Yvette Cooper’s Equal Marriage speech

February 5, 2013 1:45 pm

Yvette Cooper has just made the following speech in the House today on the Equal Marriage Bill:
———

Mr Speaker.

Parliament has the chance today to support loving couples who want to get married.

The chance to make some of the same sex couples I’ve spoken to in the last few weeks very happy – it means they can finally set the date.

I hope we will support this Bill today

Give those couples the chance to be wed, to be married and to have their relationship celebrated and valued by the state in the same way as everyone else.

Of course people have strong views on marriage.

On their own marriage and on other peoples.

I understand some in this House are strongly opposed to this bill and I respect their views although I disagree with them.

And I hope that is the spirit in which this debate will take place today.

I believe the case for equal marriage is a very powerful one.

We all love a good wedding. We pause as we walk past a church or registry office to smile at complete strangers coming down the steps in a cloud of confetti because we think it’s lovely they’ve just got married.

We love the idea of a golden or diamond wedding anniversary. The elderly couple who’ve stuck together through thick or thin, still bickering over the biscuits.

And we clearly all like a good party.

I see the impact assessment from the Department even reckons that passing this legislation could lead to £14m extra spent on celebrations.

Which is a lot of confetti and rubber chicken.

Think it won’t quite be enough to boost the economy and deliver plan B, but I guess the Chancellor needs all the help he can get.

Call us hopeless romantics.
Call it the triumph of hope over experience.

But most of us think it is wonderful when people love each other and want to make that long term commitment.

So why would we want to stop a loving couple getting married just because they are gay?

And its worth hearing why people want to:

Here’s what one gay man told me:

“My parents have a really strong marriage – I’ve always seen how meaningful and important it is. We want the same thing – it’s hard to explain but its about the value of our relationship. I want my nieces and nephews to feel that Uncle Adam and Uncle James are getting married, just like their Mum and Dad.”

Another said, “we want to have the same celebration and status as our parents and grandparents – it’s about being normal. I want to have children. But I believe children are brought up better in a married relationship.”

Someone else said, “I asked the question, “Simon will you marry me” he said yes. I said “Marry me”, not “would you like a civil partnership.”

Civil partnerships have been a fantastic step forward – providing proper legal recognition for same sex relationships for the first time. They continue to be a great source of joy and of security. And it was right for Labour to introduce them in the face of deep controversy at the time. Now they are widely accepted. Attitudes have changed.

So it is time to take the next step for equality and allow gay and lesbian couples the chance to marry if they choose to.

One person reminded me of the practical differences: when you are in a civil partnership you have to declare your sexuality every time you fill in a form where you fill in a different box if you are in a civil partnerships rather than married. Why should you have to?

Another said “Language does matter. Marriage is universally understood as a meaningful commitment. People might say that in time civil partnerships will mean exactly the same. We say: “why wait?”

And why should they wait for their relationship that they want to celebrate now, when they could get married.

Parliament shouldn’t stop people getting married just because they have fallen in love with someone of the same sex.

Parliament shouldn’t say that same sex relationships are intrinsically worth less.

But I know many in this House have raised objections:

– Fear that their church or faith will be forced to hold same sex marriages when they don’t believe in it

– The belief that marriage by definition through the centuries is between a man and a woman

– The belief that at the heart of marriage is the biological procreation of children

– And the fear that by widening marriage it will undermine other relationships, stability and society

I disagree with each of these points, but I know they are held strongly by people whose views I very much respect so I want to address each of these in turn.

First the fear that churches will be expected to support same sex marriage.

They won’t have to.

We have a long tradition in Britain of respecting religious freedom – it is built into our law and traditions.
The number of clauses in this Bill which deal directly with religion is reflected in the decision of all parties to hold free votes on this Bill.

And freedom of religion is rightly protected on the face of this Bill as the Secretary of State has set out.

So no church or religious organisation can be required to conduct same sex marriages.

No individual minister can be required to conduct same sex marriages

If a religious organisation or an individual minister refuses to hold same sex marriages that won’t count as discrimination under the equality act

The Secretary of State has set out in some detail her double, triple, quadruple and quintuple locks.

She has padlock, Yale lock, bolt, chain and burglar alarm

She will agree too that the Churches should be able to change their minds in future, to support same sex marriage in future if they want to, without unnecessary hurdles and barriers.

The Church of England and the Church in Wales have additional hurdles built into this bill which we will need to scrutinise in committee.

For example, should the Church in Wales decide to support gay marriage in future, it would still be subject to a potential veto by the Lord Chancellor, and would still require a separate vote in both Houses of Parliament. I hope committee stage will discuss how far those additional locks are really needed.

There are further safeguards in Article 9 of the European Convention which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

And the European Court has deliberately set a wide margin of appreciation, allowing states to decide for themselves on same sex marriage;

It says “as matters stand, the questions whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is left to regulation by the national law of the contracting state.”

So freedom of religion rightly has strong protection in this bill

But religious freedom goes both ways.

Churches that object should not be required to sign up to same sex marriage.

But nor should they be able to block everyone else from doing so.

Because other people do want to.

Polling for Stonewall found the majority of people supported same sex marriage, and over 80% of under 50s – those most likely to get married – supporting same sex marriage.

Polls by YouGov and others have put support at between 50% and 70%

The Quakers, the Unitarians, the Reform Jews all want to be able to celebrate same sex marriages.

The Government originally ruled this out. We argued that religious marriages should be included if organisations want to and I welcome the Government’s change of heart.

Because let’s be clear:

No one group, organisation or faith owns marriage.

Religious organisations should not be required to hold same sex marriage

But nor – in the spirit of freedom of religion – should they prevent other religious organisations or the state from doing so.

Second some have argued that marriage by definition has always been between a man and a woman, it has been so for thousands of years and therefore should remain so now.

But it’s hardly surprising that for thousands of years same sex couples weren’t allowed to marry, when they weren’t even allowed to exist.

Same sex was illegal never mind same sex marriage.

Legal sex by definition had to be between a man and a woman – also for thousands of years, but no one says we should turn that clock back.

We should not hide discrimination by calling it definition instead

Marriage has changed many times over the centuries – and thank goodness.

For hundreds of years women were treated as men’s property in marriage – handed from their father to their husband, and denied rights of their own.

Until the 1990s women’s bodies were effectively treated as their husband’s property – if a husband raped his wife it wasn’t even a crime.

Civil marriage was introduced over 170 years ago – that was pretty radical at the time

Now 160,000 of us get married in a civil ceremony every year

Marriage has changed before and it should change again.

Third, some have said they oppose same sex marriage because they believe marriage is by definition about the procreation of children.

Not in civil marriage it isn’t – and it hasn’t been for over a century.

Many marriages are childless

We don’t stop people who are too old or to sick to have children from getting married

We don’t do fertility tests.

Yes in vast numbers of families, marriage is an important starting point for a loving family bringing up children.

But gay couples bring up children too.

And as people live longer, the family commitments involved in marriage are much wider than bringing up children.

Most MPs will know the sadness but also the inspriration they have drawn from visiting a married couple where for example the wife is now struggling to cope, struggling to remember the world around her and struggling to recognise even the husband she has shared decades of her life with. Yet he carries on. Cooking for her, washing her, getting her up, putting her to bed, talking to her even as she becomes a stranger in front of him.

That is marriage.

But I also visited a gay man who died some years ago, after a long illness in which he was cared for every day – at home, in hospital and eventually in a hospice – by his long term gay partner.

I don’t see why that can’t be marriage too

The idea that the biology of procreation should deny same sex couples the respect that comes with marriage, is to ignore the full richness, the happiness but also the tragedies of modern family life

For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health

That is marriage.

So finally for those who argue that extending marriage to include same sex couples will somehow weaken or undermine marriage and stability for everyone else – I profoundly disagree.

Marriage has changed many times before and society hasn’t collapsed.
Other countries are doing it. Their churches and their societies haven’t fallen apart.

Spain – Catholic Spain – has had same sex marriage since 2004.

Denmark, Belgium, Canada and Norway, Portugal, Argentina and South Africa all celebrate same sex marriage.

France, just last week, passed the first vote on the way to same sex marriage.

And the President of the United States of America in favour of gay marriage too.

If the same sex couples who’ve told me of their love for each other are able to get married, that won’t weaken marriage it will strengthen it.

It certainly won’t make it less likely that the heterosexual couple with kids who live next door to them will stay together.

If marriage is to stay relevant, to stay important and to remain a crucial part of our family and social relationships, then it also has to remain in tune with the values of every generation

And that means it should keep up with rightly changing attitudes towards homosexuality too.

Because the truth is that gay and lesbian couples have been locked out of too much for too long.

People locked up, or punished for loving someone of the same sex until the 1960s.

Gay men told by the Home Secretary in the fifties they were a “plague” on this country

Lesbian women forced to hide their relationships

Teenagers bullied at school with no protection

Teachers until the early nineties unable to tell the child of a same sex couple that their family was OK for fear it would break Section 28

So much has changed – and in a short time too.

Labour in government

– equalised the age of consent

– ended the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces

– made homophobia a hate crime

– outlawed discrimination in the workplace

– step by step

Things that were controversial at the time. Yet now they have widespread support.

That is why I am pleased that the vast majority of Labour MPs have said they will support this Bill today.

When civil partnerships were introduced, most of the Bishops in the Lords voted against.

Yet now Anglicans from such widely different traditions as the former Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries and the evangelical preacher Steve Chalke support blessings for same sex partnerships.

Soldiers and sailors now wear their uniforms in Gay Pride parades

We’ve come a long way.

And with each step forward the sky hasn’t fallen in, family life hasn’t fallen apart, the predictions passionate opponents made at the time simply haven’t come true.

And those opponents in the most part, have changed their minds and moved on.

I hope the same will be true again.

I hope the opponents today will look back in ten years and won’t be able to remember what the fuss was about.

Just as they did with civil partnerships.

So today, Let’s vote for people to be able to marry

For the sake of those couples who really want to wed

For the sake of the Quakers, the Unitarians and other religious organisations who want to celebrate same sex marriage as part of our respect for freedom of faith

For the sake of equality, removing unfair discrimination and challenging prejudice

And for the sake of marriage – to keep it inclusive and in touch for the next generation

In marriage lets celebrate not discriminate

Let’s be on the right side of history.

Let’s vote for this Bill today.

  • Octavian

    The Labour MPs who did not vote for the Gay Marriage Bill should be deselected as MPs and should resign in disgrace. Whatever mad talking fiery bush you want to believe in should never be a good reason for disenfranchising a whole group of people. Shame on you all. I’d be ashamed to be Christian if you were one.

  • pj

    What is intended as a new equality for gay people could end up being an instrument of oppression for others. Freedoms such as freedom of conscience and allowing difference of opinion are surely democratic values. Considerable doubt has emerged about the Government’s proposed guarantees that churches and mosques and other religions won’t be forced to conduct gay weddings against their will, and that teachers and others won’t get the sack, if they cannot in conscience teach some material they could be asked to. Legal opinion is far from united on these guarantees. Due to these doubts, maybe this should be voted against.

  • Jeremy_Preece

    ” I understand some in this House are strongly opposed to this bill and I respect their views although I disagree with them.

    And I hope that is the spirit in which this debate will take place today.”
    Let’s hope so, and let’s hope that there really is respect in the house, in the Labour Party and across the board, for those of us who are stronly opposed to this bill.

    • Jeremy_Preece

      So the negative vote I see here is one in favour of intolerance. There is so much intolerance and bigotry about isn’t there!

  • pj

    What
    is intended as a new equality for gay people could end up being an instrument
    of oppression for others. Freedoms such
    as freedom of conscience and allowing difference are surely democratic values. Considerable
    doubt has emerged whether the Government’s proposed guarantees that churches
    and mosques and other religions won’t be forced to conduct gay weddings against
    their will, and that teachers and others won’t get the sack, if they cannot in
    conscience teach some material they could be asked to. Due to these doubts, maybe this should be
    voted against.

  • rekrab

    If the future is about a balance of equality, then can we expect women to serve on the frontline of any future conflicts or at least 5 women in the first team squad of Man Utd?

  • Monkey_Bach

    I would have found this concern more plausible if drippy Yvette Cooper hadn’t put so many gay and lesbian (as well as every other kind of) disabled and sick people through the wringer and the mill via the invidious welfare reforms she pushed through when Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Whatever this woman says is dictated more by fashion than conviction. I wish there were fewer people like Yvette Cooper in the upper echelons of the Labour Party. Eeek.

  • Pingback: Gay marriage is great, but divorce is better. | Girls Can't Dance Alone

Latest

  • News Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Labour have spoken out about complaints that Fiona Woolf QC, head of the public inquiry into historical sex abuse, has links with Leon Brittan. Brittan was the home secretary at the time when the dossier about alleged pedophiles went missing. And Woolf, who is also Lord Mayor of London, admitted yesterday that since 2008 she had dinner with Brittan and his family on five separate occasions but she has said she has “no close association” with him. A number of Labour MPs […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    Here we are again. Another week, another Wednesday, and another wrangle between Cameron and Miliband about the NHS. This is getting a bit old. Cameron attempted to get Miliband on the back foot – he kicked off PMQs by posing questions to the Labour leader about the Welsh NHS. Rather predictably, the rest of PMQs descended into the two party leaders arguing about who can be more trusted with the NHS. But, there was something a little more sinister about […]

    Read more →
  • Comment There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    A couple of weeks ago saw the UK elect for the first time a UKIP MP – Douglas Carswell, with a huge majority of 12,000 votes. UKIP made enormous strides in the safe Labour seat of Heywood & Middleton as well, reducing the Labour majority from 5,971 to 617. This rise in the ‘acceptable’ far right should be a cause of concern not just to the Tories but also to us. It is clear from these results there is no […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    The result in Heywood and Middleton may have shocked some people, but not all. Some warned this could happen after UKIP took or seriously challenged safe council seats in the north, topped the national vote at the Euros, and polled strongly in Labour areas. Their highest average share of the vote in the 2014 elections came in Labour areas like Rotherham, Mansfield and Hartlepool. We’re told if we campaign on the “issues” people will come back to Labour. This fails […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Last night Young Labour voted on whether or not to come out in support of the free education demonstration set to take place on the 19th November. Reports suggest, they voted against the motion. This result could easily be interpreted as another sign that the argument against tuition fees is dead in the water. In reality, it tells us that opposite is true. The very fact that this was a topic for discussion at Young Labour’s national committee, that there […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y