What did Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland), Vote?

[papastour]

It would appear Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland), based on the report in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/05/gay-marriage-gay-rights

 

Our MP in LONDON voted FOR GAY MARRIAGE,HETRO-SEXUAL, Bi-SEXUAL, TRANSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

 

I wrote to him by email asking him How he was going to vote, and he did not reply

 

Copy of my letter as follows with promises to keep my side of the deal

 

Dea Sir

 

I am against altering the definition of marriage, as I believe it is not correct to consider Male and Male, Female and Female as being married. Please can you answer my questions in a non political ambiguous way.

Yes or No would be good on many answers to my questions

 

Let me be clear

 

1. I WILL remember if you vote for this Bill.

 

2. I WILL hold you to account for it.

 

3. I WILL tell all my friends and family and to all the public in Shetland Islands your views and how you acted.

 

What do you think should be done to protect ordinary people (not just churches/ministers/clerics) who believe in traditional marriage?

 

Should a teacher be sacked for refusing to endorse gay marriage in the classroom?

 

If parents who disagree with redefining marriage should they be banned from withdrawing children from school lessons which endorse gay marriage?

 

Do you believe NHS/university/armed forces chaplain should lose their job for supporting traditional marriage?

 

Should couples be banned from fostering children if they disagree with gay marriage?

 

Do you agree with the European Court recently ruled that public sector workers can be forced to act against their sincere beliefs about marriage?

 

Should churches should be thrown out of council-run village halls if they refuse to conduct gay weddings.

 

Papa Stour

[owre-weel]

It would appear Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland), based on the report in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/05/gay-marriage-gay-rights

 

Our MP in LONDON voted FOR GAY MARRIAGE,HETRO-SEXUAL, Bi-SEXUAL, TRANSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

 

I wrote to him by email asking him How he was going to vote, and he did not reply

 

Copy of my letter as follows with promises to keep my side of the deal

 

Dea Sir

 

I am against altering the definition of marriage, as I believe it is not correct to consider Male and Male, Female and Female as being married. Please can you answer my questions in a non political ambiguous way.

Yes or No would be good on many answers to my questions

 

Let me be clear

 

1. I WILL remember if you vote for this Bill.

 

2. I WILL hold you to account for it.

 

3. I WILL tell all my friends and family and to all the public in Shetland Islands your views and how you acted.

 

What do you think should be done to protect ordinary people (not just churches/ministers/clerics) who believe in traditional marriage?

 

Should a teacher be sacked for refusing to endorse gay marriage in the classroom?

 

If parents who disagree with redefining marriage should they be banned from withdrawing children from school lessons which endorse gay marriage?

 

Do you believe NHS/university/armed forces chaplain should lose their job for supporting traditional marriage?

 

Should couples be banned from fostering children if they disagree with gay marriage?

 

Do you agree with the European Court recently ruled that public sector workers can be forced to act against their sincere beliefs about marriage?

 

Should churches should be thrown out of council-run village halls if they refuse to conduct gay weddings.

 

Papa Stour

I'm not surprised he didn't bother replying

[papastour]

‘No’ vote was strong, there’s all to play for

 

 

We always said the crucial thing about yesterday’s vote would be the strength of the ‘no’ vote. Before the vote, the media was speculating that we might get 130, or possibly 150 votes. We surpassed those expectations and got 175.

 

Together with abstentions and stay-aways, it means fully one third of the Commons did not back the Bill last night. And more Tories voted against it than for it.

 

That’s a serious blow to the Prime Minister, which is why this morning’s newspapers have focused on the strength of the ‘no’ vote.

 

 

Although Labour and the Tories promised a ‘free vote’, there have been reports of severe behind-the-scenes pressure put on MPs by the hierarchy of both parties. That is shameful, but well done to those brave MPs who resisted the arm-twisting.

 

Even supporters of the Bill spoke about the shocking way the issue is being rammed through Parliament with unseemly haste. Others said the Bill doesn’t go far enough because they want civil partnerships opened up to straight couples – a move that could cost the taxpayer £5bn.

 

There will be further votes and speeches in the Commons before the Bill moves on to the House of Lords. Last night’s strong ‘no’ vote will embolden the Lords, where the voting arithmetic is very different to the Commons.

 

Last night’s vote was important, and I am pleased that we achieved a very strong ‘no’ vote. The opposition to the Government’s plans has shocked Westminster insiders, and that opposition is growing.

 

There’s all to play for, and we will be contacting supporters soon with news on how to take the campaign forward.

 

To see a list of how MPs voted, click here

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Colin Hart

Campaign Director

Coalition for Marriage

[unlinkedstudent]

OP, Are you referring to marriage or civil partnership as the two are different?

 

If two gays want a civil partnership, let them.

 

If two people of the opposite sex want a civil partnership (NOT currently allowed) then they should be allowed to have one. Not everyone wants to be married but might want the state to recognise the fact that they do consider themselves to be a couple.

 

If two gays want to get married then provided that opposite sex civil partnerships are allowed, let them.

 

The law is an ass.

[paulb]

or when the bill has become law. remove civil partnerships. equality means just that.

 

i really don't mind what a couple do its their affair. however we know this wont end with the right to marry. the antis will become targets for the militant gay groups to start law cases. can you imagine that stonewall will just stop.

[Coyote]

however we know this wont end with the right to marry. the antis will become targets for the militant gay groups to start law cases.

 

Absolutely. I have always seen gays as political pawns for larger interests that are more about the dissolution of the family and religion. I think nothing of the "gay lifestyle", but the bigger villains are those who throw political clout behind them, such as population control groups and militant anti-religion atheists. This gay marriage "win" won't be enjoyed for long as the political partners of the gay movement turn the tables in the coming all-out war against ALL marriage and familial bonds. In a larger irony to the pathetic pawns, be careful who you slip into bed with!

[papastour]

Just been sent this short video clip on Why traditional marriage is important

 

 

I see Elton John (aged 63)and husbad David Furnish is trying to adopt another child.

These chidren may never know the love of a Mother.

 

A New Baby for Xmas!!

 

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1654959/elton-john-husband-welcome-new-son.jhtml

[Distortio]

It would appear Alistair Carmichael ... voted FOR GAY MARRIAGE,HETRO-SEXUAL, Bi-SEXUAL, TRANSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

 

Copy of my letter as follows with promises to keep my side of the deal

 

your side of the deal? do you think that because you've gone to the trouble of turning your froth into print you've entered into some kind of sacred covenant with your MP? (i hope that doesn't sound too gay for you).

 

also it would appear from your caps lock rage you appear to be objecting to all forms of marriage. that's an interesting idea, but i suspect you just got carried away with yourself before you'd even started putting brain to paper and spurted a load of mindporridge at the thought of anything sexual having any place in the world. (you are aware that the church says heterosexual marriage is ok, yes? just checking.)

 

What do you think should be done to protect ordinary people (not just churches/ministers/clerics) who believe in traditional marriage?

 

why would they need protecting? you can believe in whatever you like.

 

Let me be clear

 

1. I WILL remember if you vote for this Bill.

 

2. I WILL hold you to account for it.

 

3. I WILL tell all my friends and family and to all the public in Shetland Islands your views and how you acted.

 

etc etc etc...

 

i'd say the chances of a rampaging hoard of gays breaking into your house and marrying you against your will are slim at best.

 

methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[papastour]

You could be right

My lap top keys are sticking.

Lets hope we get a healthy THINKING on the subject, but at least we have Freedom to Think and Vote, which is more than some MPs get the chance, without a half nelson up the back

[Fatal Paper Cut]

Good for Alistair Carmichael.

[Sudden Stop]

OP, for what it's worth, I agree with the points you made in your letter however the 'threats' (for want of a better word) turned me away from wanting to side with you. I suspect that any recipient of a letter written with that tone would also have a negative reaction to it.

 

To me, Marriage is a religious act/ceremony and therefore shouldn't be allowed for a non-religious couple. Civil partnerships are, to me, the appriopriate event for gay couples to demonstrate their public commitment to each other.

 

Emotive subjects such as this are always going to be hard to discuss but please, everyone, try to stay civil.

[unlinkedstudent]

or when the bill has become law. remove civil partnerships. equality means just that.

 

i really don't mind what a couple do its their affair. however we know this wont end with the right to marry. the antis will become targets for the militant gay groups to start law cases. can you imagine that stonewall will just stop.

 

The gay rights groups are campaigning not just for gay marriage but also for opposite sex civil partnerships too.

 

When civil partnership legislation was passed in Scotland, they changed the law for the rights of those opposite sex couples living together; in other words, they did away with 'common law marriages'. Why should hetrosexuals be forced to enter a traditionally religious based ceremony just for the state to recognise that they care about each other and be officially recognised as a couple? Why can't hetrosexuals have a civil partnership?

 

As to the poster who mentioned something along the lines of 'be careful who you get in bed with' - since when does a relationship have to be sexual? Think about it.

 

As to marriage being mentioned in the bible - which version are we referring to? Which translation? Man lies next to woman? Man lying next to a woman doesn't immediately translate to marriage. Where is the wording of the marriage ceremony in the bible, the precise wording? Oh yes, the same book which talks about giving your daughter to visiting men (rape?), stoning children, having wars with neighbouring countries, etc. And we want to base laws based on those stories?

 

What about poly families? Are they covered in this legislation too?

 

The state shouldn't dictate what relationships are recognised; people should have the choice. We shouldn't exclude people just because of their genitals.

[unlinkedstudent]

‘Others said the Bill doesn’t go far enough because they want civil partnerships opened up to straight couples – a move that could cost the taxpayer £5bn.

 

How would it cost the tax payer £5 billion?

 

No mention then of the extra dosh coming into local authorities' coffers from those wanting to participate in civil partnerships then eh?

[Fatal Paper Cut]

 

To me, Marriage is a religious act/ceremony and therefore shouldn't be allowed for a non-religious couple.

 

What, so heterosexual atheists can't get married?

 

We allow heterosexual couples to get married in a registry office. It's fully recognised in law as marriage, so the religious aspect is a bit of a misnomer. A Civil Partnership is - to all intents & purposes - marriage. So why can't we just call it what it is? Marriage. Why should that be a special term for hetero couples only?

[exciseman]

This Bill doesn't apply in Scotland so perhaps he shouldn't have voted?