. Not by more than one might imagine. I am sickened everyday by all sorts of racist jokes, comments, people, social media posts. Homophobia is not that deep below the surface either. Let alone equal rights for women. It may be law, but there is still a very thick triple glazed ceiling

Report this post »

Stephen Brown says...
11:45pm Wed 6 Feb 13

@Neilhar:

I don't think anyone will think you oppose equality; your post is quite clear to me.

You ask however why MG did not respond to the Wyre Forest question the same way as he has with the gay marriage issue. The answer is simple, he is a self confessed "I am not a rebel" so will always vote with a Tory Govt policy even if he disagrees. Had this been a party whip vote, he would have voted with the whip in favour and justified it, even if he had 10,000 letters opposing it. Now that he has had a free vote he has revealed himself to either be (depending on your view) lacking in judgement, a hypocrite, or a bigot. My view is he lacks judgement and is a hypocrite with it. Sadly we expect politicians to have a certain amount of hypocrisy but more alarmingly his lack of ability in decision making is a more fatal flaw - and has been exposed on here several times already - remember the arabs have advantages we don't, the special EU project stuff he's championed? Bad judgement calls.

Oh, and he has spoken to the Archbishop because I think he has sat with him on committees in parliament. And he's spoken to gay people too in reaching his decision. Then still fluffed his lines......My oh My. But namedropping the Archbishop as part of his justification is just plain shallow and desperate in my view.

They say we get the politicians we deserve......

Report this post »

Grumpy Old Blogger says...
12:54pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Neilhar says
"GOB. Lucky that you've been able to be married for 47 years. Open your mind. It's 2013. Why can gay people not get married is your first question to ponder."
I never stated that I am against gay marriage. I just sought some clarification.
I will not react to any other fascists putting offensive postings here. I will not be abused by those who think they are clever writing lies about those who disagree. This is how nazism began.

Report this post »

Jon D says...
3:04pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Hilarious! I haven't laughed so much since I heard a Tory use the word 'Nazi' as an insult to a moderately left wing politician.
"I will not react to any other fascists putting offensive postings here" - firstly no one's said anything offensive to you or about you. Secondly using the word 'fascists' to describe liberal people who are opposed to homophobia is even more hilarious, talk about doublethink! No one's tried to shut you up or hurled abuse at you, just engaged you in an argument which you've singularly failed to keep up with. You do realise that the Nazis put homosexuals (and gypsies?) in gas chambers? probably not. I never cease to be amazed at the average Tories' comic book & buffoonish view of history.
" This is how nazism began.” - no it isn't, Nazism began by demonising a minority & blaming all the countries ills on them - like homosexuals and gypsies (and Muslims if they'd been around in Germany then).

Report this post »

Jack Carter says...
4:03pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Well, I'm just glad our polictians (whose salaries we pay as tax payers) have found the time to debate this piece of legislation. Presumably the ecomony is now right back on track, all anti-social behaviour issues and crime are completey under control and the awful problems in that huge drain on our nations resouces - the Welfare State - have been solved.

I think not.

Get a grip all of you in the houses of parliament, open your eyes, get your priorities right and start to try and solve some of the big important problems this nation faces rarther than wating your time (and tax payers money) in this decedant clap trap.

Report this post »

neilhar says...
4:55pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Quite frankly GOb I suspect you will be replying to anybody for a short time. I am going to report you for this.

Firstly, I fail to see anything that would could offence contained in my two posts above.

secondly, I am not a fascist.

Thirdly, I am Deeply deeply offended by you. I am Jewish. happy for you to come and check you imbecile

Report submitted.

Report this post »

jflawson says...
5:31pm Thu 7 Feb 13

I totally agree with Jack Carter when are we going to get important issues debated in Parliament .Mr Carmeron is in my opinion probably the worst P.M we have ever had it is yet another smoke screen to cover up tackling the real problems that are facing this country.For him to be spouting about being upset by the Stafford / NHS problems when probably his buddies are making millions out of P.F.I agreements which intrest charges are likely to bankrupt many hospitals
is just another appalling situation he should be addressing the man is unbelievable.

jim lawson

Rock Parish Councillor

& member of ICHC

Report this post »

walkerno5 says...
8:27pm Thu 7 Feb 13

You folks do know there are more than 12 MPs don't you? They are able to do more than one thing at once. As Mark says, they haven't actually wasted much time on this - it's been put through pretty quickly because it is self evidently the right thing to do.

Report this post »

FlipC - The Mad Ranter says...
10:02am Fri 8 Feb 13

Yes because Parliament can only do one thing at a time; oh wait http://bit.ly/WGln7b

Report this post »

Wyre Forest MP to vote against same-sex marriage bill (From Kidderminster Shuttle)

Local RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

Wyre Forest MP to vote against same-sex marriage bill

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies