Tory Cabinet Member says same-sex couples can’t provide “safe and warm” environment for raising children

February 15, 2013 11:16 am

Last night, Tory Secretary of State for Wales David Jones was on ITV Wales show “Face to Face” where he was asked why he opposed Equal Marriage. Jones told the interviewer:

“I regard marriage as an institution that has developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same sex partners can’t do.”

Here’s the video of Jones’s vile remarks:

Update: We’ve spoken to Labour’s Shadow Welsh Secretary Owen Smith, who said:

“These comments reveal that the nasty party is alive and well under David Cameron. That such views exist in the heart of the Tory Cabinet provides yet more evidence of how out of touch the Tories are with modern Britain, and how David Cameron’s claim to have changed his party is, like so many of his promises, nothing more than empty words. David Jones’ comments are profoundly offensive and he should apologise immediately.”

Update: We’ve just been sent what it seems is David Jones’s response to the furore he’s caused:

“I was asked on the Face to Face programme why I voted against the same sex marriage proposals.  I replied that I had done so on the basis that I took the view that marriage is an institution that has developed over the centuries so as to provide a safe and warm environment for the upbringing of children. I made the point of stressing that I was fully supportive of committed same sex relationships.  I also strongly approve of civil partnerships. I did not say in the interview that same sex partners should not adopt children and that is not my view. I simply sought to point out that, since same sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite sex partners.”
He can try as hard as he likes to wriggle out of this. We know what he said. He argued that same sex couples can’t provide “a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children” – he hasn’t denied using those words. Because he can’t. (Update: A reader contacts us to note that Jones says he’s not against same sex adoption, but he doesn’t say he’s for it…)
  • http://twitter.com/AAEmmerson A.A.Emmerson

    As much as this comment is absolutely vile… I do wonder what he said afterwards and how he qualified it. Hope Labourlist haven’t selectively edited it.

  • cari_esky5

    It’ll be down to same sex couples with children to prove him wrong and prove him wrong they will.

  • http://twitter.com/KapturekCzarny Czarny kapturek

    This is simply a very bizarre comment, that goes against my experience. I mean, he cannot empirically prove his assertion.

    Again, this shows the heart of the Tories to be ultimately suspicious of anything different (witness also the attack on immigrants by Cameron at the moment).

  • kb32904

    And they wonder why they can’t shift the nasty party tag….

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    The removal of discrimination in fostering, adoption, etc took place a while ago so this is a red herring in any case. What a load of absolute nonsense. Does he know any same-sex parents?

  • Hugh

    Doesn’t it seem possible, in fact likely from the video, that he was simply intending to trot out the standard objection that marriage is for the procreation and upbringing of children, but phrased it badly?

    • Hugh

      And it seems form the update that this is the case: ” I simply sought to point out that, since same sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite sex partners.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

        I’m sure my parents – who adopted me and my sister – would be delighted to hear that judgment. They couldn’t biologically procreate children. Incidentally, I’m gay, my sister a heterosexual mother of four. So much for that theory as well….

        • Hugh

          I’m sure they wouldn’t, but they probably wouldn’t be delighted by the same remark that has been made many times by many others in the course of the same sex marriage debate without attracting any particular controversy.

        • Hugh

          I’m sure they wouldn’t, but they probably wouldn’t be delighted by the same remark that has been made many times by many others in the course of the same sex marriage debate without attracting any particular controversy.

    • Dave Postles

      ‘the standard objection that marriage is for the procreation and upbringing of children’
      It may be the ‘standard response’ of some people (and I do not attribute it to you), but it is pretty insensitive and causes resentment amongst those many happy couples who married for love, but did not wish to procreate for a variety of reasons (not least, I’ve been a kid and I know what little bastards they can be.). In our case, a same-sex couple would certainly have brought the kids up better than we would.

      • Hugh

        It may cause resentment, but it’s plainly not the same “vile remark” he’s been criticised for, is it? And it’s not a particular unusual remark.

      • Hugh

        It may cause resentment, but it’s plainly not the same “vile remark” he’s been criticised for, is it? And it’s not a particular unusual remark.

    • Brumanuensis

      Entirely possible. He’s still a twit though.

  • http://twitter.com/ytfcbadger Martin Baker

    “since same sex partners could not biologically procreate children”

    By implication, Mark Jones must also be against ‘straight’ marriage for childless couples or for couples who need IVF. But that he would be in favour of marriage for a bisexual person who might have children from a previous relationship?

    This is unfortunately where people like him tie themselves in knots. And he also hasn’t clarified exactly what is “unsafe” about a same-sex couple bringing up children. That’s the bit that really stinks here. Clearly right now, a same-sex couple can bring up children outside a marriage, so does he regard that as “unsafe”?

  • JoeDM

    Seems a sensible statement. Kids will be better off being brought up in a stable normal marrage. What on earth is wrong with that?

    • http://www.facebook.com/CraigBell91 Craig Bell

      The implication that a same sex marriage would be abnormal and less stable than a heterosexual marriage perhaps?

    • http://twitter.com/ElliotBidgood Elliot Bidgood

      Not that it should ever be needed, but evidence has shown that kids brought up by same-sex parents turn out fine (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/6574238/Lesbians-make-better-parents-says-senior-parenting-official.html). Also, since gay adoption and IVF are already legal and are settled law, trying to use child-rearing and the stability of marriage as arguments *against* marriage equality is fairly ridiculous – if anything it logically follows that if we allow same-sex parenting then we must also allow same-sex marriage.

    • Brumanuensis

      Define ‘normal’.

      And as Elliot has pointed out, if there are no observable differences between outcomes for children brought up by same-sex parents, relative to opposite-sex parents, then what underpins David Jones’s comments?

      • Alexwilliamz

        Prejudice?

    • http://twitter.com/ytfcbadger Martin Baker

      On that basis, you’d presumably therefore want two same-sex couples to marry, if they had children, to ensure that their family bond was tight and formal and to give those kids a “stable” marriage. Sounds rather like you’re in favour of same-sex marriage then?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Richie-Litherland/1135505289 Richie Litherland

    Yeah, I’m sure a same sex couple raising a child would be a lot more disastrous than the people down the road who have eight kids just so they can get child support benefits while they sell pot. :I

  • JC

    So what’s the line from the labour members who voted against it? Be careful what you ask for. They might be even more embarrassing.

  • Alexwilliamz

    That is the crux really. Surely the state should be supporting families in whatever form. Should there rather not be a debate over whether there is a social good in encouraging some kind of legal contract between two people who are romantically linked?

  • Gerry Leddy

    I have just emailed Mr Jones to see if like me, he is anxiously waiting to see if the outcome of the Derby fire deaths trial proves his hypothesis marriage = warm and safe environment .

Latest

  • News Scotland Murphy makes unity candidate pitch as Unite prepare to endorse Findlay

    Murphy makes unity candidate pitch as Unite prepare to endorse Findlay

    There are two interviews with Scottish Labour leader candidates in this morning’s papers. Jim Murphy launches his campaign by talking to the Daily Record (the same paper Johann Lamont did her resignation interview with last week), while Neil Findlay has a short conversation with the Morning Star. Murphy builds on the statement he made last night (“I’m applying for the job of First Minister”) by claiming he wants “to bring the country back together after the referendum.” He said: “I […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Brand or bland? Are these really my choices?

    Brand or bland? Are these really my choices?

    Russell Brand has a book out and a great publicist. His diagnosis of our current malaise is pretty spot on. His solutions however are woolly headed at best and inconsistent at worst. But Russell Brand is being taken seriously. He’s never off Newsnight nor out of the pages of the Guardian. People are flocking to follow him in their thousands. He is Che Guevara for the scripted reality generation. The established left simply don’t know what to make of this. […]

    Read more →
  • Comment If politicians can’t enact the policies people actually want, the system is broken

    If politicians can’t enact the policies people actually want, the system is broken

    This week, Class released a new poll on the theme of fairness and inequality, which will nicely coincide with the debates at our conference this Saturday. Speaking of which, you should totally book a ticket for that as we’re down to the last few. Anyway, I find our polling particularly interesting (I mean, you’d hope I would) because its aim is to gauge public opinion on long-term issues, rather than responding to a given news story. Class polls provide a […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Scotland “I’m standing for First Minister of Scotland and I intend to win”: Jim Murphy joins Scottish Labour leadership race

    “I’m standing for First Minister of Scotland and I intend to win”: Jim Murphy joins Scottish Labour leadership race

    We now have three candidates for Scottish Labour leader, as Jim Murphy’s long-awaited candidacy has been confirmed. The Shadow International Development Secretary and former Scotland Secretary released a statement this evening, saying that his intention is to be Scottish Labour leader and First Minister: “I’m standing for First Minister of Scotland and I intend to win. I want to bring Scotland back together after the referendum. There is so much to be proud of in Scotland but so much we […]

    Read more →
  • Comment I’m not upset about Cameron’s refusal to wear a t-shirt – it’s everything else that gets me

    I’m not upset about Cameron’s refusal to wear a t-shirt – it’s everything else that gets me

    On Monday the news broke that David Cameron has repeatedly refused a request by Elle magazine to be photographed wearing a t-shirt. Why? Because on it, the t-shirt says “This is what a feminist looks like”. There have been a catalogue of ideas floated since about why he might not have done it – “It’s only a mag campaign” or “You shouldn’t dress up the Prime Minister”, say. But really, it’s not important that it was a request from a […]

    Read more →