The Ayes have it...or do they? Part Two: The Nays

From Christian Adams, political cartoonist for the Daily Telegraph

On Tuesday of this week I sat in the Public Gallery of the House of Commons, watching the debate over the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. At the end of the day, Members of the House voted 400 – 175 to send the Bill - which would redefine marriage and make it legally available to same sex couples – to committee for further analysis and discussion. In the previous post, I highlighted a few elements from the speeches of the “Aye” contingent. I will now turn my attention to those who decided to say “Nay.”

I got in a few minutes late, but not so much that I missed Shadow Home Secretary and Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities Yvette Cooper’s speech. As she spoke, she would occasionally yield to other Members of the House. These invariably were supporters of the proposed Bill attempting to reinforce Cooper’s arguments or paying tribute (a phrase I grew weary of as the day passed) to something or other (for David Lammy - Labour, Tottenham, it was to the Haringey Council which “stood in the face” of the government in the 80s and accepted the pro-gay black-and-white picture book Jenny lives with Eric and Martin into its libraries). Some time later, I jotted down in my notebook “Where are the opposing voices?” Finally one of the Honourable men of the House stood up and complained that Cooper was yielding only to those whom she knew supported her speech. From that point, the Nays began to make themselves heard.

Second Church Estates Commissioner Sir Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury) was allotted 10 minutes to speak during which time he did not yield the floor, as he was “conscious that a large number of colleagues wish to speak in the debate”  and he did not “wish to be selfish.” He spoke against the Bill. He affirmed that all people whatever their sexuality are created in the image of God, and are equal before him, “But equalness does not always equate with being the same” (a phrase later twisted by supporters of the Bill to compare its opponents to segregationists). Cooper had said that “religious freedom works both ways” and that she was therefore defending the rights of “Quakers, Unitarians, and Reformed Jews” who want to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. Sir Tony, noting that there was no way to know how robust protections would be until tested in the courts, made Cooper’s idea of ‘religious liberty’ seem rather pathetic by stating that the risk was not one the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, and a large number “of other faith groups, including the Muslim faith” were prepared to take. (On a side note, I found his random reference to “the Muslim faith” somewhat humorous, and certainly useful leverage with people who fear incurring the wrath of their local imam and his disciples.) Sir Tony then introduced an issue that many who followed him drew on, and which might be the undoing of the Bill. Verbatim from his speech:

"Although the failure to consummate a marriage will still be a ground on which a heterosexual marriage can be voidable, the Bill provides that consummation is not to be a ground on which a marriage of a same-sex couple will be voidable. It also provides that adultery is to have its existing definition - namely, sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. It therefore follows that divorce law for heterosexual couples will be fundamentally different from divorce law for same-sex couples, because for heterosexual couples the matrimonial offence of adultery will persist while there will be no similar matrimonial offence in relation to same-sex marriage. The fact that officials have been unable to apply these long-standing concepts to same-sex marriage is a further demonstration of just how problematic is the concept of same-sex marriage."

After a few concluding words from Sir Tony, debate was open and the members were allotted 4 minutes each to make their speeches. After a handful of these, Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire), the suspended Conservative MP of recent I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here! infamy, took to the floor. She argued against what she depicted as “a shoddy Bill” that “highlights the inequalities that will always exist, because the definition of marriage is based on the definition of sex.” Pointing out that by law, adultery is grounds for divorce and requires one partner in a marriage to have had sex with someone of the opposite gender, Dorries gave one of the most stirring statements of the day:

"In a heterosexual marriage, a couple vow to forsake all others. They are basically saying, in accordance with liturgy and the 1973 Act, “I will forsake all others because to you I will be faithful in honour of our vows and my faithfulness to us and our marriage.” A gay couple have no obligation to make that vow. They do not have to forsake all others because they cannot divorce on the grounds of adultery; there is no requirement of faithfulness. If there is no requirement of faithfulness, what is a marriage?"

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough in Lincolnshire) spoke up against the notion popular among the Bill’s supporters that marriage is simply about ‘love’, whatever the gender. He was clear that marriage is “not just a romantic attachment”, saying “If marriage were simply about relationships, we wouldn’t even bother about enshrining it in law.” His most memorable statement was: “We have to get away from the idea that every single thing in life can be forced through the merciless prism of equality.” Cue Twitter smart alecks cracking jokes about the next James Bond movie title (“Merciless Prism of Equality”) or that of the rumoured Indiana Jones 5 (“Indiana Jones and the Merciless Prism of Equality”). ROFL and LOLs all around. Or not.

Not long thereafter, Baptist politician Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party, Strangford, Northern Ireland) gave a passionate, unequivocal speech against the Bill.  A series of other speeches followed, including “Ayes” - Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes who bizarrely said that it was not about “redefining marriage”, Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham), and Jonathan Reynolds (Labour Cooperative, Stalybridge and Hyde) who basically argued that we were free to reinterpret Scripture since ‘we’ve done it before’- and “Nays” -Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley), Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West), and Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham). After a few hours I was sorely in need of sustenance so had one of the security staff give me a re-entry pass (good for 15 minutes – I had to make it fast!).

When I re-entered, Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough) was suggesting the government put the decision off till 2017 and then leave it up to the nation to decide along with the EU referendum. Other Members made their feelings against the Bill quite strongly known in the moments that followed – Sir Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot), Col. Bob Stewart (Conservative, Beckenham, former U.N. commander in Bosnia to whom Howarth yielded as “my gallant and honourable friend”), and Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch), who argued that if he was really interested in equality, Prime Minister David Cameron would look into civil partnerships for heterosexuals. Cameron, who was absent at the time, has since said that to do so would weaken the institution of marriage, claiming “I’m a marriage man.” Opening the institution to homosexuals will strengthen it, according to Cameron, repeating an argument popular with those who said “Aye” on Tuesday. The mind boggles.

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton) later gave a clear defence of religious liberty against the Bill and was followed not long after by David Burrowes (Conservative, Enfield Southgate). As Burrowes spoke of abuse and death-threats he has received for supporting traditional marriage, David Lammy – who had moments before trashed opponents of the Bill as hateful bigots akin to 1950s racists – sat slumped in his seat fiddling around on his phone.  Reverend William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim, NI) did not mince his words when he addressed the elephant in the room: “In recent times I have notice an increase in intolerance against Christians.” Stewart Jackson (Conservative, Peterborough) slammed Lammy for his inferences likening traditional marriage supporters to 1950s American white supremacists. David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann, NI) also spoke strongly against the Bill, but had to catch himself making a gaffe at the end: “This is not the jurisdiction of this government, of any European government or any government in the world. This is an ordained constitution of God. In the Garden of Eden it was Adam and Steve. It was Adam and Eve. It wasn’t Adam and Steve.”

As the debate wore on, and we approached the evening hours, the numbers of those speaking in favour of the Bill evened out with those speaking against it, but the weight of the arguments never seemed to match. Several other MPs spoke against the Bill, some impressively, others not so. I will highlight three more speeches, delivered at different stages over the last few hours of deliberation. Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim, NI), made it very clear that “Governments do not make marriages” and that they cannot change nature. He also, as others before him, dismantled the idea of “love” as the definition of marriage, saying “There is not a passion-o-meter in legislation.” And another (needed) shot was aimed at Lammy, who was accused of “Christophobia.” Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire) quoted the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 and described it as “Jesus’ definition of marriage”, a bit of a slap in the face to all who were (somewhat blasphemously) claiming Jesus would be on their side. Finally, Richard Drax (Conservative, South Dorset) asked the question on the minds if not on the tongues of many MPs who voted against the proposed legislation:

"Where do we stop? What can we redefine next? Shall we redefine “husband”, “wife”, “parents”, “children”, “Mr. and Mrs.”? Let us keep on redefining until we change everything that I and many others hold dear. I do not want the nation to be full of grey nothings, because that is what will happen if we go on reacting when people say that their sensibilities have been upset…I do not agree that this is about discrimination, persecution or prejudice - words that have been used this afternoon and, dare I say it, thrown around the Chamber a bit like confetti. This is about the Christian faith. I am not a great practising Christian - I am not here on my box - but this is about the Christian faith, and we are in effect undermining its core belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I have heard the word, “want” - “We want this” - again and again and again. All of us want lots of things, but there are consequences. What I have not heard in the cry for rights is the word, “responsibilities”."

Of course, I would not want you to think that the 175 are an entirely principled lot, political soldiers of light fighting for righteousness with unabashed courage and forthrightness. But I don’t want to be unhelpfully cynical, either. Whatever their motives or beliefs, they rebelled against party lines and gathered support surpassing the expectations of all level-headed analysts.  For a politician, it takes guts to pull a stunt like that. Certain Tory MPs in particular showed what they were made of: 127 may have voted for the Bill, but they were topped by the 136 who voted against it. And we might guess where the allegiances of the 40 deliberate abstentions (whereby the MP votes both ways), abstentions, and absentees lie (probably not with the LGBT lobby). It is no wonder that Prime Minister David Cameron did not show his face until 7:10 pm, as the vote was about to begin. He did not return to the room after leaving to cast his vote. I don’t blame him. Losing a majority of your party’s support in the Commons is nothing to celebrate, and neither is a plummeting national membership, especially if it is the result of foolish success-driven pragmatism. But where do things go from here? In the next post, I will tie up the loose ends.