The Ayes have it...or do they? Part One: The Ayes

Yesterday, one of the most important issues facing the United Kingdom, its people (be they of faith or not), and its religious institutions was debated on the floor of the House of Commons. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is the government’s proposal to redefine ‘marriage’, allowing for homosexuals to be legally recognized as fulfilling the God-given institution previously available only to heterosexuals. Matters of a serious nature such as this tend to get my adrenaline going and I could not bring myself to carry on with my normal schedule. I decided therefore to forego my weekly trip to the British Library, and headed instead to the observation stand at the battle-field's edge, namely the Public Gallery of the House of Commons.

After waiting in a long cue for a couple of hours, I finally took my seat. Fortunately, discussion on the Bill had just begun. With the exception of getting a note from the security guard granting me 15 minutes leave (man’s gotta eat!), I stayed for the duration of proceedings from Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s speech through the move to adjourn by Speaker John Bercow. Over the next couple of posts, I will give my observations, starting with those who voted “Aye” to support the Bill.

A key element of Yvette Cooper’s speech was, to paraphrase her only slightly, “Everyone loves a wedding. Everyone loves a celebration. Why should we deny gay couples the right to have them?” As was rightly pointed out by one of the Bill’s opponents, it seemed she was confusing being in a marriage with having a wedding. That wasn’t the only confusion going on: one of the most obvious flaws in the reasoning of those who supported the Bill was their tendency to speak of the idea of “love” and the institution of “marriage” as if they were synonymous.

After Cooper’s more lengthy address, the Members of the House were given four minutes each to say their piece on the proposed legislation. It is fair to say that while many emotional and impassioned declarations were made in support of the Bill from Conservative, Liberal-Democrat, and Labour MPs, for the most part there was very little substance to their arguments. Instead, this was an opportunity to pay tribute to ‘martyrs’ of the LGBT movement, read “we are making history” type quotes from Stonewall website articles, offer some shoddy theological commentary, and draw false parallels from history. The last two lines of attack I found particularly disturbing.

Theology:

"No religion owns marriage." – Yvette Cooper. A true statement, so far as it goes - which isn't far enough. Religion doesn’t own marriage. God does. It is his institution for man and woman.

"Jesus Christ absolutely led the way in equalities…I have no problem as a Christian voting for it." – Toby Perkins (Labour, Chesterfield). Jesus did "lead the way in equalities", but not of the sort Perkins has in mind. Perhaps Jesus would ask him "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?"

(Matthew 19:4-5)

David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, said that he had received many letters urging him to vote against the Bill, which he disregarded, despite them coming from people "with whom I share the same values on a Sunday morning." I would take careful note of the last four words of that statement, which effectively negate everything before it.

Sir Peter Bottomley, Conservative MP for Worthing West, argues that prohibiting same-sex marriage is like prohibiting interracial marriage and that he is obeying the command of Jesus to "love his neighbour as himself."

As for false parallels with history, supporters of the Bill at times degraded the seriousness of the debate by comparing the issue of homosexual marriage to the equality of women and civil rights. Natascha Engel (Labour, North East Derbyshire) got the ball rolling on this front by mentioning the Incitement to Racial Hatred Act. Gay parliamentarian Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter) followed with reference to the "language of residual prejudice." Another began his statement by saying "I do not mean to be crass and crude by… [drawing parallels between slavery’s abolition and this bill]" and proceeded to be crass and crude by drawing parallels between slavery’s abolition and this bill. Simon Hughes (Lib-Dem, Bermondsey and Old Southwark), introduced himself as a Protestant Evangelical supporting the Bill, and said it reminded him of his viewing of Spielberg’s Lincoln over the weekend. Guy Opperman (Conservative, Hexham) continued in the same strand of thought toward the end of debate. The most forceful of all was David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham), who retold the story of Rosa Parks (whose birthday was the day before the debate) and compared opponents of the Bill to the segregationists and racists whom she defied. Something important was missing from their considerations. Gay marriage cannot be compared to the Civil Right’s movement. In fact, quite the opposite: even as racism was and is unnatural in the sight of God, so too is the sexual desire for and union of members of the same sex.  

Margot James (Conservative, Stourbridge) delivered an amusingly emotional rant against the “tactics” of pressure groups and churches and yielded to other Honourable ladies of the House who joined in her little whinge (can you believe Colin Hart –mentioned by name - would actually encourage supporters of the Coalition for Marriage to email their MPs? The unmitigated gall!). Far from demonstrating that such “tactics” do not work, it highlights their effectiveness. Most reasonable estimates would never have guessed 175 MPs would oppose the Bill. Maybe 150 at the most. Yvette Cooper described a loving marriage relationship between an elderly man and his dementia-afflicted wife, and the relationship of a gay couple she had met. “I don’t see why that can’t be marriage too!” she exclaimed. 175 MPs did. And there were more that stated or implied they would vote the Bill through to the committee stage but would vote against it at the third reading. Do the ayes have it? Perhaps last night 400 of them did, but the statement of the 175 was heard louder. In the next post, I will look closer at the nays.