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/may/17/no-demand-same-sex-marriage-philip-hammond

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

Version 0 Version 1
No huge demand for gay marriage, says Philip Hammond No huge demand for gay marriage, says Philip Hammond
(4 months later)
Cabinet fury with David Cameron over gay marriage has been blown into the open after the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, criticised Downing Street for wasting parliamentary time on the issue and angering vast numbers of people.Cabinet fury with David Cameron over gay marriage has been blown into the open after the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, criticised Downing Street for wasting parliamentary time on the issue and angering vast numbers of people.
As the government moved to smooth the passage of the bill by delaying attempts to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples, Hammond said there was no huge demand for same-sex marriage.As the government moved to smooth the passage of the bill by delaying attempts to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples, Hammond said there was no huge demand for same-sex marriage.
Speaking on the BBC's Question Time on Thursday evening, he said: "This change does redefine marriage. For millions and millions of people who are married, the meaning of marriage changes. There is a real sense of anger among many people who are married that any government thinks it has the ability to change the definition of an institution like marriage."Speaking on the BBC's Question Time on Thursday evening, he said: "This change does redefine marriage. For millions and millions of people who are married, the meaning of marriage changes. There is a real sense of anger among many people who are married that any government thinks it has the ability to change the definition of an institution like marriage."
Hammond said the introduction of civil partnerships in 2005 had addressed the very real disadvantage gay couples had faced. But he said of No 10's attempts to introduce equal marriage: "I have just never felt that this is what we should be focusing on … There was no huge demand for this and we didn't need to spend a lot of parliamentary time and upset vast numbers of people in order to do this."Hammond said the introduction of civil partnerships in 2005 had addressed the very real disadvantage gay couples had faced. But he said of No 10's attempts to introduce equal marriage: "I have just never felt that this is what we should be focusing on … There was no huge demand for this and we didn't need to spend a lot of parliamentary time and upset vast numbers of people in order to do this."
The intervention by Hammond does not represent a breach of collective responsibility, in which ministers are bound by decisions taken by the cabinet, because MPs have been given a free vote on the bill. But the equal marriage bill has a different status to other free votes, such as abortion, because it has been introduced by Cameron to try to highlight the Tories' modernising credentials.The intervention by Hammond does not represent a breach of collective responsibility, in which ministers are bound by decisions taken by the cabinet, because MPs have been given a free vote on the bill. But the equal marriage bill has a different status to other free votes, such as abortion, because it has been introduced by Cameron to try to highlight the Tories' modernising credentials.
The defence secretary spoke out as the coalition was accused of spoiling tactics after it responded to a call for heterosexual couples to be granted the same rights to enter into civil partnerships by announcing plans for a review that would be delayed for five years once the legislation is passed. The review could mean that civil partnerships are extended to all couples – or scrapped altogether.The defence secretary spoke out as the coalition was accused of spoiling tactics after it responded to a call for heterosexual couples to be granted the same rights to enter into civil partnerships by announcing plans for a review that would be delayed for five years once the legislation is passed. The review could mean that civil partnerships are extended to all couples – or scrapped altogether.
The prime minister, who is bracing himself for another bumpy week after the "rebellion" over an EU referendum, has issued instructions to ministers to avoid any pitfalls next week.The prime minister, who is bracing himself for another bumpy week after the "rebellion" over an EU referendum, has issued instructions to ministers to avoid any pitfalls next week.
The government stepped in amid fears that an amendment designed to give straight couples the right to civil partnerships, planned by Tim Loughton, the former children's minister, and two other Tory MPs, could disrupt the equal marriage bill, which is opposed by many Conservatives. Loughton, an opponent of gay marriage, denied he was trying to disrupt the bill.The government stepped in amid fears that an amendment designed to give straight couples the right to civil partnerships, planned by Tim Loughton, the former children's minister, and two other Tory MPs, could disrupt the equal marriage bill, which is opposed by many Conservatives. Loughton, an opponent of gay marriage, denied he was trying to disrupt the bill.
Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell criticised No 10's move. He told Gay Star News: "The government's decision to oppose the legalisation of civil partnerships for heterosexual couples is hugely disappointing. It is a sad betrayal of the principle of equality. I hope a majority of MPs will rebel and next week vote for the parliamentary amendment to open up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples."Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell criticised No 10's move. He told Gay Star News: "The government's decision to oppose the legalisation of civil partnerships for heterosexual couples is hugely disappointing. It is a sad betrayal of the principle of equality. I hope a majority of MPs will rebel and next week vote for the parliamentary amendment to open up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples."
Chris Bryant, the shadow home office minister, tweeted: "I hear govt policy on civil partnerships for opposite sex couples is collapsing."Chris Bryant, the shadow home office minister, tweeted: "I hear govt policy on civil partnerships for opposite sex couples is collapsing."
The Loughton amendment fell into this category. Loughton is an unlikely political partner of Tatchell because he voted against the second reading of the equal marriage bill.The Loughton amendment fell into this category. Loughton is an unlikely political partner of Tatchell because he voted against the second reading of the equal marriage bill.
A government spokesman said: "Civil partnerships were created for a very specific reason – to give same-sex couples access to legal rights at a time when society was not ready to give them access to marriage. Now that the time is right to extend marriage to same-sex couples, it is also right we should consider the future of civil partnerships.A government spokesman said: "Civil partnerships were created for a very specific reason – to give same-sex couples access to legal rights at a time when society was not ready to give them access to marriage. Now that the time is right to extend marriage to same-sex couples, it is also right we should consider the future of civil partnerships.
"There are strong views on both sides of this debate, and we have listened to those views. A proper review will allow us to look at the issues in a considered and thorough way, giving full consideration to implications of any changes.""There are strong views on both sides of this debate, and we have listened to those views. A proper review will allow us to look at the issues in a considered and thorough way, giving full consideration to implications of any changes."
Earlier this week, the culture secretary, Maria Miller, resisted calls for civil partnerships to be extended to heterosexual couples, expressing concern that to include the issue in the legislation would lead to a significant delay in its implementation, and could incur considerable costs.Earlier this week, the culture secretary, Maria Miller, resisted calls for civil partnerships to be extended to heterosexual couples, expressing concern that to include the issue in the legislation would lead to a significant delay in its implementation, and could incur considerable costs.
In a statement, Miller said: "The equal marriage bill is about extending marriage to same-sex couples. Questions have been raised about whether we should also extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. We are therefore offering the house the opportunity to have a review of this area, rather than legislating now without the required evidence."In a statement, Miller said: "The equal marriage bill is about extending marriage to same-sex couples. Questions have been raised about whether we should also extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. We are therefore offering the house the opportunity to have a review of this area, rather than legislating now without the required evidence."
Miller, questioned by the joint human rights committee on Tuesday, appeared clear that extending civil partnerships was not a preferred option. "We don't feel there is either a necessity or a requirement to open up civil partnerships to heterosexuals because there is no deficit there – there is no lack of an ability to be able to formalise a relationship in a legal way," she said then. "It is already there for heterosexual couples. It's called marriage."Miller, questioned by the joint human rights committee on Tuesday, appeared clear that extending civil partnerships was not a preferred option. "We don't feel there is either a necessity or a requirement to open up civil partnerships to heterosexuals because there is no deficit there – there is no lack of an ability to be able to formalise a relationship in a legal way," she said then. "It is already there for heterosexual couples. It's called marriage."
Asked about people who might not wish to marry because of their beliefs, including those who saw marriage as oppressive to women and born out of a patriarchal system, she told the committee she did not see why it would oppress women any more than men. "Having been married for 23 years, I don't feel oppressed myself, but I can understand that people will have different views," she said.Asked about people who might not wish to marry because of their beliefs, including those who saw marriage as oppressive to women and born out of a patriarchal system, she told the committee she did not see why it would oppress women any more than men. "Having been married for 23 years, I don't feel oppressed myself, but I can understand that people will have different views," she said.
Miller had acknowledged that the abolition of civil partnerships would discriminate against same-sex couples who for certain reasons, including religion, did not wish to marry.Miller had acknowledged that the abolition of civil partnerships would discriminate against same-sex couples who for certain reasons, including religion, did not wish to marry.
Any review would take place after same-sex marriages have had a chance to become established. A period of five years is suggested so the effect of extending marriage to same-sex couples can be assessed and the government can ensure it has a proper understanding of the implications of various options.Any review would take place after same-sex marriages have had a chance to become established. A period of five years is suggested so the effect of extending marriage to same-sex couples can be assessed and the government can ensure it has a proper understanding of the implications of various options.
Church of England representatives claimed some amendments tabled to the gay marriage bill risked opening the door to pagan, humanist and other forms of marriage. Sir Tony Baldry, representing the church estate commissioners, said the proposal would completely change the legal basis for marriage in England. He added that MPs would have to take a view "as to whether having heterosexual civil partnerships is or is not going to enhance the concept of marriage".Church of England representatives claimed some amendments tabled to the gay marriage bill risked opening the door to pagan, humanist and other forms of marriage. Sir Tony Baldry, representing the church estate commissioners, said the proposal would completely change the legal basis for marriage in England. He added that MPs would have to take a view "as to whether having heterosexual civil partnerships is or is not going to enhance the concept of marriage".
Tatchell said: "David Cameron and Maria Miller should stop delaying and making excuses. They say their support for gay marriage is based on a commitment to equality, yet they are refusing to support equal civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. They're not being consistent."Tatchell said: "David Cameron and Maria Miller should stop delaying and making excuses. They say their support for gay marriage is based on a commitment to equality, yet they are refusing to support equal civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. They're not being consistent."
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.