Sign up to our newsletter for daily updates and breaking news Subscribe Thank you for subscribing See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Last week many of my constituents contacted me about the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill that was placed before the House of Commons on Tuesday, February 5.

After careful consideration I chose to positively abstain by voting both for and against and I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I chose to register my votes in the manner that I did.

Firstly, I wish to make it clear that I share the desire of those who want society to embrace, recognise and cherish permanent homosexual relationships and that I am not wholly convinced the bill presented will lead to the persecution of those religious organisations and individuals that choose not to undertake or promote same sex marriages.

My firm position as a supporter of civil partnerships remains as I believe any two individuals should have the choice to show their commitment towards one another irrespective of gender.

It is my understanding, though, from reading the bill that there are unique religious connotations which could lead to legislative inaccuracies.

The redefinition of marriage simply required more debate and consultation, particularly with and within the established Church.

I believe marriage should be left to churches, other religious institutions and humanist groups. I see a system of civil union for same sex and heterosexual couples alike being blessed by the church as a far greater alternative, and I am of the opinion the Church has a responsibility to come forward with a solution to the recognition of same sex relationships.

Therefore, I believe it would have been more appropriate to have initially presented this legislation as a Private Member’s Bill.

I fail to see why this approach was not taken since it is the traditional route for such social change legislation since it enables the opinions and concerns of Parliament, as well as the wider public, to be tested thoroughly before proceeding further with Government backing.

Moreover, it is very apparent to me this bill was not a main priority for the great majority of my constituents. If I had voted solely on the basis of communications I received from residents I would have been in the ‘No’ lobby. The fact is that I received only 14 letters in favour and more than 300 against the bill.

As I hope you can tell, I gave this issue deep and careful thought and concluded the legislation before me was not worthy of my full support. I did not, however, want to give any impression that I was against a formal recognition by society of committed homosexual relationships.

The easy and, dare I say, less courageous decision would have been to either stay away completely and not be counted, or just follow the majority vote. Instead I chose to be present, listen to the arguments put forward and vote according to my conscience, with the views of all my constituents very much in the forefront of my mind.