Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Debate between Emma Reynolds and Sammy Wilson(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Emma Reynolds
Today is indeed an opportunity to celebrate the progress that we have made, but as I said at the start of my speech, I fear that we still have a long way to go.
As law-makers, it is our responsibility to ensure that the law does not discriminate against groups of people on the basis of religion, ethnic origin, sexuality or anything else. We should be proud that it was hon. and right hon. Members, past and present, who tackled the injustices that I have set out. I am particularly proud that it was a Labour Government who did so much in this area—equalising the age of consent, abolishing section 28 and introducing civil partnerships. Some of the same arguments that we have heard in opposition to the Bill today are the arguments that we heard back then, but since then those changes have been accepted.
There seem to be two key arguments against equal marriage, which I want to tackle head-on. The first is that it will somehow weaken the institution of marriage. That argument is simply illogical. On the contrary, I think that allowing more couples to enter into marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage, not weaken it. There are many countries in Europe and around the world, as well as many states in the United States, that have introduced gay marriage and it has not weakened or undermined marriage in those countries—quite the contrary.
The second argument is that equal marriage would threaten freedom of religion. Again, I refute that argument. I wholeheartedly support the freedom of religion, but the Bill contains guarantees that neither a religious institution or organisation nor a minister of religion will be forced by the law to marry same-sex couples.
Emma Reynolds
No, I will not—I will not get any more time, so it is not in my interests.
Many European countries that are members of the Council of Europe have already introduced same-sex marriage, some—in the case of the Netherlands—as early as 2001. It has also been introduced more recently in Denmark, Sweden and elsewhere. Those countries have managed to introduce same-sex marriage while at the same time protecting religious freedom. As has been stated, no successful case has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister underlined, the freedom of religion goes both ways. It is also right to protect and promote the freedom of those religious organisations that want to conduct wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. The Quakers, liberal Jews and Unitarians have all expressed a desire to do so. I do not think the state and the law should stand in the way of that. I know there is a live debate in the Church of England and that the Bill exempts the Church of England, but I am concerned about this. Only this morning I had a discussion with Canon Dr Giles Fraser. He passionately believes in the introduction of same-sex marriage and would like to marry same sex-couples in his church. My understanding is that the Bill as currently drafted would not allow that.
The love that two men or two women feel for each other is equal to that felt by a heterosexual couple. Their love is no less significant and no less important. I passionately believe that it is time the law recognised this fact. It is time that the state stopped standing in the way of same-sex marriage and we celebrated the enrichment of marriage that this Bill will bring.
European Union
Debate between Emma Reynolds and Sammy Wilson(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
Nothing was agreed on Thursday that led to a signing of a treaty change. We would have to see what was in the treaty change to decide whether we would sign up to it.
Sammy Wilson
This is the problem—if that is the case, why would those in the Labour party not support a deal? Why will they not say that they would also have vetoed a deal? If they would not have vetoed it, they are saying that they would support something that they believe is bad for jobs. That is the logic of their position.
The other argument is that the Prime Minister has taken this action because he is afraid of his Back Benchers. If anyone is afraid of his Back Benchers, it is the leader of the Liberal party. On Friday, he was saying that he agreed the terms, the tactics and the approach. By Sunday he had changed his mind. What changed his mind? I suspect that his Back Benchers changed his mind. It is a bit rich to say that the Prime Minister is in hock to his Back Benchers. Equally, I suspect that the Labour party has taken the attitude it has adopted because it is afraid of the public. It knows that the vast majority of the public—57%—support what the Prime Minister has done. I would rather have a Prime Minister who is cognisant of the British people’s views and then responds to those views. For that reason, we commend him in our motion.
I am sure that we will have plenty of opportunities to disagree with the Government, and times when we criticise the Prime Minister. This is not the end of the matter. The Prime Minister will have to show again the backbone that he showed last Friday, and we will look for him to do it.