I really can't be bothered to type out the whole blurb. The main excuse she gives for voting in favour of the Bill is as follows...
"I understand that this is a sensitive matter... However, my stance on this issue is that I think that people should be treated equally, both socially and legally, no matter what their gender, race, religion or sexuality. My initial view was that the creation of civil partnerships removed the inequalities relating to property and inheritance that used to exist and therefore I was not convinced of the need to go that further step to gay marriage.
"However some very practical differences between civil partnerships and marriage have recently been brought to my attention. For instance, under the current laws relating to pensions, immigration and powers of attorney, people in civil partnerships are not given the same rights as people who are married..."
If this really was the case, it would seem far better to change the law regarding the practical differences rather than trying to redefine an institution which has been understood in the same way for millennia, the consequences of which have not been fully considered and which will lead to the persecution of people with religious beliefs.
Unless, of course, it is the intention to persecute those with religious beliefs...
5 comments:
In my humble opinion, most people working to defend traditional marriage (on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean) make a mistake in not pointing out continually that marriage is not recognized by the state because politicians are romantic and sentimental. It is recognized by the state because children have a right to a relationship with their mother and father. If not for the necessity of protecting the civil right of children to a relationship with their mother and father, there would be no need for the state to have laws about marriage to begin with. The idea that civil marriage is about "romance" and "equality" is a fantasy made up by those who don't give a whit for the rights of children. Sad to see. On the bright side, I have been very impressed by the fearlessness and civil discourse shown by Catholics in the UK. It has been comforting to see fellow Catholics responding to this travesty of justice in such an honorable manner. May God reward you for you "fighting the good fight," as we say.
Thanks for making that very important point, Lisa, and thanks for the encouraging words too!
I too wrote to Ms Pearse when this was first talked about and got a letter back to say she had no plans of voting in favour. I am about to copy th letter and send it back to her asking to explain herself.
When I wrote to my MP David Hamilton (a Scottish MP, but I thought I should try and help the situation in E+W too) asking him simply for his position on the matter, I got the same standard pat about "equality" etc. I then sent a detailed response stating my opposition and he never replied...
I see your MP, Teresa Pearce, is actually a LABOUR member, and is (was?) a CATHOLIC.
She was selected as prospective parliamentary candidate before the last election following one of the biggest vote-fixing scandals of recent years.
I am a deeply interested political anorak, and thought I knew most MPs by name. However, she has made such an impact in the HoC that I had never heard of her. I assumed that being from Kent, she must have been a Conservative.
Apparently most of the pressure for this rather superfluous measure came from the LibDems, specifically their Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone. One of the penalties of having a Coalition Government.
Post a Comment