MP was representing the majority

12:36pm Wednesday 6th March 2013 in Postbag

I WAS disappointed to read your correspondent’s suggestion that I do not represent my constituents equally (Postbag, February 28).

All MPs have a duty to represent all their constituents, regardless of whether they agree with them or not.

Since my election, I have always been happy to represent individual views to government ministers, and take up individual cases – and will continue to do so. I do this equally for those who voted for me, and those who did not.

However, as the MP for Salisbury I have a responsibility to vote on legislation, though inevitably some constituents will disagree with the decisions I make. MPs cannot abstain from every vote.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in particular was not in our manifesto, and was a conscience (nonwhipped) vote. However, for the record, Ms Cranmer may be interested to learn that I received approximately 1,010 individual representations from constituents against the Bill and just 25 asking me to vote in favour.

JOHN GLEN MP 

I AM interested in Tina Cranmer’s letter in the Journal. I wonder if she is aware of John Glen’s Christian principals ably suggested in his brilliant speech in the House of Commons recently or in the meaning of the word marriage.

DIANA GIFFORD-MEAD, Berwick St James

REGARDING the letter from Tina Crammer, maybe MP John Glen is simply following the vast majority’s wishes by voting against gay marriage, and Tina Cranmer simply does not believe in free speech or thinks that anyone that does not follow her views is wrong.

KEN MCKEAN, Hanging Langford

CONTRARY to what Tina Cranmer said about John Glen MP, we are extremely fortunate to have a member of parliament who is prepared to speak and vote against the Prime Minister on a moral issue.

This takes guts and integrity, and he should be applauded for making a stand against the redefining of marriage to suit a handful of equality fanatics.

MALCOLM READ, West Grimstead

Comments(11)

karlmarx says...
1:36pm Wed 6 Mar 13

"MP was representing the majority"

No he wasn't...

Salisbury election results 2010...

Conservative 23,859
Non-Conservative 24,622

He was representing himself
Quote:
"The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in particular was not in our manifesto, and was a conscience (nonwhipped) vote"

Report this post »

Sustainer says...
3:12pm Wed 6 Mar 13

He represented the vast majority of people who felt strongly enought to contact him about the issue.

Report this post »

Grampie says...
4:50pm Thu 7 Mar 13

The catholic church handed out one million postcards over the January 26-27 weekend

The postcards were designed to be filled in and sent to local members of Parliament, asking them to vote against the bill gay marriage bill.

http://www.speroforu
m.com/a/XVAUDDHVAZ15
/73559-UK-Catholic-C
hurch-steps-up-publi
c-campaign-against-s
amesex-marriage

I would like to know how many of these postcards Mr Glen received.

I cannot believe that 1000 constituents really cared one way or another.

Having 25 letters of support is a good number, given the hysteria created by those who are homophobic, not saying that Mr Glen is, and those who consider themselves to be religious.

The bill hurts nobody, but gives people the chance to be equal with heterosexual couples.

Mr Glen voted for the abolition of the Agricultural wages board, which will lead to a loss of wages to a lot of his constituents and that wasn't in his party's manifesto either.

However, those farmers and landowners who put up "Vote for John Glen" posters in their fields will be better off as they do not have to give their workers a decent wage.

Report this post »

Dr S Brule says...
9:33am Tue 12 Mar 13

Not suprised salisbury is homophobic - still got that old school market town shadow

Report this post »

Daveygreensleeves says...
6:32pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Well done for standing up for the majority Mr Glen. It was inevitable that anyone who dares to say anything against homosexuals would be called a homophobe. I agree that the Christian faith should not be changed, after all, it is thousands of years old.

Could you see believers of Islam rolling over and accepting same sex marriage? There would be worldwide outcry, so why is it felt that the majority should give in to the minority with regards to same sex marriage in Christian churches?

Obviously I am expecting to receive the usual "homophobe" comments, used by people who cannot put a valid argument forward.

Report this post »

Dr S Brule says...
9:46am Wed 13 Mar 13

Not everybody that disagrees with gay marriage is a homophobe - it depends on the arguement. Most of the time, however, there isn't really any arguement, just talk of "redifining" and other falicious appeals to tradition that mask the attitude of "ewww gay people"

But to get to it...

1) Marriage is not a christian invention - it, or a similar ritual, occurs across most cultures regardless of religion
2) A law should not be based on religious definition
3) "seperate but equal" is not equal at all
4) Churches are not being forced to ordain gay marriages...
5) ... and even then, some of them would be happy to

If the law is to be defined on any religious model, this violates the principle of freedom FROM religion.

If the legal definition of marriage is to be restricted to same-sex couples, this violates the principle of freedom OF religion


Could you see believers of Islam rolling over and accepting same sex marriage? - some, yes, but most probably wouldn't. This doesn't really effect the arguement does it? I think it is correct to criticise both Islam and Christainity (at the end of the day, they aren't so different...)

Report this post »

Daveygreensleeves says...
11:17am Wed 13 Mar 13

So what is all the fuss about same sex marriages? What is wrong with civil partnerships? Do they not give the same rights as a heterosexual married couple?

Report this post »

Dr S Brule says...
12:23pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Civil Partnerships provide the same rights as marriage - you are well aware of this so why pose it as a question?

The "fuss" regarding same sex marriage is about having equal representation under the law, and indeed, couples wanting to get married. Please refer to point 3 in my above post.

You say "the christian faith" (and by this I assume you mean christian traditions of marriage) should not be changed. What are you thoughts on divorce? Should it be illegal?
Which particular Christian school of thought do you apply to your beliefs on marriage? Complementarianism? Egalitarianism?

I've answered your question, now if you could be so kind to address the 5 points I made above?

Cheers

Report this post »

Dr S Brule says...
2:02pm Wed 13 Mar 13

...bumping this to reach the "most commented" section again lest Mr Greensleeves misses it

Report this post »

Daveygreensleeves says...
5:34pm Wed 13 Mar 13

If civil partnerships provide the same rights as marriage, then there is no debate. The same sex marriage bill is just another excuse to complain about how hard done to gay people are.

I am not getting into a big argument about pro's and cons of divorce, what school of thought etc.

I merely commented on this post to say well done to Mr. Glen for standing up for the majority!

As I expected, the subject is now being diverted down a different route.

Report this post »

Dr S Brule says...
11:12am Thu 14 Mar 13

You are phrasing the debate in your own terms. The debate was is whether or not same sex couples receive the same recognition in law as same sex couples.

As for the rest, you said:

"I agree that the Christian faith should not be changed, after all, it is thousands of years old."

But you refuse to debate the points I made.

I stopped sticking my fingers in my ears and going "lalalalala" before my years reached the double figures.

It appears you have not.

Report this post »

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