Tomorrow afternoon, Parliament will vote on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. The documents for this Bill can be found here:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/marriagesamesexcouplesbill.html
I appreciate that this important issue raises strong and genuinely held opinions on both sides of the debate.
It is worth stressing that the Prime Minister has made it clear that all Conservative MPs will have a free vote. He is absolutely right to do this, as it is a matter of individual conscience. There is not a single "Party line". In fairness, it is clear both from the public record and from my own discussions, that neither is there a single view amongst churches and faith groups (even those which have an ‘official’ line) or, indeed, amongst gay and lesbian people.
I approach this as someone who happens to be heterosexual and a practising Anglican. That is important to me. I also have good friends who happen to be gay, some in civil partnerships, which I strongly support. They are also important to me. My duty as your MP is to look at the matter in a calm and thorough manner, and apply my own judgement, as well as my past experience as a lawyer, to come to an unbiased assessment. That, of course, paraphrases Edmund Burke’s classic definition of an MP’s responsibility to his or her constituents.
For that reason, I wanted to study the detail of the Bill to see if it contained sufficient safeguards to protect the position of both Christian churches and other religions which, in conscience could not perform a same sex marriage ceremony, and also for those individuals of whatever faith who might face a conflict between the requirements of their job (for example teachers and registrars) and their opposition to the concept of same sex marriages.
I accept that the government genuinely wishes to assist in these cases. However, having read the Bill with care, and also looked at detailed and independent legal advice (particularly, but not solely, that provided by Aidan O'Neill QC, one of the country's leading human rights lawyers), I have concluded that what is proposed does not give adequate protection in these cases.
In particular, I am not convinced that the proposed protection for the Church of England would survive legal challenge on human rights grounds. Neither can I be sure that teachers who could not in conscience teach about same sex marriage under the national curriculum, or other public servants in a like position would not be at risk of disciplinary action, because of their employers obligation to enforce what is known as "the public sector equalities duty" under the 2010 Equalities Act.
Such outcomes would, I believe, be unjust, and I am not prepared to run the risk that they might happen. I also think that it is a mistake, in law, to talk in terms of separate concepts of civil and religious marriage. In English law there is one legal definition of marriage, which it happens can be contracted in either religious or civil ceremonies. As our law stands, you cannot change the definition of marriage without impacting all marriage, however contracted. The Bill does not take this into account, and again raises risks that I do not think we should run.
It follows from these concerns that I shall be voting against the Bill when it comes up for Second Reading.
Bob Neill MP