Friday, 18 May 2012

Matthew Offord MP rejects same sex marriage

Thanks to Twitter, my attention was drawn to a letter from my MP, Matthew Offord to a local constituent on his views regarding same sex marriage.You can see the original on Nick Lansleys Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/nicholas.lansley/posts/10150793227836174 - I believe that whatever your views on the subject, as a Hendon constituent, you really should be aware of what Matthew Offord thinks about the subject.

Interestingly, openly gay Finchley and Golders Green MP, Mike Freer does not seem to agree with Matthew. He posted this response on Twitter :-

Mike Freer MP@mikefreermp
entitled to his opinion however misguided
Here is what Matthew Offord MP wrote. At least we can't accuse him of mincing his words. 
Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding Same Sex Marriage.

My own position is that I will not be voting for legislation that extends marriage for same-sex couples. Having waited many years to get married I acknowledge the value the commitment brings. It is my strong personal, moral and religious belief that the institution of marriage is to provide the foundation of a stable relationship in which those two people of the opposite sex procreate and raise a child. That is physically not possible for same-sex couples so I don't see the point of introducing a law to allow this. I strongly believe in same-sex couples having the right to a civil registration, in order that they receive the same benefits as opposite-sex couples but not marriage.

To many this might seem like a trivial matter, particularly since the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2004 means that same sex couple already enjoy the same rights that married couple do. However the institution of marriage is woven into the fabric of our nation - it affects our courts, inheritance rights and even our schools. And it is the effect on our schools, children and teachers that is worrying so many. Close to 100,000 people have signed the one man, one woman equals marriage petition.

In regard to education, Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 places a legal requirement on schools to teach children about "the importance of marriage". If marriage is redefined, schools will have no choice but to give children equivalent teaching on same sex marriage, even those children of a very young age, including those at primary school. So what will happen to parents who because of religious, or philosophical beliefs take their children out of lessons? It is simply inconceivable in today's world where political correctness runs a mock in our institutions, that there would not be profound consequences for those who hold traditional views. Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts, possibly excluded from being on the PTA, or from being a governor. Discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for two thousand years. And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same sex marriage. Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers? Will same sex marriage be covered under such subjects as citizenship forming part of the main curriculum taught to our children and tested through examination? These are just some of the questions that the Government has so far failed to answer.

I do not believe that same sex marriage would serve to enhance British society or its values.

Yours sincerely,

MATTHEW OFFORD MP
Member of Parliament for Hendon
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

15 comments:

Don't Call Me Dave said...

Why are people who oppose same-sex marriage being subjected to such vilification? Freer thinks Offord is misguided. That’s his opinion. My opinion of Freer is not printable in a family blog. Freer exhibits all the nasty traits of Socialism which dictates that anyone who does not share their beliefs must be demonised.

Some people oppose same-sex marriage. Get over it.

Moaneybat said...

@DCMD

What makes you believe that all Socialists agree with Freer? I'm with Offord on this and I'm never a Conservative. You don't want freedom to bunk in with whomever and whatever? Don't you be mad at me!

Mrs Angry said...

oh please, DCMD, you can't blame socialism for Freer's faults ... you are missing the real point: Tories are supposed to worship the idea of choice, liberty and personal freedom. If two gay people choose to join together in what they see as marriage, then others should respect their choice, just as I would expect them to respect the choice of religious followers to have a traditional church marriage if that is what they wish. Personal relationships are no one else's business and people must be free to make the choices they want, with whom they want.

The real point of controversy here, however, is not his attitude to legalising gay marriage, surely, which I suppose you might expect: the thing I find just staggeringly weird is his view that marriage is intended only for the purpose of 'procreation'.

Really? This is the line on marriage taken by St Paul, of course. I imagine Mr Offord, therefore, must agree with St Paul that a wife must submit to the will of her husband, and a slave to his master. Interesting.

Don't Call Me Dave said...

Mrs Angry

I respect the views of people who wish to legalise same sex marriage. Similarly, I respect the views of those who wish to oppose same sex marriage, for whatever reason. What I do not respect is the attitude of militant pro gay marriage lobbyists who blithely accuse opponents of being homophobic, without any evidence to support such an accusation. Such people are bullies and there is no place in a democratic society for people to be intimidated and victimised simply for opposing something which is currently unlawful.

Mrs Angry said...

still not answering the point, DCMD: the procreationalist view of marriage?

Don't Call Me Dave said...

Not answered because it is irrelevant. If Matthew Offord believes that marriage is a pre-requisite for procreation, he is entitled to that view. Is it really so shocking that someone should believe that the ideal environment to raise children is within the confines of a heterosexual marriage?

Rog T said...

As far as I'm concerned, Matthew Offord's views on gay marriage are irrelevant. I wouldn't vote for him whatever his views are. I do however believe that one of the roles of blogs is to ensure that voters know what Mr Offord thinks of various subjects and I suspect some may put their 'X' in a different place because of what he said.

I am a bit confused that David suggested that I was vilifying Offord for his comments. I simply said that I thought people sould be aware of them. If that is what passes for vilification these days, then PC has gone mad.

It strikes me that Offord is slightly confused. He clearly needs to brush up on his bible studies because it is the engaging in homosexual activities which is banned by the old testament, not gay marriage. As far as I'm aware Gay marriage isn't mentioned.

It seems odd that his religious beliefs seem to allow the banned bit and don't allow the bit which isn't mentioned.

I suspect that like many things (the Aerodrome Bridge contracts for example), Offord has yet again failed to do his homework.

Don't Call Me Dave said...

I am not vilifying you, Rog. It was Freer who suggested that Matthew Offord was misguided for defending heterosexual marriage. It is Freer’s intolerance of other people’s views that I have responded to.

Morris Hickey said...

All this fuss over a proposal for a buggers' charter.

Ron said...

what's the difference between opposing same sex marriage and opposing cross race marriage?

Mrs Angry said...

DCMD you are turn turning the argument inside out. My point is not that Offord now claims he thinks that marriage -heterosexual - is a prerequisite for procreation: this is indeed a view which many people view, and which they are entitled to observe in their own choice of family life. What interests me is that he is saying the only PURPOSE of marriage is procreation: a fundamentalist view which as far as I am aware, no religious faith would still assert, and is, frankly, quite bonkers.

Morris Hickey said...

"...... and, is, quite frankly, bonkers".

Bonkers......?

Don't Call Me Dave said...

Mrs Angry,

I do not profess to be an expert on religious matters but I believe that orthodox Judaism promotes the concept of marriage and procreation. Indeed, it is a hallachic requirement to marry and have children. The concept of children outside of wedlock is not tolerated. Many people would consider this to be an outdated view, but not to those who subscribe and adhere to the teachings of the Talmud.

liz harris said...

I can't respect the views of anyone who misspells 'amok' as 'a mock'. Moron.

Rog T said...

Liz

As a dyslexic, I can't possibly criticise Offord for his poor use of English. I can however criticise him for talking absolute shite !