Andrew Turner confirms he voted against the Gay Marriage Bill

MP confirmed he voted against the Gay Marriage Bill last night and releases a statement about the ‘emotive’ vote.

Andrew Turner

Following yesterday’s vote in Parliament on gay marriage, this in from Andrew Turner’s office. In their own words. Ed


The Island’s MP Andrew Turner has commented on the Same Sex Marriage Vote which was held yesterday evening in the Commons. The Bill received 400 votes in support and 175 against – a number of MPs abstained and some registered a ‘positive abstention’ by voting in both the Yes and the No lobbies. Mr Turner voted against the Bill.

Commenting this morning he said: “Last night’s debate was largely conducted in a measured and respectful way – the House of Commons is often at its best when it is most thoughtful. I was particularly struck by something said by Sir Tony Baldry during the debate :

“I am confident that we are all created in the image of God, whether we be straight, gay, bisexual, or transsexual. We are all equally worthy in God’s sight and equally loved by God. I am also sure that we are and should be equally welcome at God’s table. But equalness does not always equate with being the same.”

“I fully endorse those sentiments and I hope many others can do so. This is an emotive and divisive issue with feelings running high on all sides – but I hope that debate on the Island and elsewhere can be conducted with respect for other people’s points of view. Both sides claim a majority who support them – they cannot both be right!”

Lack of a democratic mandate
“I remain concerned about the lack of a democratic mandate for this proposal – not a single MP in the House of Commons was elected on a promise to bring this measure in.

“Gay Marriage would bring about a fundamental change to our society – on that I hope all sides can agree. The debate yesterday was subject to a parliamentary device called a programme motion – which greatly restricts the time it can be debated. This Bill will now move through its various stages then move to the House of Lords where debate cannot be cut short in such a way and the details of the Bill and its ramifications and can be more thoroughly debated.”

Image: © IslandMP

Wightfibre sponsors the Isle of Wight News by OnTheWight

Wednesday, 6th February, 2013 11:33am

By

ShortURL: http://wig.ht/2au7

Filed under: Government, Island-wide, Isle of Wight News, Top story

Print Friendly

.



26 Comments

  1. ThomasC's comment is rated +6 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 12:55pm

    Gay marriage would bring about a fundamental change to our society would it?

    It strikes me as the change would be no more fundamental than the change in our society that allowed the public purse to bail out multiple private gambling, sorry, banking institutions recently. I suspect gay marriage would also have distinctly less impact on society’s wallet, too.

    I doubt Mr Turnip had the same concerns about voting in favour of the banking bail-outs, which have probably had far more of a negative effect on the Isle of Wight than gay marriage.

    At least having found himself in such a minority in his voting on this issue he maybe has more of an understanding of what it’s like to be in a mis-understood minority now.

    Reply
  2. Duncan Knifton's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 1:09pm

    How,…just HOW would allowing gay couples change straight marriage??
    It does not make sense?
    Neither does his statement…
    “…. We are all equally worthy in God’s sight and equally loved by God. I am also sure that we are and should be equally welcome at God’s table. But equalness does not always equate with being the same….”

    WHAT!!???
    Ignoring that the word equalness doesn’t even exist, he TOTALLY contradicts his statement?
    What a [part of comment removed by moderator]

    Reply
  3. kironp's comment is rated -14 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 1:23pm

    I can’t believe what a bigot our mp is, [comment removed by moderator], see how he likes that.

    Reply
  4. wightywight's comment is rated +7 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 1:34pm

    :0)

    There’s a move in the US to prevent really overweight ( I mean obesely overweight) people from running for President!
    Good arguments from both sides…to boot.

    But, here’s another thing…. something I find even harder to stomach than bigotry… and that is Faith & Religion and God into Public Office. It is a disgrace ( and one for which I despise the US so much) that this superstitious belief system (one that anyone may choose to hold for themselves privately – presumably after having disregarded all rationality) has ANY connection with Rationality, Public Office and Public service whatsoever.
    So, bigotry, prejudice AND God…all in one paragraph.
    We do not need our elected MP to talk to us about *his* personal irrationality…we need him to explain why he carries and maintains a severe prejudice and bigotry that has little place in modern society…the one he is elected to operate within.
    Poor decision on his part, dreadful explanation and possibly dire consequences to follow…

    ww

    Reply
    • Duncan Knifton's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

      6.Feb.2013 2:10pm

      He can look forward to a long retirement…because this will surely lose him his seat next time we come to vote on the IW

      Reply
      • Don Smith's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

        7.Feb.2013 12:43am

        Duncan Knifton – Andrew Turner MP will retire, [I expect he will], unless he wants to increase his property portfolio.

        He will be re-elected. This is Tory island.

        How many times must I inform members of this forum of this fact? Do you think those who vote Tory participate and express their opinions on here? Very few mi thinks!

        Reply
        • tryme's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

          7.Feb.2013 7:18am

          Try (once again) to demoralise people into not bothering to vote for anyone else, why don’t you Don! Anyone might think you are a devoted Tory yourself….

          Reply
    • JONAH's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

      6.Feb.2013 8:52pm

      The definition of bigotry is “”a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Whatever your opinions about religion etc. I would suggest you are just as much a bigot.

      Reply
    • Mark L Francis's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

      7.Feb.2013 9:03am

      In the USA the constitution forbids an established religion

      Reply
  5. Josh Dinsdale's comment is rated +5 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 2:23pm

    Double-Speak encapsulated in Double-Speak padded out with a healthy dose of religious nonsense. Political word play mixed with an old fashioned world-view of the worst kind.

    Thanks for reinforcing my need to give you the boot at the next election!

    Reply
  6. Len's comment is rated +5 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 2:26pm

    I’m ashamed to have a primitive like this man representing me in parliament. All he’s done is express his own personal opinion in our name, and it’s an opinion rooted in utterly outdated modes of thought on society.

    This whole argument of gay marriage somehow fundamentally changing society is totally without merit or evidence, which is especially true in a society as secular as ours.

    Reply
  7. no.5's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 3:56pm

    I am, for once, left with nothing to add..all the above atatements match my opinion

    Reply
  8. a person's comment is rated +12 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 7:52pm

    “I remain concerned about the lack of a democratic mandate for this proposal – not a single MP in the House of Commons was elected on a promise to bring this measure in.”

    Not a single MP was elected on the promise to take us into a recession yet it still happened.

    Not a single MP was elected on the promise to take us into a war in Iraq and Afghanistan yet it still happened.

    Not a single MP was elected on the promise to defraud the public with second homes, yet it still happened.

    Is’nt it an MPs job to debate and vote on issues that may not have been in any manifesto as and when they arrive?

    Reply
    • Richard Smith's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

      7.Feb.2013 12:10pm

      This issue highlights the ‘Democratic Deficit’ – and these comments illustrate what our elected representatives actually accomplish in our name. Once more, we need to decide what job description our MP’s fulfill. Are they our most senior level of Social Worker, or are they are our real Legislators? This is a true dilemma, and the ‘system’, with all its manifest failings, is in dire need of reform. We actually need around 250 MP’s, as long as these folk represent us for 3 supra national functions, Foreign Policy, National Security and The Currency. For these 3 functions, one MP per 250.000 of population is quite enough. Everything else can, and should be, devolved to local level. Partisan politics isn’t working anymore, our MP’s are reduced to poorly performing, well fed jobbing actors.

      Reply
  9. tryme's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 7:53pm

    What a yukky quote from AT.

    It doesn’t even make internal sense as an anti-gay marriage argument: people with all those differences are all seated at “God’s table”, (squirm), &, not being “the same”, are indeed treated equally.

    Quite!

    Reply
  10. playingthenumbers's comment is rated +6 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 8:25pm

    The MP is wrong, the time to do the right thing is always now. In 1941 the country was in mortal danger of extinction, we were bad shape financially, we were at war on many fronts, but better politicians than the ones we have found time to commission the Beverage report – the greatest piece of social policy the country has ever seen. And yet before the guns went silent they also started work on revolutionary education & NHS acts.

    When compared to the recent crime commissioners’ elections, the gay marriage FREE vote (MPs didn’t need to waste their time if they thought it was nonsense & distracting), had a stonking turnout & an overwhelming majority. Despite our loser MP, clearly most other MPs thought that an injustice needed urgent addressing.

    It happens too infrequently, but yesterday’s positive vote was a reminder that occasionally this country can do something radical and good, something we can all be proud of. The best representatives remembered their 1st duty – protect the citizens, securing family at the heart of our culture, ensuring everyone has the same chances. Those that voted yes are patriots. The nay sayers even have their get out clause – if they don’t like gay marriage, they’re not compelled to have one.

    It is unsurprising that another schism in the conservatives was exposed, they never really recovered from the 1600s on matters of faith & country – its how they earned their name, Tories = catholic bandits. www. historylearningsite.co.uk/tories.htm

    Reply
  11. Island Monkey's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Feb.2013 8:43pm

    Having carefully listened to the arguments, I think those who oppose equality deserve our sympathy.

    They have got it wrong – but this is because they lack education and knowledge. Thankfully the majority of us and those who represent us in parliament are enlightened.

    Unusually, Cameron deserves praise. Turner deserves to lose a lot of votes, particularly from younger people.

    Reply
    • Mark L Francis's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

      7.Feb.2013 8:40am

      So when is Mr Turner going to get married then? Or does he just want to stop other people?
      Perhaps it is his own business -same as with gay people. Nobody is forcing anyone to do something they do not want to.
      Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Oliver Cromwell introduced secular marriage in the 17th century even though he was quite a prominent Christian.
      I am however intrigued as to the nature of Mr Turner’s transgendered god with a table.
      How strong is s/he on kiddy-fiddlers in a dog-collar?

      Reply
  12. RJC's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    7.Feb.2013 7:55am

    I don’t need sympathy, nor educating. Because I understand all the reasons for same sex partnerships/marriage be it love, financial, security etc. This does not mean I have to embrace something I am uncomfortable about. ‘Everyone to their own’ goes both ways. Andrew Turner has given various reasons for not voting for the motion. Because if he just came out and said he is not comfortable with the situation, he, like me will be branded a bigot.

    Reply
    • wightywight's comment is rated +5 Vote +1 Vote -1

      7.Feb.2013 8:53am

      @RJC: (partly…!)

      ..and that IS one of the rational and intellectual barriers you then face….
      For it is prejudice and bigotry alone that allow *one* to discriminate between human beings in this way. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with being excluded from equality and Law.
      AT tried to express his views, he tried to explain a *rational* decision he made….look at the complete irrationality he made of that. Why? because it IS bound up in prejudice and bigotry and not rationality.
      What those that oppose this issue should start to do is express the reasons they are against in a rational and cohesive manner ..and not to start with the tired and worn out diatribe of religious aspiration, tenets and ideals.
      Whether one is *gay* or not, supportive of *gay* or not or merely unaffected by the whole issue it cannot be right that rights and Law are conferred only upon a discriminatory group of the population. Excluding (smaller or larger, it is irrelevant)any group from the same rights the other groups have is, by definition, discriminatory. You may stop short or object to stronger adjectives such as bigot but the underlying feature remains…. an irrational objection that prevails from personal morals and prejudices – everyone possess’s them, of course – which results in discrimination. Make no mistake, the church and religious values are firmly behind the move to remain prejudiced. Time to move on to a secular society….Thanks Andrew for reminding me how much of belief in God impacts your everyday decisions…….
      (Bit like this Council that insists on holding prayers before the Council meetings starts……apart from history anyone see any connection between the two events?)

      WW

      Reply
      • Josh Dinsdale's comment is rated +1 Vote +1 Vote -1

        7.Feb.2013 9:00am

        Unfortunately I Cannot up-vote you a hundred times, so once will have to do! I think a secular UK is the only way to go in the long term.

        Reply
    • Mark L Francis's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

      7.Feb.2013 9:10am

      Nobody is forcing you to embrace gay marriage. It is entirely voluntary.

      Reply
  13. Jonathan's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    7.Feb.2013 12:59pm

    It seems our M.P. has declared himself a conscientious objector.

    Reply
  14. Charlotte Tobitt's comment not rated yet. Add your vote Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Feb.2013 3:37pm

    Here is my take on the matter:
    http://charlottetobitt.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/104/

    (It would have been too long for just a comment!)

    Reply

Add comment

Login to your account.
If you do not have an account, reserve your own name and receive exclusive special offers - just sign up for an On The Wight account

.