Caroline Dinenage wrote to constitutents voicing her opposition to equal marriage
David Cameron’s cabinet reshuffle continues today, with the appointment of Caroline Dinenage to the post of minister for equalities. Dinenage retained her Gosport seat in the election, and is part of Cameron’s new drive to increase the number of women at the Cabinet table.
But a look at Dinenage’s voting record raises questions about her suitability for the job.
In 2013 she voted against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at its Second Reading in the House of Commons. She voted for other components of the bill in order to stay loyal to the Tory party line, and was absent for the Bill’s Third Reading.
But there is no ambiguity in Dinenage’s comments on the issue. Responding to a letter from a PinkNews reader the day before the reading, she wrote:
“As you may know, as the established Church, its own Canon Law is part of the law of the land and one of its canons states that marriage is in its nature a union of “one man and one woman”.
I therefore believe that the institution of marriage is distinctive and the State has no right to redefine its meaning – these proposals were not included in any of the three main manifestoes nor did it feature in the Coalition’s Programme for Government.
“As I have mentioned, under current law same-sex couples can have a civil partnership but not a civil marriage and I believe that there is no legitimate reason to change this. Preventing same-sex couples from being allowed to ‘marry’ takes nothing away from their relationship.”
She also told a local newspaper:
‘I’m concerned that in the future teachers may be forced to teach civil partnership and gay marriage whether it’s in their religious belief to do so or not.”
Further back, in 2011, Dinenage was listed by the Daily Mail as one of 118 Tory MPs who had written to constituents stating their opposition to proposals to allow gay marriage. The Mail reported at the time:
“The sheer scale of the opposition means Mr Cameron is facing what has become the biggest Tory rebellion in recent history.”
The list included Cameron’s former equalities minister Nicky Morgan, who also voted against gay marriage.
Is there something the PM isn’t quite getting?
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter
107 Responses to “‘No legitimate reason’ for same-sex marriage: meet the new equalities minister”
Ben Gimson
Because you’re spouting the kind of archaic drivel religious zealots always spout. And no, religion is being replaced by common decency, perhaps once upon a time marriage was a religious arrangement but that’s not the case anymore, thus you nor your cult have any right to go around preaching your hate.
Elizabeth
‘I’m concerned that in the future teachers may be forced to teach civil partnership and gay marriage whether it’s in their religious belief to do so or not.”
I’m a primary school teacher and this is a real concern of mine. How could I possibly teach children that everyone deserves equal rights! It’s ridicules.
The sooner the Tories get the Human Rights Act abolished and its far fetched Article 12 “Everyone has the right to marry” taken care of, the better I say.
Next they’ll have me teaching evolution and about other religions, what a joke!
Mike Stallard
And the right are the nasty party? “archaic”. “drivel” “spout”. “cult” “preaching hate”. Common decency? I do not think so.
Why do you feel so threatened, by the way? Are you a somethingophobe? It most certainly looks like it!
Jeanne Tomlin
I see. So someone is forcing you into a same-sex marriage? If they are doing that, then it is definitely wrong. Otherwise, my marriage and the gender of the person I marry is none of your business.
Ben Gimson
Common decency is something I personally reserve for those who deserve it, and thus far I’ve been relatively civil. And lol, I don’t feel threatened, I’m just amazed that in this day and age people are still using that silly book as an excuse to discriminate. Why are you opposed to same-sex relationships? Do YOU feel threatened? Is equality such a foul concept?