OT minister to support same sex marriage in UK

| 31/01/2013

simmonds_0.jpg(CNS): The UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister for the overseas territories will be voting in the British parliament in favour of same sex marriage next week. Mark Simmonds, who is the MP for Boston and Skegness in Lincolnshire, told a newspaper in his constituency that he would support the notion of allowing same-sex couples to marry in the forthcoming parliamentary debate. “This is one of the most difficult decisions that I have had to make throughout my time as an MP,” the Conservative MP told The Boston Standard. “It is undoubtedly a complex issue which challenges ideas about traditional marriage."

He said, “I am reassured that no church will be obligated to offer equal marriage to same sex couples, and the legislation will explicitly state that it will not be lawful for the Church of England to marry same-sex couples. I have thought about this issue long and hard and, on balance, have decided to take the progressive option. I will therefore be voting for the implementation of these proposals,” he added.

The UK government’s Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill for England and Wales was introduced in the House of Commons last week and the full debate by MPs and then vote on the proposals will take place on Tuesday. It has caused controversy among MPs, religious organisations and campaign groups, with only half of Tory MPs expected to vote in its favour.

The bill will not force religious organisations, including the Church of England and Church in Wales, to perform same-sexmarriages, avoiding discrimination claims against religious institutions or the clergy for refusing to marry gay couples. Opponents say the bill will ‘redefine’ the meaning of marriage and instead favour civil partnerships.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: World News

About the Author ()

Comments (36)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    What gives any of us the right to decide who can and cannot marry and to tell people that they are legally not allowed to make a commitment to the individual that they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with? For an island that constantly touts religion as an answer to everything, that exclusion and prejudice seems awfully un-Christian to me.


    What Cayman should do instead is allow homosexuals to get married on our island – think of the revenue that could be generated, the additional income that can arise from additional weddings on our picturesque island and the tourism that weddings undoubtedly generate. No one is saying that they should be getting married in a particular chucrh, but why not on the beach as where so many other marriages have occurred?

    • Anonymous says:

      OK, let's test that principle. Do you get a right to say that a man is not allowed to marry his mother because they are committed to and love each other? How about 4 or 5 persons getting married because of their commitment and love for each other? Where do you draw the line?

      The problem with people like you is that your principles are for sale. Scratch that, it doesn't appear that you have any.   

    • The 3 R's says:

      People are allowed indeed to make a "commitment" to anyone they want to. However, marriage between a man and a woman is a particular social arrangement that has been exercised by humanity, albeit in somewhat different forms, for thousands of years. In England marriage has been legally recognised from the thirteenth century AD.

      Politicians in England have no mandate at all to change this very longstanding legal and social recognition of marriage. It did not form any part of any party's political manifesto – no doubt for the reason that it would have been a loser if it did.

      It is a complete non-starter, logically, to try to assert that a marriage can occur between any individuals who want to marry. This is the argument that the bloggers seem to think is the big one! If that were so, anyone could marry someone who is already married. What that would produce in any society that adopts this sort of notion, e.g. "same-sex marriage" is a demand for 3-way "marriages" – it has happened already in a number of places that have eroded their marriage culture and could happen here as well. Anyone could marry a child, and that has happened as well. Similarly anyone could marry his brother or sister.

      Marriage as the socialarrangement that we have understood it to be for many hundreds of years (arguably much more) has to do with the formation of the next generation. Social scientists have always admitted that the stable family of a mother and father with children of both, the biological children, is by far the most advantageous environment for the upbringing of children. As always in these kinds of debates, it is the interests of the most vulnerable, in this case the children, that are most often forgotten. When we are transferred to the world of "me, myself and I", then we forget about who and what we are really responsible for.

      So let's not go down the absolutely retrogressive road that Simmonds and his supporters seem to want. Let's not be a monumental offence to the little ones. And let's not undermine the whole concept of marriage as it has always been understood. If we agreed that 2+2 =22 if we said so, then that would undermine the reality that 2+2 =4.

    • Anonymous says:

      "What Cayman should do instead is allow homosexuals to get married on our island – think of the revenue that could be generated,"

      OH the LOVE of money will make some people do anything!

      Right or wrong does not matter to some people, only receiving money, regarless of the reason why.

      Sad future for the Cayman Islands.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Now, a warning to the UK….. this is something you should not try to send down here for us to sign…just saying, not today bobo and not ever.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Mr.Simmonds, you disappoint me. This was an opportunity for you to stand up for something the vast majority of British people believe in, which is that the institution of marriage is defined as being the union of a man and a woman.

  4. Star David says:

    Morality cannot be imposed, or adopted; it can only be achieved by a spiritual awareness. This fact remains as true as the undeniable history of marriage, which is a religious institution. Maybe its time to change this history in Europe and on many of the other continents but arguably the islands should be free to choose their own path on this issue. As usual that will not be the case so heaven help us all!

    • Anon says:

      So are you saying someone who is homosexual, transgendered etc cannot be religious? I wasn't aware that Jesus supported discrimination and exclusiveness.

      • Anonymous says:

        He did support morality though. He never condoned immoral lifestyles. Jesus was not about being "religious". The Pharisees were religious. 

  5. Anonymous says:

    There's a heck of a lot of money to be made from gay weddings in tropical locations. Look at how other locations in the Caribbean are falling over themselves to get into the game.

    You just got to decide whether or not the Cayman Islands also wants to cash in on that market or, as has happened so many tines before, get left behind while somewhere else grabs all the profits.


    • noname says:

      To:      Anonymous 11:34

      I take it you are quite willing to prostitute not only yourself but the entire Cayman Islands and your children and mine for the almighty dollar? Everything is about money for you, there are serious consequences when one compromises right to embrace wrong.

      FYI , there are still some of us that have moral values, we respect and protect traditional family values, traditional marriage between one man and one woman and we will make sure this garbage is not dumped on our shores!

      Marriage from the beginning of time is defined as a union between 'ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN"

      God created  man and woman,  Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

      How you like that?

      • Reality Check says:

        You need to realise that a creation myth is a myth – the clue is in the words.

        • Anonymous says:

          Ummm, I think you are missing the point that a myth is intended to convey a truth. That truth is that God ordained the relationship between man and woman. It doesn't matter whether there was a literal single, individual called Adam and another called Eve.   

      • Anonymous says:

        We were willing to prostitute ourselfs to the greed on Big Mac.

      • Anonymous says:


  6. Gaby says:

    Considering the prevalence of divorce, single parent homes, infidelity, abuse, etc I do not see how the ‘traditions’ argument holds up. What two people mutually want to do to and with each other is their business. It reeks of political posturing for him to lament the difficulty in coming to this position. This is such a tired conversation now.

  7. Slowpoke says:

    This is clearly the end of the world as we know it, what is next? 

    No slaves, women get to vote, a black man gets to be President of the USA, the Australian Prime Minister can be an atheist, the new Premier of Ontario can be a lesbian….

    If these things were to happen it would clearly indicate the end! 

    OOPS, have I posted this too late?

  8. Whodatis says:

    I wholeheartedly agree with his  decision.

    Why should "the gays" be able to escape the common hell that is the institution of marriage?

    No more running away gay guys … climb aboard! We're all in this together!

  9. Anonymous says:

    The requirement to be in charge of OTs must be that they support gay rights.

  10. Anonymous says:

    What is it with these OT Ministers? First, 'Capt. Underpants' and now this one.

    Watch out Cayman marriage officers. You will be forced to marry gay couples.   

    • Anonymous says:

      And your point is?

      • Anonymous says:

        Unless you are completely dense the point was abundantly clear: a warning that what they now see in the UK they will soon see here and they will be compelled to perform gay 'marriages' regardless of their conscientious objections.  

    • Dred says:

      My belief is that the territory should have right of choice to do this not be TOLD to. I have no issue with it personally just do not like when the rights of the people of the country are controlled by motherland. Although our Human Rights laws will come in here.

      • Anonymous says:

        YOU are not being told to do anything, the British people are.

      • Anonymous says:

        Not sure what you're on about here… who said anything about the UK controlling the rights of the people of the Cayman Islands?  This article refers to the OT Minister supporting gay marriage in the UK in his capacity as a Conserative Party MP and makes no reference to anything being dictated!

        • Anonymous says:

          Sheeesh. You are so shortsighted. Obviously if it has reached the UK it is only a matter of time before it reaches here.   

    • Anonymous says:

         My suggesti0n is to stop fighting a loosing battle.  Gays and Lesbians are not going away, we might as well say there wont be anymore beer or weed to smoke.  Leave them alone and pay attention to your own family life.