Sunday, 9 December 2012

And my reply...

Cue the Archers' Theme Music (but not enough to breach copyright, of course)

OK, so here is the exciting story so far.

I wrote to my MP.

He emailed me.

I emailed him.

He emailed me.

Here is my latest reply: 

Thank you for your further reply, and for your kind suggestion to come to a surgery to discuss it further, Unfortunately I was working [away] on Friday, and had family commitments on Saturday.

This issue only gets worse, I fear...

Look how quickly things change: it was only in October that you were able to assure me that 'current proposals would make it illegal for any religious organisation to conduct a same-sex marriage in a place of worship.'

But the much-vaunted distinction between civil and religious marriage has just been comprehensively trashed by the Prime Minister. 

Given all the assurances we were given that religious marriage would be unaffected, this volte-face does not offer us any reasons to trust the Government's statements or intentions on this matter.  I am sure you made your statement in good faith: it is the PM and his colleagues who have made it look so untrustworthy - just as it was they who were trumpeting this very assurance themselves until very recently.

This is shameful politics, unworthy of the Conservative Party.

Your reassurances about religious liberty, I am afraid, carry no weight given this context, and given the fact that it will be judges, probably from foreign countries, who will end up making the law. 

You say the current proposals are simply that: proposals; and you agree that this will be an enormously complex piece of legislation.  Yet for political reasons the PM seems determined not only to go ahead with this reckless legislation, but to do so at high speed, and therefore with increased likelihood of a severely flawed outcome by any standard.

I see no evidence that the government (as opposed to you personally) is taking representations such as mine seriously - unless you mean as a serious threat, which is why they are charging ahead with undue haste.

I also note that you have still not addressed a number of the issues I originally raised, not least with regard to the purpose of this change, since same-sex couples already have all the legal benefits of marriage already.

Please don't feel obliged to reply to this; but once you heave decided which way you are going to vote, I would naturally be very interested to know.

No comments: