Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I believe in freedom of speech in this country and in people’s ability to say what they want. It has been made clear that no further was action was taken in that case, and the person was not prosecuted. I believe in that and in people in this House being able to express their views, as I have said on a number of occasions.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I find the example given very distasteful, just as I find fanatics who attack British troops on the high streets of our towns distasteful. However, if we are to protect freedom of speech, do we not have to tolerate that sort of thing, unless an obvious offence is being committed?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I wish to draw the House’s attention to the verbal and written evidence presented by Lord Pannick, which I think addressed many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and other members of the Committee regarding the protections and legal status of various people in the Bill. His memorandum to the Bill states:

“The legal position is clear beyond doubt. The Bill states, in unambiguous terms, that no religious organisation or representative is required to marry a same sex couple;”

and he mentions the opt-in and opt-out mechanisms. He also makes clear that:

“For the European Court of Human Rights to compel a religious body or its adherents to conduct a religious marriage of a same-sex couple would require a legal miracle much greater than the parting of the Red Sea”.

He made that point clearly and ended his submission by stating:

“For the reasons set out above, the arguments of those who oppose the Bill are not assisted by legal concerns.”