A superb letter to Karl McCartney M.P. for Lincoln by Alice Nutting and Nathan Akehurst of Lincoln University LGBT Society

Click here for Karl McCartney's reply.

Dear Karl

We are writing to express our disappointment at your response to a constituent's letter regarding the issue of gay marriage. We understand that you felt your comments were taken out of context, but having accessed the letter in full we still stand by our convictions that they were illogical and unacceptable.

You claim that the LGBTQ community has “exhausted the cause of equal rights”, which would have had more gravitas if they had managed to achieve legal equality, yet surely this debate proves that this is not the case. Instead you actively oppose their opportunity to gain equal marriage rights. It is interesting that you feel marriage equality will “harm the progress that has been already been made for very little gain” and that you know how “the majority of people in same sex relationships” feel about the issue. How exactly will progress be damaged and how, as a heterosexual married man, do you feel that you can speak for the LGBTQ community and tell them what is best for them?

You also claim that “many of the general public in our country are not on your side in this regard”. This is irrelevant because it is a basic tenet of modern democracy that the majority should not dictate the rights of a minority or underrepresented group in society. If majority rule had been applied during the 20th century, desegregation in the US would not have taken place and women would not have gained the right to vote in New Zealand in 1893, an act in defiance of convention of not only a national majority but also global practice. Incidentally many women chose not to use their vote at first so the majority were not affected by the change; this did not make it any less significant or necessary, so I do not accept your argument that because gay marriage “would possibly affect only a few thousand people every year” it should not be legalised. All consenting adults should have the same marriage rights and opportunities.

While it is true that many Christians are not comfortable with the concept of gay marriage, the UK practices freedom of religion and therefore freedom from religion. If a person believes that gay marriage is immoral, they have a right to abstain from it; but why should people who don’t share those beliefs be forced to comply with them when nobody else is affected by their union? Taking offence at something does not mean that it should be prohibited. By that argument, interracial marriages would be outlawed for offending racists. You must surely understand the personal and spiritual significance which being married in a church holds for Christians, yet you wish to deny homosexual Christians that right. It is bizarre that you have chosen to act on personal religious convictions since there was no mention of this in your manifesto and you were not elected to represent only yourself. Far from being committed to either a sense of 'the national interest' or of 'representation of the majority', your framework of policy formulation seems to consist of selectively presenting a falsely-constructed political justification for acting upon ideology and personal belief in defiance of the spirit of the elective mandate.

Although Christian tradition is still prevalent in this country, many of these traditions are now considered reactionary and outdated by Christians and non-Christians alike. After all, there is strong opposition to birth control from many religious groups: should we, therefore, prohibit its use in keeping with ‘tradition’? I refer you to the comments made today by the Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam, the Bishop of Salisbury, who argued that the six Biblical passages referring to homosexuality have been interpreted in different ways within the church and compared bishops opposing marriage reforms to 18th century Christians who believed slavery was “God-given”. It would be unfair to ignore the stance of the Quakers, the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, the think tank Ekklesia, the Catholic group Quest, and the numerous individual Christians who support marriage equality. Marriage may have originated as a religious union, but the idea of marriage is now a public domain concept, and exclusion of a swathe of the citizenry from the right to it is discriminatory. There is no way to claim otherwise.

Furthermore, your argument that legalising gay marriage could somehow endanger marriage as a construct, resulting in child marriages and polygamy, is based on a total logical fallacy. In reality it no more guarantees this possibility than heterosexual marriage. LGBTQ people are, like their heterosexual counterparts, consenting adults. These bizarre claims are also undermined by the fact that marriage equality has not resulted in child marriages and polygamy in the countries where it is already legal, including Norway, the Netherlands, and Canada, and in certain states in the US, a country with a higher proportion of Christians than our own. A 'thin end of the wedge' argument can be made when the legislation passed has expansion inbuilt into it - for instance, the 2012 Health and Social Care Act or the 1988 Teaching and Higher Education Act. It cannot be applied when a practice is legalised with specific boundaries, i.e. the extension of marriage to LGBTQ people.

We exist in an increasingly progressive society; a backward-looking tenacious attachment to tradition for tradition's sake on this issue is at best strangely parochial and at worst actively homophobic. A policy change from you on this would be a step forward for a parliament supportive of a fair, equal and tolerant Britain - surely something individuals of all political affiliations can agree is a noble end.

Yours sincerely

Alice Nutting and Nathan Akehurst

Reply By Karl McCartney to Alice and Nathan. Reproduced with permission.
Alice's comments in brackets.

Dear Miss Nutting and Mr Akehurst

Many thanks for your email of 23 April. Your email was one of the more reasonable and intelligently argued that I have received from people who disagree with me on this issue. However, I profoundly disagree that my views are illogical and unacceptable.

I strongly feel that society is made stronger by people's commitment to one another and when we make vows to each other. I also support the commitment and love between individuals, regardless of their sex and gender and feel that it should be encouraged, supported and celebrated. I believe civil partnerships do this and no one has as yet explained convincingly the difference between a civil partnership and a gay marriage.

[If they're so similar, why does he oppose one and not the other?]

I do firmly believe, furthermore, that no institution should be forced to perform a 'same sex marriage' against the will of that institution, whether it be a religious one or otherwise and. [nice grammar, Karl] Marriage in my belief is widely seen as a religious union and I will always support my long held Christian and mainstream English views on this matter.

[As far as I am aware churches would not be forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies if it was legalised. Many individuals within the church would be more than happy to perform ceremonies for those denied one by their local priest or vicar]

You will be aware of the Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone MP's 'consultation' currently taking place. As I have said before, even someone who had no feelings either way would not consider this a neutral consultation as it presumes an action, requesting opinions on 'how to' not 'whether it is an action that should be taken at all'.

[As I pointed out in my letter to him, gay marriage is not an issue that should be open to public consultation because in a modern democracy the view of the majority should not dictate the rights of a minority or marginalised group. Laurel also mentioned that a truly neutral opinion would not be able to ask the question of whether gay marriage should be legalised at all and that the question of gay equality has been asked for several decades - we now have to move on rather than being stuck in the same position]

I hope this clarifies my position for you and many thanks, again, for contacting me.

[I now feel even more baffled after reading this. The bulk of his argument was irrelevant because individuals within the church would not be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies and he's basically argued that civil partnerships and marriages are the same - if this is the case, why does he oppose gay marriage? Clearly the difference is that marriages can be religious, but of course Karl doesn't spare a thought for the millions of gay Christians who would like to marry in a church, because obviously their Christian convictions are less relevant than his...]