MP Peter Luff backs gay marriage bill

Worcester News: IN FAVOUR: Peter Luff IN FAVOUR: Peter Luff

DROITWICH Spa’s MP voted in favour of the Government’s same sex marriage bill when it was put before the House of Commons.

MPs voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill by a margin of 400 to 175, with a majority of 225 on February 5.

Amongst those voting for the bill was Mid-Worcestershire MP Peter Luff.

But more Conservative MPs voted against the bill than in favour, 136 to 126, with 41 abstentions.

MPs were given a free vote on the bill, which meant party whips did not order them to vote a particular way.

Mr Luff said: “I am clear we should encourage and celebrate the public declaration of loving commitment that is expressed in marriage. Society is stronger and individuals are happier as a result of such commitment.

“This has not been an easy decision because I genuinely respect the deeply held feelings of many of my older constituents. I have, however, concluded that the right thing to do is to celebrate loving commitment between adults, and that makes a vote for the principle of the bill the only course of action I can take.

“I recognise the specific concerns that churches and teachers who strongly oppose this change may feel inadequately protected, but I have received strong reassurances from the minister responsible on these issues. I am confident that full protection will be possible within the legislation.”

Although the bill was supported at second reading stage, it now faces further parliamentary scrutiny and with predictions it will receive substantial opposition when it arrives in the House of Lords.

If the bill becomes law same-sex couples, currently able to enter civil partnerships, will be allowed to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies.

The consent of a religious institution would be needed though, before any religious ceremony could be held.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:56pm Wed 6 Feb 13

psychoflump says...

I see Harriet Baldwin didn't bother to turn up. Must get painful, sitting on that fence.
I see Harriet Baldwin didn't bother to turn up. Must get painful, sitting on that fence. psychoflump

7:44pm Wed 6 Feb 13

TDH123 says...

And Mr Luffs mandate for voting contrary to the vast majority of constituency opinion was what . . . ??
Walker did the same and will no longer receive my vote. Good news for UKIP - what has happened to the Tory party??
And Mr Luffs mandate for voting contrary to the vast majority of constituency opinion was what . . . ?? Walker did the same and will no longer receive my vote. Good news for UKIP - what has happened to the Tory party?? TDH123

10:18pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Stephen Brown says...

Voted contrary to the vast majority? What?
Based on what opinion poll exactly given the majority is actually in favour of same sex marriage?
Judging by how most Tories voted, it seems too many in the Tory Party are still an unwelcome throwback. Worse, ruled by a cabinet of millionaires out of touch with the real world. This is 2013 not 1913.
Well done Mr Luff for at least being in the 21st century!

Good news for UKIP - why so? They champion the same kind of pro free-market no regulation policies that have caused a world wide recession. Yea, some alternative that is. Don't stop them having their noses in the MEP cash-trough like all the rest of them either does it?
Voted contrary to the vast majority? What? Based on what opinion poll exactly given the majority is actually in favour of same sex marriage? Judging by how most Tories voted, it seems too many in the Tory Party are still an unwelcome throwback. Worse, ruled by a cabinet of millionaires out of touch with the real world. This is 2013 not 1913. Well done Mr Luff for at least being in the 21st century! Good news for UKIP - why so? They champion the same kind of pro free-market no regulation policies that have caused a world wide recession. Yea, some alternative that is. Don't stop them having their noses in the MEP cash-trough like all the rest of them either does it? Stephen Brown

6:38am Thu 7 Feb 13

TDH123 says...

Britain, then Great, in 1913 was a far better place than in 2013.
A society, I would suggest, where far higher standards of courtesy, decency, common values and responsibilities prevailed. The present bill, if it becomes law, will certainly not result in equality - heterosexuals not being entitled to enter into a civil partnership.
Britain, then Great, in 1913 was a far better place than in 2013. A society, I would suggest, where far higher standards of courtesy, decency, common values and responsibilities prevailed. The present bill, if it becomes law, will certainly not result in equality - heterosexuals not being entitled to enter into a civil partnership. TDH123

7:27am Thu 7 Feb 13

The Doosra says...

TDH123 wrote:
Britain, then Great, in 1913 was a far better place than in 2013.
A society, I would suggest, where far higher standards of courtesy, decency, common values and responsibilities prevailed. The present bill, if it becomes law, will certainly not result in equality - heterosexuals not being entitled to enter into a civil partnership.
You can prove this I take it. Please quote your sources.
[quote][p][bold]TDH123[/bold] wrote: Britain, then Great, in 1913 was a far better place than in 2013. A society, I would suggest, where far higher standards of courtesy, decency, common values and responsibilities prevailed. The present bill, if it becomes law, will certainly not result in equality - heterosexuals not being entitled to enter into a civil partnership.[/p][/quote]You can prove this I take it. Please quote your sources. The Doosra

7:42am Thu 7 Feb 13

denon says...

Seem to recall women could not vote in 1913 and were dying for the right of the franchise.

The offence and outrage caused by the1857 Matrimonial Causes Act and the 1937 Matrimonial Causes Act both of which resulted in easier divorces and gave women some opportunity to initiate divorce poloraised society just as much as this new act. The Church of England the Catholic Church the Mothers Union all mounted campaigns to oppose the Act

There are still some people and groups opposed to divorce but the split in society has largely melted away.

I do recall my grandparents being aghast if someone they knew was divorced

Will this happen for this act?
Seem to recall women could not vote in 1913 and were dying for the right of the franchise. The offence and outrage caused by the1857 Matrimonial Causes Act and the 1937 Matrimonial Causes Act both of which resulted in easier divorces and gave women some opportunity to initiate divorce poloraised society just as much as this new act. The Church of England the Catholic Church the Mothers Union all mounted campaigns to oppose the Act There are still some people and groups opposed to divorce but the split in society has largely melted away. I do recall my grandparents being aghast if someone they knew was divorced Will this happen for this act? denon

9:26am Thu 7 Feb 13

TDH123 says...

The Doosra wrote:
TDH123 wrote:
Britain, then Great, in 1913 was a far better place than in 2013.
A society, I would suggest, where far higher standards of courtesy, decency, common values and responsibilities prevailed. The present bill, if it becomes law, will certainly not result in equality - heterosexuals not being entitled to enter into a civil partnership.
You can prove this I take it. Please quote your sources.
Firstly, I have a doctorate in British Socio-Economic history and secondly, in relation to the unequal opportunities afforded to heterosexuals, I refer you to s.3 (1) (a) Civil Partnership Act, 2004.
[quote][p][bold]The Doosra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TDH123[/bold] wrote: Britain, then Great, in 1913 was a far better place than in 2013. A society, I would suggest, where far higher standards of courtesy, decency, common values and responsibilities prevailed. The present bill, if it becomes law, will certainly not result in equality - heterosexuals not being entitled to enter into a civil partnership.[/p][/quote]You can prove this I take it. Please quote your sources.[/p][/quote]Firstly, I have a doctorate in British Socio-Economic history and secondly, in relation to the unequal opportunities afforded to heterosexuals, I refer you to s.3 (1) (a) Civil Partnership Act, 2004. TDH123

11:55am Thu 7 Feb 13

Mary79 says...

clearly an education wasted then on you tdh123 because if you have a doctorate you know you should reference your sources to support an argument rather than just more or less say 'i am intelligent'...which is debateable given your comments.
clearly an education wasted then on you tdh123 because if you have a doctorate you know you should reference your sources to support an argument rather than just more or less say 'i am intelligent'...which is debateable given your comments. Mary79

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree