The Bill, which is supposed to make marriage 'equal' does not actually do that. The Bill does not propose one equal definition of marriage in law, but instead proposes two different definitions of marriage, one that will apply to opposite sex couples and one that will apply to same sex who choose to marry. That simply is not acceptable. The Bill as currently drafted will lead to a legal reality where a heterosexual marriage has to be "consummated", in other words that for it to be a binding legal contract, the couple have to have sex (at least once) and that if it can be proved that they have not done so, one party can have the contract declared void (annulled). Yet this will not be the case for same sex couples. Secondly, the Bill as currently drafted also specifies that adultery shall remain a reason for legal dissolution of the marriage for opposite sex couples, but not for same sex couples. So the reality is that this Bill as drafted does not even deliver what the Government is seeking to achieve, which is an equal form of marriage for same sex and heterosexual couples. The other area in which the Bill fails to deliver equal rights is that it fails to simultaneously deal with civil partnerships which will lead to an unequal and unfair system that gives the option to same sex but not opposite sex couples. I also believe this is a significant flaw it the Bill and the logic behind it.
I also believe that, as currently drafted, there remain concerns about protecting freedom of conscience, allowing people to express different views of what marriage means and also what they believe is right and wrong in this regard. This is of concern to me as a liberal who beliefs in freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, two founding principles of the liberal political movement. To be clear, the issue of concern is not, as has been suggested in many emails, about whether churches could be forced to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies, it is about whether those who believe in a religious form of marriage will any longer be able to say so in positions in (particularly) public sector organisations where doing so may be deemed to breach equality policies which therefore could be a valid reason for disciplinary action and dismissal. I appreciate that Ministers and civil servants have worked hard to try to deal with the freedom of conscience issue, but this remains an area of concern as expressed by lawyers expert in the field - and we need to realise that if lawyers have different interpretations of the implications of the proposed law, they are not cut and dried. So I am seeking reassurances on this and will support any sensible amendments that will protect people's freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, which I am sure you will agree is vital (and I would hope would be the case for people on both sides of the debate).