Having recently read an email from the coalition for marriage I felt I should write to all of our Dudley MP’s (Ian Austin, Margot James and Chris Kelly) raising the concerns about the implications of the redefinition of marriage outlined in the email. My letter to Margot James and her response are below:
Dear Margot,
REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
I wrote to you earlier in the year to raise the concerns of many in my congregation. You did respond and told me that you could not offer any support for our views. Whilst disappointing I understand that the consideration and giving of air time to our views would compromise you personally.
Your colleague MP Ian Austin has shown great care and done a fab job in keeping me up to date with the government’s discussions and how it will affect those of us who are supporters of traditional marriage.
I have some further concerns and wondered if you could offer some answers and reassurances?
I understand that the Coalition Government has agreed to change the criminal law to put it beyond doubt that disagreeing with same-sex marriage is not a hate crime. At times I feel victimised by government ministers for holding the views I do on marriage. However I think this action should send a helpful message to those who throw around the ‘bigot’ label far too freely.
However, I also understand that Government ministers are being advised by officials in the equalities office to block any other protections in the civil law. I think reasonable changes need to be made to employment law and equality law to protect people like those in my congregation – people who believe in traditional marriage – but the Government is clearly not listening.
Why can I not be afforded this protection?
The House of Lords is currently examining the Bill line by line. The legislation is getting the kind of prolonged scrutiny that the Government did not permit in the Commons for which I am grateful. It felt like in the Commons the Government guillotined debate and stacked the committee with the Bill’s supporters, but the Bill is under the spotlight in the Lords and some of the gaps seem to be beginning to show.
Fidelity in marriage
However, astonishingly, the Government says fidelity is not a necessary part of any marriage. The exact quote from the Government minister I believe is: “In terms of the law, marriage does not require the fidelity of couples. It is open to each couple to decide for themselves on the importance of fidelity within their own relationship.”
In other words, under the Bill, the Government doesn’t think faithfulness is important in marriage. Could this be because it wants to avoid the legal problems which would otherwise be created if it introduced laws about adultery or consummation for same-sex marriage? That shatters the argument that this Bill will strengthen marriage. This seems to wreck marriage even further.
Is this the case and if so what can be done about it?
Job losses
Up until now, officials in the equalities office have been telling Government ministers that the Bill won’t harm the liberty of people who disagree with it. It seems after pressure in the House of Lords, Government ministers have admitted they want commercial companies to be able to sack staff who refuse to be involved with same-sex marriages.
For example I understand that the Government thinks commercial chauffeurs who object to a same-sex marriage should be dismissed. By the same logic, florists, photographers and cake makers would also be in the firing line. Those of us who support traditional marriage want a reasonable accommodation for such workers, a bit of flexibility which takes account of people’s sincere beliefs. But so far the Government has stubbornly refused.
What protection can be afforded to workers who share a traditional view of marriage who I believe should have the rights to hold a religious view without discrimination?
Thanks for all you do for the people of Dudley and I look forward to your response.
Yours Sincerely,
Adrian Lowe
Senior Minister
Margot James’ Response:
Dear Adrian
Thank you for your letter, dated 21st June, regarding civil marriage, and also for your kind comment about my work for the area, which is much appreciated.
I certainly respect your point of view and I also appreciate that there will be a range of views which must be taken into account. However, I do still believe that allowing same-sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies will formally recognise the long-term commitment made by many couples.
I would like to assure you that the government is clear that the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is a perfectly lawful belief and it will remain so once the Bill is enacted. The Equality Act already prohibits detrimental treatment of a person because of their religious or philosophical beliefs.
Ministers have also been clear that being able to follow your faith openly is a vital freedom that will be protected. Everyone is entitled to express their view about same-sex marriage, at work or elsewhere. No employee will be required to promote or endorse views about same-sex marriage which go against their conscience.
On your point about fidelity in marriage, I understand that Baroness Stowell was expressing a personal opinion on this issue, and it is not the case that the Government is endorsing infidelity.
Thank you again for getting in touch. Please be assured that I do value your views on this issue.
Kind Regards
Your sincerely
Margot James MP