On the site closest to the Labour Whips' Office, Kevin Meagher writes:
Putting aside the question of whether same sex
marriage is a modest extension of equal rights for gay and lesbian couples or
the handcart society will be pushed to hell in – and judged purely as an exercise
in policy-making – this week has been a disaster.
The refrain that the measure was not in any
party’s manifesto at the last election and didn’t even make it into the
coalition’s programme for government is no less important given the frequency
with which it’s cited as a grievance by opponents of the bill.
Neither, for that matter, was there a green paper
to allow proper deliberation; just a rushed public consultation, which saw a significant
majority of respondents strongly opposed to the idea. And as it now
stands, the legislation is lopsided with the failure to extend civil
partnerships to heterosexual couples.
Moreover, the law of unintended consequences
means most religious communities who opposed the encroachment of the state into
their affairs are left with threadbare assurances they will be unaffected by
the change. Case law will in due course ensure that they are.
The church hall test will see priests and vicars
forced to defend a policy of letting heterosexual couples use their premises
while barring gays and lesbians. Meanwhile the charitable status of religious
organisations who do not readily accept this new definition of equality will be
endlessly challenged. The culture war will rage long after this week passes.
But behind this
inexorable fallout lies the basic failure to quantify the need for legislation.
Why has same sex marriage become such an urgent cause? After all, the numbers
of gay and lesbian couples entering into a civil partnership – which accords
all the main legal benefits of marriage – has been
in decline pretty much since the measure was first put on the statute book.
There were 15,437 civil partnerships in 2006, the
first full year that the measure was in place. This dropped to 8,728 in 2007 –
a 44% fall in the first year – and the last available figures for 2011 shows it
falling still further to just 6,795 – a 56% drop in just five years.
Of course this could be because gay and lesbian
couples are boycotting civil partnerships as they don’t feel the measure offers
them true equality, but this is not a point campaigners have made.
Same sex marriage is not, in the vernacular,
evidence-based policy-making.
Upholding the principle that gay and lesbian
relationships are fully equal is a fair enough cause, but is the main purpose
of our parliamentary process satisfying the frustrations of campaigners with
the existing law, regardless of the scale of the grievance?
If same sex marriage is an issue of general
public importance then surely it should be discussed openly during an election
campaign, put in a manifesto, voted on and then enacted (assuming majority
consent), with the weight of public acceptance put behind it?
None of this has happened and whatever side of
this particular issue you come from, it is clear there is a vocal and
passionate lobby which holds a diametrically opposite view. There is little
public consensus and we are left with one side of public opinion legislating
over the heads of another.
This is never an ideal situation, but is usually
managed by those who are seeking change, of whatever kind, obtaining a clear
electoral mandate to do so (as was the case, for instance, with Labour’s
fox-hunting ban).
Indeed, with coalition government possibly
becoming the norm, how can voters make sense of who to support when parties not
only break their commitments (the Lib Dems and tuition fees springs to mind)
but embark on significant legislative change which seems to materialise out of
the ether?
The left should be particularly concerned about
the precedent set by this week’s manoeuvrings.
What if the next Queen’s speech contains measures
to dramatically erode workplace rights, or to curtail environmental protection,
or to scrap the minimum wage, none of which are in the Conservative or Lib Dem
manifestos?
In such a scenario it is worth bearing in mind
that Labour frontbenchers would automatically reach for exactly the same
accusation that opponents of the SSM bill did this week: “You have no mandate
from the electorate.”
In deliberately trying to change the meaning of marriage the current apologies for politicians are, in fact, and in their arrogance, stating that everyone who has gone before them was completely misguided and wrong, and that their presumption that they were married was simply the view at the time but that everyone is more enlightened nowadays. The arrogance and conceit of people who sneer that we are now living in the 21st century, as if this simple passage of time has filled them with wonderful new insights that were denied to lesser being of earlier days, is typical of the thinking of people who are pushing this disgraceful legislation. Words such as husband, wife, and spouse, are already being side-lined in favour of all-encompassing 'partner' and will cease to be seen on any government publications. If this legislation is passed then we will see the end of father and mother on birth certificates. Spain has created new birth certificates to avoid discrimination against same-sex couples and the expression 'father' will be replaced with 'Progenitor A,' and 'mother' will be replaced with 'Progenitor B'.
ReplyDeleteIn their arrogance and conceit, Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband, are contemptuous of the views of countless millions, not only of today but of people throughout history who accepted as the natural order the union of one man and one woman as the basis for marriage, whether in a religious or secular ceremony. They are replacing what they see (wrongly) as discrimination of a tiny minority of the population with a law that will harshly discriminate against millions of the people of this country who will suffer as a consequence.
The role of the Opposition is to hold the government of the day to account. The people, individually, have no power to do this and have the expectation, indeed the right, to expect this protection from the Opposition. This measure was in no party’s manifesto and thus should never have seen the light of day. The Prime Minister has treated the people of this country with open contempt. Notwithstanding that this legislation is a dog’s breakfast, merely on a point of principle this should have been scuppered by Her Majesty’s Opposition acting on behalf of the people. What is scandalous, and leaves the people abandoned, is the fact that the leader of the Opposition has crawled into bed with Cameron and Clegg and revealed that he, like them, is devoid of principle and simply an opportunist. And this scandalous menage a trois has been aided and abetted by the shameful and abject dereliction of duty by hundreds of MPs, mostly Labour, who have simply played follow-my-leader, please sir, yes sir, and sod the electorate because I am looking after my career Mr Miliband. When the three main parties collude in an act of unprincipled behaviour where does the average voter go to at the next election? Ukip?
Surely it is an appropriate occasion for the Queen to act on behalf of her subjects and ask Mr Cameron on what basis he is pushing this legislation as he has no mandate from her people. If she cannot stand up for her subjects then why is she there? If she is simply a figurehead, a nodding dog with regard to legislation, then all she need do is provide parliament with a rubber stamp containing her signature and the government can carry on regardless without the need to trouble her again.
Much more could be said but what is the point when our political leaders have demonstrated very clearly that they have no interest in anyone’s opinions but their own. It makes my blood boil.
There is still the Lords. I have never believed that this Bill would become law. But the amendment for heterosexual civil partnerships was not a wrecking amendment. It was meant entirely sincerely, and it may yet come to pass (I am not necessarily saying that that would be a good thing). Miliband did not sell anything or anyone out by refusing to back it.
ReplyDelete