Rutherglen MPs constituents lettered on same sex marriage stance
Feb 6 2013
by Will Henshaw, Rutherglen Reformer
Rutherglen MP Tom Greatrex says he has “no objections” to a traditional marriage organisation lettering his constituents about his views.
Scotland for Marriage, whose address is listed as Canal Street Glasgow, are “a campaign to support marriage as the union of one man and one woman”, according to their website.
The organisation have been lettering people in Rutherglen and Cambuslang ahead of the same-sex marriage vote which took place yesterday (Tuesday)in England and Wales.
Although it is a devolved issue and MSPs are set to vote on the matter, Scotland for Marriage said in their letter, dated Janaury 29: “MPs at Westminister will have a big say on how redefining marriage will impact Scotland – especially how it will hit ordinary people like teachers and others who work in the public sector.”
It continues: “Sadly Mr Greatrex supports the Government’s plans to redefine marriage.”
The letter provides contact details for Mr Greatrex as well as tips for what to say when writing to him on views on the issue. So far, Scotland for Marriage have delivered almost 250,000 leaflets advising against any change and say 36,000 have signed their petition against plans to legalise same-sex marriage.
The MP said: “I have no objection to Scotland for Marriage circulating a leaflet, and encouraging constituents to contact me about my views.
“While the issue of same-sex marriage in Scotland is devolved to Holyrood, and the SNP in Edinburgh have indicated they will bring forward legislation soon on which MSPs will vote, there are some aspects of equality law which are considered on a UK-wide basis in the law proposed by the Lib Dem and Tory government.
“I have been contacted by many constituents, both in support of and opposed to same-sex marriage, ahead of Tuesday’s vote. I respect many views are deeply held. I have made clear to everybody who has contacted me that I have no objection to same-sex civil marriage.
“We have had civil marriage, without any religious content, since 1837, and I do not wish to prevent two people making that commitment to each other.
“However, my concern is around religious freedom, and the continued right of churches and faith organisations to decide for themselves who they wish to marry according to their own teachings. If that right is protected – as the Lib Dem and Tory government suggest it is – and Parliament receives assurances on that point, then on a free vote I am minded to support the Second Reading of the Bill.”
Scotland for Marriage were unavailable for comment.