Gavin Maclure's Musings

My take on politics locally, nationally and internationally

David Cameron is on the wrong side of the Conservative Party


gay marriage

Rejoice! Rejoice!

No, not because the UK Parliament voted for the gay marriage bill at its Second Reading in the House of Commons last night but because the majority of the Conservative Party did not. 127 Conservative MPs voted for the Bill; 136 voted against.

As readers know I am against legalising gay marriage for reasons I have outlined before. But I would like to add one other argument against gay marriage, which David Green in The Spectator wrote this morning:

What is the point of a Conservative party that does not see practical value, perhaps wisdom, in traditional institutions such as marriage? There are some less worthy reasons for preserving prevailing structures, such as sheer self-interest, but the overwhelming reason for valuing established institutions is intellectual modesty. We should be aware of our own intellectual and moral limitations and take seriously the possibility that there may be wisdom in institutions that have been valued by people who came before us. (my highlighting)

Gay couples in civil partnerships already have ALL the legal rights as married heterosexual couples. So why make gay marriage legal overturning an institution which has existed for thousands of years and is the bedrock of our society and the foundation of future generations. Marriage is a tried and tested institution for the procreation and nurture of children. It’s a real shame one has to spell this out but gay couples cannot conceive children. If this bill succeeds (and there is a long way to go yet) this government, which has no mandate for gay marriage, will cause irrevocable damage to our already fractured society by overhauling an institution which serves the common good.

Or as David Green puts its:

To throw it [marriage] away because of a political calculation that the Conservatives will gain the votes of LGBT activists and their sympathisers is unworthy of a serious political party. But what else is to be expected of leaders who treat politics as an exercise in deploying mass advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion? (my highlighting)

I believe those who defend this mad policy are not Conservatives. Thankfully, I am with the majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party who oppose the destruction of marriage and the traditional family. There is hope for our Party yet.

For a full list of how your MP voted last night please visit here.

Author: gavinmaclure

IT professional; political blogger, former Conservative councillor

2 thoughts on “David Cameron is on the wrong side of the Conservative Party

  1. Gavin

    You should read Ben’s speech below from yesterday.

    Many Members have already spoken powerfully and I have nothing to add to that expression of feeling. I want to speak about the reason for the Marriage Act 1836 coming into being, which is related to the matters that we are discussing today.

    The Act was introduced to protect people who dissented from the common view at the time. Before 1836, people had to get married in a Church of England church, which was anathema to the many Roman Catholics, non-conformists and Quakers and the very small number of atheists. The then Government under Viscount Melbourne introduced the legislation to protect the liberties of those people. A case cited in the House at the time involved a Roman Catholic lady who had married a fellow Roman Catholic in a clandestine marriage. The husband then ran off and she was left destitute because they did not have a proper marriage contract in law.

    The 1836 Act, in seeking to protect a number of minorities, was a very forward-looking piece of legislation. The arguments marshalled against it were not dissimilar to those that we are hearing today. It was argued that marriage was somehow exclusively the preserve of religion, and that extending it into the secular sphere in any way would devalue it. At that time, the number of people, such as atheists, who were married in secular ceremonies was minuscule, but the figure has now risen to 60% of marriages and we do not regard such marriages as being of any less worth or involving any less love than those that are conducted in a church. I believe that, 177 years later, we should now seek to protect the love, the freedoms and the liberties of another minority that has been oppressed and forgotten for so long.

    This legislation does not overturn the institution of marriage but does the opposite, it strengthens it by extending the same rights of gay couples to get married as enjoyed by heterosexual couples. If you value the concept of marriage as a force for good in society, which I think all Conservatives do, why would extending that to others weaken society?

    I also suppose people like Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague who also voted for this legislation are not real Conservatives?

  2. I also suppose people like Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague who also voted for this legislation are not real Conservatives?

    Only if the principles of the Tamworth Manifesto of being Conservative through moderate reform while preserving existing institutions, were written in stone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s