This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/10/gay-marriage-plan-criticised-liam-fox

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Gay marriage plan 'social engineering', says Liam Fox Liam Fox attacks PM's 'divisive' gay marriage proposals
(about 4 hours later)
The former defence secretary Liam Fox has accused David Cameron of "social engineering" by pressing ahead with plans to allow gay marriage, describing the proposals as "divisive, ill thought through and constitutionally wrong". David Cameron's plans to legalise gay marriage have been condemned by Liam Fox as "divisive, ill thought through and constitutionally wrong".
In a letter to around 60 constituents who had raised concerns over the plans, he also said European courts would force the Church of England to conduct same-sex ceremonies, despite guarantees to the contrary from the government. He said the European Court of Human Rights would "drive a coach and horses through the legislation" on equalities grounds. In a sign of anger on the Tory right at the change, the former defence secretary said the policy had been "made on the hoof" to appease a small and vocal minority.
A legal bar on the Church of England performing such ceremonies – part of a series of safeguards designed to reassure religious critics – was "absurd and anomalous" when it did not also extend to the Catholic church, which had been still more vehement in its opposition, he said. Fox, who stood against Cameron for the Tory leadership in 2005, warned that a legal anomaly could allow the European court of human rights to "drive a coach and horses through the legislation".
Fox wrote that the proposals were "a form of social engineering of which Conservatives should be instinctively wary" and would please only "a very small, if vocal, minority". The former defence secretary, who is still seen as a leading figure on the Tory right despite resigning from the cabinet in 2011, launched his assault in a letter to his North Somerset constituents. The disclosure of his intervention comes days after the former frontbencher Eleanor Laing, one of Fox's closest allies, challenged the PM over the proposed legislation at a meeting of Tory MPs.
The prime minister has vowed to press ahead with a commitment to change the law by 2015, despite warnings the issue has caused widespread upset amongst grassroots Tories. In the letter, published by the Daily Telegraph, Fox wrote: "The principle of altering the accepted legal status of the majority of the population in order to satisfy what appears to be a very small, if vocal, minority is not a good basis on which to build a tolerant and stable society and should be enough reason in itself to think twice about changing the law."
Fox said it had already "led to the alienation of many loyal and, in many cases lifelong, supporters of the Conservative party" and demanded a rethink "before things get out of hand". Fox accused Downing Street of having compounded the problem and risking a challenge in the ECHR in the way it has sought to deal with objections from religious organisations. The Church of England and the Church in Wales will be specifically banned from conducting same sex marriages.
He stressed he is not anti-gay and as a doctor believes same-sex relationships are "a variant of the spectrum of human sexual behaviour and should be treated with tolerance and respect". A series of safeguards to ensure that other faith groups have the right to refuse to conduct such marriages were dismissed by Fox. He wrote: "What makes the position worse is the way that the legislation looks as though it was made on the hoof to deal with the political problem du jour. Banning the Church of England from what would be an otherwise legal activity is anomalous and absurd. If the 'exemption' is, as stated, because the Church had made clear their objection to same-sex marriage then why not exempt the Catholic church, which has been even clearer in its opposition.
But he said discrimination had been addressed by the introduction of civil partnerships and questioned the strength of demand for further reform. "The idea of making certain practices illegal for one Christian church, but not others, risks further weakening and splintering Britain's traditional religion at a time when many Christians feel that they are under threat on a number of secular, political and cultural fronts. To fail to understand this is to risk an affront to a large stabilising and normally acquiescent section of this country, which will sow completely unnecessary seeds of dissent."
"The principle of altering the accepted legal status of the majority of the population in order to satisfy what appears to be a very small, if vocal, minority is not a good basis on which to build a tolerant and stable society," he said. Fox directly challenged Maria Miller, the equalities minister, who unveiled a "quadruple lock" last month to protect faith groups. The government will:
"What makes the position worse is the way that the legislation increasingly looks as though it was made on the hoof to deal with the political problem du jour." • Write a declaration on to the face of the bill "that no religious organisation, or individual minister, can be forced to marry same-sex couples or to permit that to happen on their premises".
European courts could "drive a coach and horses" through the church safeguards, he warned, and it risked "weakening and splintering" Christians who already felt under threat. • Amend the Equality Act 2010 to block discrimination claims against "religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple or for refusing to allow their premises to be used for this purpose".
"To fail to understand this is to risk an affront to a large, stabilising and normally acquiescent section of this country, which will sow completely unnecessary seeds of dissent. • Ensure the legislation will ban religious organisations or their ministers from marrying same-sex couples "unless the organisation has expressly opted to do so".
"I do not doubt the sincerity of the proponents of this measure and think talk of attempts to purposefully antagonise traditional Conservatives is far-fetched," he concluded. • Introduce the ban for the Church of England and the Church in Wales.
"However, I believe these proposals are divisive, ill thought through and constitutionally wrong. That is why I will vote against them in the House of Commons." But Fox said: "Any assurances that we are given that distinguishing between churches will not be used at some point by European courts to drive a coach and horses through the legislation carries little credibility with those of us who have watched similar assurances trounced in the past. Having narrowly avoided taking the state into the realm of a free press we should not be intruding on the freedom of worship that is the proper preserve of the church not the courts."
The vehemence of Conservative divisions over same-sex marriage were exposed in December when one Tory MP said the legislation would undermine "normal marriage".
Another Tory backbencher questioned whether polygamy would be legalised next, and a third claimed that European judges will soon force the Church of England to allow same-sex marriages against its will.
A fourth Tory MP, David Davies, claimed he was not a bigot because as a boxer he had once trained with a gay man. He had earlier said he did not believe most parents wanted to have gay children because they wanted to be grandparents.
The culture secretary, Maria Miller, told MPs last month that the government had received legal advice that there was a negligible risk of a legal challenge to the legislation.