Not that i don't respect other people's point of view, but i feel utterly disgusted with the state of politics in the area i live in.
The town i live in falls under the "West Lancashire" council. Rosie Cooper is the member of parliment (MP) for this area.
Rosie was involved in the whole claims scandle not too long back http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5390009/MPs-expenses-Rosie-Coopers-915-for-abandoned-flat-deal-as-claims-taken-to-wire.html is a prime example of what im reffering to here.
Somehow Rosie remained in charge of the west lancs area, for some reason unknown to me as i don't know one person who voted for her to remain in office.
The town i live in is in need of ALOT of work, yet what does Rosie do?
Your guess is as good as mine.
I recently wrote to Rosie with reguards to the Marriage Equality bill that was voted on, in parliment on Tuesday 5th Feb, 2013. My view was that the bill should be passed, that marriage is to do with people who are in love, not about denying rights to those who are in love.
On Wednesday the 6th, i recieved a letter from Rosie Cooper with an explination. Below is the full letter.
Something to keep in mind here, the vote didn't take place until about 7pm on the tuesday, yet i recieve this letter first thing on wednesday morning? Yeah, that wouldn't happen with Royal Mail, least of all when she must have been in london to vote, then come home, typed out the letter and then sent it.
Anyways, the letter states....
"Dear mr _________
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your views on the government's marriage (same-sex couples) bill; which was debated and voted on today in the house of commons.
I recieved correspondence from constituents expressing views for and against, urging a free vote and those who are neutral on this issue. I have given this subject a considerable amount of thought and listened to the different views on which have been expressed to me.
The labour party recognises that, in good consciense, people can arrive at different conclusions - and that is why the party gave its MPs a free vote. I have tried to come to a balanced view on this subject. This evening i voted against this bill.
There are several reasons for reaching this decision which i will outline below:
The proposals in this bill did not feature in any party manifesto at the last general election. Therefore, the electorate had no opportunity to question candidates on their respective views.
Nor have i been reassured by how the government conducted the consultation on this matter.
Although i share the views of some leading members of the labour party (who are themselves gay) that this bill was not asked for, not needed and a distraction from the vast array of political and economic issues facing families, i do see that those who argue for equality have a point.
This point coule bbe met by providing civil partnerships for heterosexual couples as well as gay people. As you will be aware, civil partnerships offer the same legal protections for gay couples as marriage does for heterosexual couples.
The state could then completely remove itself from the conduct of marriages - and marriage would become the preserve of the churches alone. This would recognise the sacramental nature of holy matrimony - something which the state has no business interfering in and simultaneously recognise religious as well as secular diversity.
Whilst the government talked about the protections for religious institutions from a 'quadruple lock', i am not convinced that these protections for religious liberty could be absolutely guaranteed, especially in the face of legal challenge.
The labour party has a proud record of legislating on equality, from equalising the age of consent to civil partnerships to abolishing clause 28. It is a record of delivery on equality whilst we were in government that i stand by. I loathe homophobia and the cruelties which have been inflicted on people because of their orientation, gender or race - but it is possible to uphold the importance of holy matrimony without holding those views.
On balance i was not sufficiently reassured that this particular piece of legislation would actually deliver the stated aims and objectives.
Yours sincerely
Rosie Cooper MP
West Lancashire."
Where do i begin really? My word...
First off, the timing of the letter is a joke and can only have been sent in advance of the vote.
But now lets go through it bit by bit, because clearly, mrs Cooper and 174 other MPs have got something wrong.
"The proposals in this bill did not feature in any party manifesto at the last general election" neither did the action taken over hundreds of people who took part in the riots of 2011, yes the government still got together and passed new rules over this which involved courts being open later and tougher punishments. Welcome to politics, where things can pop up and need to be delt with as and when.
The we come to the whole "Religious freedom" argument, which i have seen used many a time and here's the deal. Religion is nothing to do with marriage. It is state controlled for a reason, the reason being that if the church still had control over it, divorce would still be illigal, black people wouldn't be able to marry white people, preists could marry the alter boy and no fish on fridays.
Hiding behind the religion excuse is pathetic.
I cannot express my joy at being able to laugh in the faces of the 175 MPs who voted against this, because 400 of them are on my side.
For once, equality made steps forward. Since no, Mrs Cooper, civil partnerships do not give the same rights as marriage does, that's why it's called civil partnership and not marriage.
I think i'll be encouraging others to vote differently this time, it seems we have a very out-dated MP here who's days of being political are over.
No comments:
Post a Comment