Garnier in minority vote against same-sex marriage bill (From Kidderminster Shuttle)

Garnier in minority vote against same-sex marriage bill

11:24am Wednesday 6th February 2013 in Local Photograph of the Author By William Tomaney

WYRE Forest MP Mark Garnier was among a minority of MPs who voted against a bill which will legalise same-sex marriage.

All MPs were given a “free vote” on the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - which is strongly backed by Prime Minister David Cameron - yesterday meaning they did not have to vote along party lines.

The bill was passed by 400 votes to 175 and is likely to become statute, assuming it is passed through the House of Lords.

Mr Garnier had told constituents on Monday he would vote against the proposed legislation.

On his website he said he had received about 300 letters on the issue, with those against equal marriages outnumbering those in favour “by about 100 to one” and had listened to people on both sides of the debate.

Mr Garnier has talked further about the reasons for his vote and his views on same-sex marriage in this week’s Shuttle column which can be read HERE.

Related links

View from Westminster, February 7, 2013

Comments(18)

Worcestershire Youth Cabinet says...
11:36am Wed 6 Feb 13

We wrote to Mark asking him to support the Bill, and we think it's a real shame that he chose to vote against it... But as the article says, he was in the minority and the Bill passed so we're happy :)

Report this post »

kidderlord says...
11:54am Wed 6 Feb 13

I am surprised he even voted because having watched most of the debate live i didnt even see him in the house

Report this post »

Doug_Hine says...
12:09pm Wed 6 Feb 13

So the Worcestershire Youth Cabinet were one of the three letters Garnier's PR says he received in support of the bill.

Report this post »

Stephen Brown says...
12:48pm 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 »

Tom_K says...
2:03pm Wed 6 Feb 13

I contacted Mark when I learnt about his last minute decision to vote against and even sat in Parliament for two hours in the hope that he would meet with me to discuss the issue, but he was apparently too busy.

Here is the response I received from him, in which he concedes that the protections for religious freedoms are so strong that very few same-sex couples will be able to have weddings in religious settings, so I'm really not sure what his actual objection to the Bill is.

"Hi Tom,

Thanks for your e-mail and I both understand and accept you frustration.

A great many people have contacted me about this – it now runs at about 400 – and just around 20 or so are in favour. What is important, is that this is not just an orchestrated campaign – you will know that we get our fair share of these and they are highly recognisable. These are letters handwritten by people of faith desperate that they feel discriminated against. And that is the nub of this. There are two conflicting groups who claim discrimination against them for different reasons.

If I had seen a huge swell of support for this I would be backing it and, importantly, making the case to the doubters. Similarly, if I had stood on a manifesto that proposed this I would be voting in favour. But the overwhelming tide of opinion is against it. Importantly, I suspect that the results of the election in 2010 may have been different had I stood promoting this.

IN point of fact, this is a ludicrous bill. Given the quadruple lock, it seems unlikely that there will be many churches that will be able to offer this. Certainly, if you are C0fE you will not be able to get married even when this is passed. However, you can have a civil partnership blessed, in the same way that I had my registry office marriage blessed.

Regarding the whole issue of acceptance, your points are absolutely right and well made. I agree with everything that you say about this and equality of sexual orientation is important, as are the other 6 pillars of equality.

Balancing all this is incredibly important and at all points I have tried to be balanced and informative on this. I have thought about this a great deal and my substantive point is still key: I am neutral on all this – this is not something that I have strong feelings about one way or another. But those who have written to me in their hundreds do have very strong feelings and it currently runs at around 380 against to 20 or so in favour.

If you were in my position, you would go out and make the case in favour of this and I am sure you would do a good job. But that is because you feel passionately in favour. I do not share that view and so I take the straw poll on this. Bear in mind, also, that I have sought the opinions of many of the gay community and they, generally speaking, do not share your strength of feeling.

I realise that this will disappoint you, but you will find that this vote will be passed and you will have your equal marriage act.

Best wishes,

M"

I contacted Mark when I learnt about his last minute decision to vote against and even sat in Parliament for two hours in the hope that he would meet with me to discuss the issue, but he was apparently too busy. Here is the response I received from him, in which he concedes that the protections for religious freedoms are so strong that very few same-sex couples will be able to have weddings in religious settings, so I'm really not sure what his actual objection to the Bill is. "Hi Tom, Thanks for your e-mail and I both understand and accept you frustration. A great many people have contacted me about this – it now runs at about 400 – and just around 20 or so are in favour. What is important, is that this is not just an orchestrated campaign – you will know that we get our fair share of these and they are highly recognisable. These are letters handwritten by people of faith desperate that they feel discriminated against. And that is the nub of this. There are two conflicting groups who claim discrimination against them for different reasons. If I had seen a huge swell of support for this I would be backing it and, importantly, making the case to the doubters. Similarly, if I had stood on a manifesto that proposed this I would be voting in favour. But the overwhelming tide of opinion is against it. Importantly, I suspect that the results of the election in 2010 may have been different had I stood promoting this. IN point of fact, this is a ludicrous bill. Given the quadruple lock, it seems unlikely that there will be many churches that will be able to offer this. Certainly, if you are C0fE you will not be able to get married even when this is passed. However, you can have a civil partnership blessed, in the same way that I had my registry office marriage blessed. Regarding the whole issue of acceptance, your points are absolutely right and well made. I agree with everything that you say about this and equality of sexual orientation is important, as are the other 6 pillars of equality. Balancing all this is incredibly important and at all points I have tried to be balanced and informative on this. I have thought about this a great deal and my substantive point is still key: I am neutral on all this – this is not something that I have strong feelings about one way or another. But those who have written to me in their hundreds do have very strong feelings and it currently runs at around 380 against to 20 or so in favour. If you were in my position, you would go out and make the case in favour of this and I am sure you would do a good job. But that is because you feel passionately in favour. I do not share that view and so I take the straw poll on this. Bear in mind, also, that I have sought the opinions of many of the gay community and they, generally speaking, do not share your strength of feeling. I realise that this will disappoint you, but you will find that this vote will be passed and you will have your equal marriage act. Best wishes, M" Tom_K

Report this post »

Europeanist64 says...
3:26pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Mark Garnier is obviously running scared of UKIP. His majority is marginal and UKIP is gathering up all those Tories who are unhappy with the Equal Marriage Bill. there was a time when MP also stood for "Man of Principle" clearly Garnier failed to live up to this, and sat on the fence all the way, and fell on the side which would hopefully protect his majority.

In any democracy, equality before the law is a fundamental principle. I look forward with pleasure to the "get out" clause that has been handed to the faiths and churches, mosques etc. being struck down by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.

Some people are gay and should be afforded the same equal rights as anyone else, and are an integral part of society. Get over it!

Such a laugh seeing the Tories blown apart by this.

Report this post »

kidderlord says...
3:38pm Wed 6 Feb 13

I do like a good chuckle and usually find one in the comments on here. Todays is courtesy of Eurpeanist64 - what on earth gives you the ide that Mark, or any other politician in Wyre Forest are running scared of UKIP? Hillarious. Running scared of Labour and their current parliamentary spokesperson more like.

Report this post »

Europeanist64 says...
4:56pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Kidderlord - I was trying to be serious. But I'm glad to brighten your day. Labour will surge in Wyre Forest but UKIP are the hidden danger in pulling away Tory votes.

Report this post »

archieromantic says...
8:45pm Wed 6 Feb 13

I also wrote to Mr Garnier asking for his support in voting for the bill. Funny that.

Report this post »

Jon D says...
9:15pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Seems a lot of people did, wonder if Mark's being economical with the truth again with his supposed only 'three letters' in support of the bill?

Anyone needing a further laugh should check out Andrew Grant's (leader of Worcester Conservatives) Neanderthal views on the subject. I think he's mistaken Worcestershire for Alabama. Highly amusing, although a little disturbing.

Report this post »

John Herbert Smith says...
10:06pm Wed 6 Feb 13

I might as well admit- I wrote to Mark a few months ago in favour of the bill and his response indicated that he would probably vote for (as indicated above and in other comments on other articles)

That's why I was so shocked at his sudden U-turn.

And I can't believe only 3 people wrote to him in favour. (although I can believe there was a organised campaign of letter writing against the bill).

Anyway, it doesn't matter now - most MPs voted for so even if the Lords throw it out, it will get through.

Report this post »

Stephen Brown says...
10:24pm Wed 6 Feb 13

There are now conflicting reports about the numbers of 'supporting' letters Mark Garnier received I note. Still not many mind but I have no doubt MG's public comments up until this week meant the majority supportive of the bill felt he was going to vote in favour, so did not bother writing in.

Mr Grant is clearly not concerned about any possible effect his views may have on his clients in his Estate Agent business. Now there is a bigot living in some kind of parallel universe. What a dinosaur.

Report this post »

HowardM says...
11:38am Thu 7 Feb 13

I think Mark probably missed the point about the legislation. My understanding was that it was partly an "enabling" Act, allowing religious ceremony marriages between same sex partners - if the church of their choice was willing to offer that option. Church choice already exists about marrying couples, one of whom has been divorced, and that has been a fact for a long time.
So, there was no mandatory requirement to comply with the Act, but the option was there, through mutual agreement, for same sex marriage to be "enabled" at a mutually agreeing church. To me that seems a major step forward in treating all people with equality and understanding and respecting personal choice. Shouldn't that be a "given" of Christianity?
Thankfully a majority of MPs, cross party, put people first on this, and credit to them for that. Our MP clearly backed the wrong horse. It seems many voters in Wyre Forest also made the same mistake in 2010.

Report this post »

Mary79 says...
12:21pm Thu 7 Feb 13

a mistake i hope is not repeated in 2015 if any credible alternative candidates ever emerge. fat chance.

Report this post »

comberton hill questions says...
1:16pm Thu 7 Feb 13

I think any kind of bigotry or prejudice is disgusting.
That is what this is - people love each and want to be married then good luck to them be it a man and a man or a man and a woman or a woman and a woman.
This kind of prejudice shown here has no place in society and Mr Garnier has stood up for bigotry. Speaking to a senior church member not CofE obviously there church has confirmed it is the choice of the individual church what they wish to do i.e. freedom of choice. Why would vote against that freedom of choice.
Mr Garnier may get in 2015 and if he does the reason will be the party that is dying the Hospital party will take votes away from labour and at a higher rate than UKIP will take away from Mr Garnier.
Why not do what we did with police commissioner vote and go for the second preference votes and see if Mr Garnier is in next time!!

Report this post »

scruffsmom says...
2:41pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Have any of our politicians taken the trouble to find out the meaning of the word marriage in a dictionary (An act,ceremony or procedure by which a MAN and a WOMAN are legally united for the purpose of living together, mainly an intimate relationship). Maybe all dictionaries should now have the meaning of marriage changed. I have no objection to civil partnerships but the word marriage should probably not be used.

Report this post »

walkerno5 says...
8:36pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Scruffsmom, tough boobies I'm afraid. Marriage is defined by the state, not the editors of dictionaries. Dictionaries are already changing.

Garnier in minority vote against same-sex marriage bill (From Kidderminster Shuttle)

Local RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

Garnier in minority vote against same-sex marriage bill

Related links

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies