Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), with whose speech I concur.

I had the privilege of chairing Committee proceedings on the Civil Partnership Bill. As has been said, very clear undertakings were given by the then Government and Opposition that that Bill was not the thin end of the wedge nor a paving Bill for same-sex marriage, but an end in itself to right considerable wrongs in the law. That it did, as the European Court of Human Rights has determined. In those respects, civil partnerships are indistinguishable from what we know as marriage.

When I put that point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, she said that no Government could bind another. Of course, she is correct. That kicks the bottom out of every undertaking that she has given. It is abundantly plain to most Conservative Members that the product of this Bill will end up before the courts and before the European Court of Human Rights, and that people of faith will find that faith trampled upon. That, to us, is intolerable.

I understand—I will give way to my right hon. Friend if she wishes to correct me—that the Cabinet paper on this matter was entitled “Redefining Marriage”. It is not possible to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It has been that historically and it remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory—Orwellian almost—for any Government of any political persuasion to try to rewrite the lexicon. It will not do.

A way forward has been suggested, but it has been ignored. I do not subscribe to it myself, but I recognise the merit in the argument. The argument is that if the Government are serious about this measure, they should withdraw the Bill, abolish the Civil Partnership Act 2004, abolish civil marriage and create a civil union Bill that applies to all people, irrespective of their sexuality or relationship. That means that brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters would be included as well. That would be a way forward. This is not.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I suggest very gently to the hon. Gentleman that what he has just suggested is profoundly offensive not only to a great many people in this country who are in civil partnerships, but to quite a few people on both sides of the House?

[Sir Roger Gale]

The argument is not mine, but that of an eminent lawyer in this House. Its merit is that it would create what I think the hon. Gentleman wants, which is equality. It would create a level playing field and it would leave marriage and faith to those who understand that marriage means faith and that marriage means the union between a man and a woman and nothing else.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We should indeed treat one another with tolerance and treat everybody’s sexuality with understanding, but the fundamental question we are deciding today is whether English law should declare for the first time that two people of the same sex can marry.

Parliament is sovereign—we can vote for what we want—but we must be very careful that law and reality do not conflict. In 1648, the Earl of Pembroke, in seeking to make the point that Parliament is sovereign, said that Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman or a woman a man. Of course, in 2004, we did exactly that with the Gender Recognition Act. We are now proposing to make equally stark changes to the essence of marriage. During the civil partnership debates, I was given solemn assurances on the Floor of the House, including by some sitting on the Opposition Benches now, that the Civil Partnership Act would not lead to full same-sex marriage.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Leigh]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman who gave those assurances to me.

[Chris Bryant]

Assurances from me do not necessarily determine what happens in Parliament in future. Several hon. Members have raised what I said in that debate. At that time, I believed that civil partnership was the be-all and end-all of the story. I have since entered a civil partnership and believe that the world has moved on. Many Conservative Members who voted against civil partnerships know that Britain’s mind has changed and want to reflect that in a change of the law.

[Mr Leigh]

The worry some of us have is that the world, in the hon. Gentleman’s mind, could move on again, and that many of the assurances we are being given may not count for very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I note that with interest, and hope to comment on it later.

What of the church youth leader or parachurch organisation, or the faith-based charity that puts on marriage preparation classes? Will they be required to accept same-sex couples, or will they have to close their class or their organisation? If they do not, will litigation ensue, with all its attendant stress and costs, whatever the outcome? Will they face the loss of their charitable status or the withdrawal of any local authority grant or facilities because they do not have an acceptable equality and diversity policy? Can anyone guarantee that that will not happen as a result of this Bill? Or will such organisations and people decide to stay silent, and therefore have the precious right of free speech compromised as a result of this Bill?

What of the legal distinction between the public-servant role of the employed registrar, such as Lillian Ladele, in a local registry office and the public function carried out by voluntary registrars appointed by local churches as part of their membership across the country? If those voluntary registrars—those lay people—refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings, will they really be able to defend themselves successfully in discrimination actions in the courts, especially if the case goes to Europe? Without the principle of reasonable accommodation being part of our legislation—as it is in other countries with respect to matters of faith, and as it is in this country with respect to matters of disability—will not the Lillian Ladele precedent return when such cases are sent to Europe? She was unable to pray in aid the ECHR articles on freedom of thought, conscience or religion when she lost her case and her job. Why should people of good conscience risk ending up in the same position?

[Chris Bryant]

I am sure the hon. Lady will know that the Book of Common Prayer says that one of the three reasons in Christian conscience for marriage to be ordained is

“for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”

Why, in Christian conscience, should the state ban Christians—or, for that matter, people in ordinary society—who want to be able to share that from doing so, just because of their gender?

[Fiona Bruce]

It is ironic that, although the Government say that they want to promote commitment and equality, the Bill will not create equal marriage. It will create different types of marriage.

Most young people aspire to be married, precisely because of the security that the commitment of marriage provides, but adultery with a married person of the same sex will not be a concept that is applicable to same-sex marriages. What message does it send out to young people about marriage, if faithfulness and commitment are no longer at the heart of it? Far from strengthening marriage and commitment in our society, the Bill risks seriously weakening them. The Government have had to put many locks into the Bill to protect people, precisely because they are concerned that they will fail, one after another.

Before each daily sitting of Parliament, prayers are sincerely said in the Chamber by many of us. Our prayers ask that we should

“never lead the nation wrongly”.

I will vote against this Bill because I believe that we would surely be doing that if it were passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Let us be clear about this, because different things have been said about the Church of England’s response to this Second Reading. It has said that

“we doubt the ability of the government to make legislation watertight against challenge in the European courts or against a ‘chilling’ effect in public discourse”—

I shall come to that shortly.

“We retain serious doubts about whether the proffered legal protection for churches and faiths from discrimination claims would prove durable. Too much emphasis, we believe, is being placed on the personal assurances of Ministers.”

When we face serious issues concerning the protection of Churches, can we rely on and take risks regarding the worthy and well-intentioned assurance of Ministers tonight? I believe not.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

[Mr Burrowes]

I will not.

The position was well summed up by Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall. Soon after the last election, he told me that the proposal for same-sex marriage would “not advance gay rights” but would rather

“put us in our trenches”.

Sadly, that has been the case.

Tonight’s vote is on a position of principle. It is not a practical measure about gaining equal access to marriage ceremonies. The vote is about the principle of redefining the purpose and meaning of marriage. The common law, as has been said, has always defined marriage as the voluntary union of one man and woman to the exclusion of all others.

The state has become involved in refining aspects of marriage, but the essential definition of marriage, and therefore its meaning and purpose—its very foundation—have remained unchanged until now. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and others, this is indeed an historic change. The big hole in the Bill, however, is the absence of any clause clarifying that what the Government now want us to accept is the new meaning of marriage.

The defining characteristic of marriage is exclusivity, a commitment to sexual fidelity, but the Government have taken sexual fidelity out of the definition of marriage by not applying the definition of adultery to same-sex couples. We have also heard little about the issues of children and parenthood. The Bill implies that the state now applies another meaning to marriage, which primarily involves the rights and values of adulthood rather than the rights and values of parenthood. The Minister is singing a new tune, a one-sided single: “All you need is love”.

The Government must now spell out what this means for the institution of marriage. The redefinition downgrades marriage to a personal relationship, not bound by an obligation to society, community and family that has stood the test of time and is an increasingly popular institution.

It has been said by Members on both sides of the House that this issue is about our views on bigotry and attacking discrimination against homosexuals. I do not have any truck with bigotry, but comments that have been made in the House today emphasise my concern about the freedom that is threatened by the Bill. I myself have been subject to abuse and even death threats because of my position on the redefinition of marriage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the hon. Lady making that point, because it echoes one made by those on the Government Front Bench. According to those on the Front Bench, the Bill is all about love, but marriage is not defined anywhere in law by love. It is exemplified by love—I love my wife passionately—but that is not what marriage is. That is an expression of a relationship. There are many arranged marriages and many marriages are loveless, but those people are still in law and by law married. Marriage is not defined by love itself. The vow that we take when we get married is there to sustain marriage, even after love wanes, if it wanes at all.

We should accept that the state cannot create a situation in which people are in love, and neither can it legislate for that. There is no passionometer with regard to legislation. In fact, for those on the Government Front Bench to pretend that this is about some dewy-eyed concept of love is wrong. The fact is that the Bill does not create love for homosexuals and gay people; they create love for themselves. It is absolute nonsense to pretend that we are involved in legislating for love—we are not.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not think that homosexuals are looking for the law to provide love for any of us. The hon. Gentleman is making a fundamental mistake by trying to say that love is of necessity about romantic love. It says in law and the Book of Common Prayer that it is about mutual society. Surely that can be enjoyed by two people of the same gender, just as it can be by anybody else.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman makes my exact point. Both the Government and the Opposition have claimed, as has the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who intervened on me earlier, that this is all about love. It is not. It is about a relationship, and love comes as part of that relationship. This is not about giving love to homosexuals, or about allowing or denying them love. They have that anyway—that is the point.

The Government do not have a mandate to introduce this legislative change. When many millions of married couples got married, they settled on a legal position, which is that marriage is a voluntary union of one man to one woman, to the exclusion of all others. That is the settled legal position that they swore to and agreed to. We now have a situation where that has to be set aside, because this House believes that it can change nature. I believe that this House is wrong.

Unfortunately the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is not in his place, but he made some comments that fall into what I can only describe as the not-so-new phenomenon—which will now develop—of Christophobia. Anyone who expresses a Christian view is now going to face the allegation that they are by nature homophobic. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said that those with Christian views are compared to white supremacists.

Any rational debate is being pushed to the side, slowly but surely, by this corrosive attempt to redefine the meaning of a word. That is a shame on this nation and we should guard against this change. That is why I will not support the Bill.