Chair (
Cllr Doug Clark): Agenda item 8a - Notice of Motion - the
Equal Civil Marriage. I call upon Cllr Driver.
Cllr Ian Driver: Thanks Chair. This motion is about fairness and
equality. Nothing more and nothing less and there are two fundamental questions
that we need to be concerned about, should two people of the same sex have a
legal right to get married, and can a married person who changes his or her
gender remain married? In probably one of the most unique examples Ive seen
recently of cross party political agreement, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed
Miliband and Caroline Lucas all agree that same-sex marriage should be made
legal and they all agree that anyone who changes gender when they’re married
can remain married. And opinion poll after opinion poll shows that a majority
of British people agree with the Government proposals to update and modernise
civil marriage. Mr Chairman, we live in modern times and people are becoming
more intolerant, more tolerant and more inclusive than they used to be and I
welcome that. And its only a small minority of people who don’t agree with the
Government. People who are not happy about the proposals for inclusion, for
acceptance, for social progress and one of the things, one of the big
objections that these people bring up, is that people already have the benefits
of civil partnerships and that provides recognition legally for same-sex
relationships, so why go any further than we are at the moment?
Well, Stonewall
for example, they represent 3.7 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
people in the United Kingdom and they have said that having separate and
different legal processes for same-sex couples is reminiscent of apartheid in
South Africa. It’s discriminatory, its morally and ethically wrong and they
also say that civil partnerships perpetuate a damaging and prejudicial belief
that same-sex relationships are less valuable, less important than heterosexual
relationships and heterosexual marriage. Mr Chairman, love and commitment are
part of the human condition and I say that same-sex couples should have exactly
the same civil marriage rights as heterosexual couples and not be forced to
accept second best as they are at the moment. Now, many religious leaders say
that same-sex marriages are against their teachings (timer chimes) and should
not be allowed.
Sorry. I think Ive got five minutes not three minutes.
(Chair: Yes carry on) Can I carry on? Yep. As I said, many religious leaders
are saying…sorry?
Chair: You do have three but carry on.
Driver: I have five I believe for moving a motion…its five
Chair: Five for the Leader.
Harvey Patterson (Officer): The Leader and Chairman of Committee have five,
as you are neither, its three.
Driver: Ill quickly get on and make my point. Lots of
religious leaders object on the grounds that their teachings don’t allow
same-sex marriages. Well, the Government has made it perfectly and absolutely
clear that their change in legislation does not affect the rights of churches
and religions. It doesn’t force them to marry people of the same sex and my
closing point is this, that same-sex marriage already exists in 12 countries
across the world and I am unaware of a single shred of evidence to suggest that
the churches in these twelve countries are under any pressure to introduce
same-sex marriage, so to say that civil marriage affects the rights of the
church is wrong and is a smokescreen. So I say that... [Chair: Cllr Driver] you should support
the motion tonight. Thank you
[APPLAUSE]
Chair: Do I have a seconder? Thank you. Now would members please note that the
Council alone has the ability to decide whether or not it supports this
motion. The motion cannot be referred to
Cabinet or Committee of the Council. That being the case, if Council decides
not to debate the motion, the motion will fall. Do I have a proposal that the
motion be debated?
Chair: Do I have a seconder?
Cllr Michelle Fenner: Thank you Mr Chairman and I would like to say that
as a new, progressive and inclusive administration at TDC, we always take
consultation seriously and we encourage… (Chair: You can speak in the debate) I
am seconding the debate. I am seconding the fact that we are debating this
motion and I am explaining why I want to second the debate. I can. I would like
to explain that we do encourage debate
Chair: You cant explain it now but you can explain it later
if it is debated. So you seconded it and that’s it…would you please sit down?
Cllr Fenner: I am not seconding at this stage the motion itself.
I am seconding the fact that we do want a debate of this motion in this Council
and I am trying to explain…
Chair: We have a proposal that it is debated and it is
seconded by (Fenner: By me). Yes, that’s
quite clear and so I can determine that fact, whether it can be debated or not.
So all those in favour that the matter be debated please show…please be quiet
in the public gallery because I don’t want to have to clear the gallery but I
will if you interrupt…against…abstentions…the motion is carried.
Now I’d advise members that in the interests of management
of time, I have ruled out repetition in debate. I call upon the Leader. Sorry,
I call upon Cllr Bayford.
Cllr Bob Bayford: Ex-Leader Chairman. What I would like to do
and I have to address the Chair but I’m really speaking to the public gallery I’m
going to use probably most of my three minutes explaining why the Group this
side didn’t vote for the debate. The Conservative Group…
Cllr Fenner: Chair. I’m sorry but there’s a position there. If
the Leader of the Opposition explaining why he didn’t want a debate and I
wasn’t able to explain why.
Cllr Bayford: We are having a proper debate
Chair: We are in debate now.
Cllr Bayford: As I said, I have to address the Chair but Im
actually speaking as much to the public gallery as I am to the Chairman. The
Conservative Group discussed at length the question of whether this motion
should be put at a Council meeting. We agreed unanimously that regardless of Member’s
individual views on the subject, it is not within our brief as local District
Councillors to debate matters over which we have no authority. We are not an
authorised body for conducting marriages or civil partnerships. That
responsibility lies with Kent County Council. For that reason alone there was
absolute agreement at out Group Meeting that we should oppose this motion being
put, but I want to stress that to suggest our reluctance to debate this motion reflects
our personal views on the subject would be to completely misrepresent the Conservative
Group’s position. We agreed unanimously that should there be a vote for debate,
that each Councillor on this side of the Chamber would enjoy the same freedom to
express their views as those who voted for the debate so the Conservative Group
have no whip on this motion. We merely seek to separate the appropriateness of
the subject for District to debate from the subject of any ensuing debate. So I
hope that explains why we’ve done what we’ve done.
In the time remaining, I
will attempt to put my personal view. I personally have no strong feelings
about equal marriage, one way or the other. I believe, contrary to what Cllr
Driver may have said, that civil partnerships do confer most of the rights and
benefits associated with marriage but I’m also aware that many people have
strong faith-based views on the issue and believe that those views should be
respected. That said, I don’t believe that I can vote on this matter. I find
myself in a dilemma, because as a Councillor my vote should represent the views
of my constituents but I know for a fact that amongst those people there is a
wide range of views on the subject. A vote one way or the other would do an
injustice to a significant section of that group. Furthermore, I don’t think that
I was primarily elected to speak on their behalf on moral or ethical matters
and therefore my personal views in this debate I think are irrelevant and for
those reasons, I will abstain when it comes to the vote. Thank you Chairman.
Chair: Cllr Will Scobie.
Cllr Will Scobie: In difference to the previous speaker I do
actually have strong opinions on this and I will be voting accordingly. I agree
that as Councillors we should pay our respects to what the communities think,
but we also have political parties and our own personal views and it should be
a complete union of those three different parts, which we should base our vote
on. Despite a lot of progress in the last 20 years, homophobic discrimination
still exists. Rather than speaking in hyperbole and wild generalisations, lets
first look at some of the statistics of this discrimination before we continue
into the main debate. Susan Burden in her 2005 book Rethinking Sexual Identity
in Education, conducted a study which found that homosexuality is the third
leading cause of suicide in the 15-24 age bracket. This is backed up by the
Steven Lee and Marvin Fine in their 2001 book Handbook of Diversity of Parent Education, which furthers this point by finding
that 30% of annual youth suicides are LGBT related. In their analysis they also
found that LGBTs are three times more likely to attempt suicide because of
their sexuality, that 45 per cent of gay men and 20% of gay women have
experienced verbal or even physical assault because of their sexuality and of
the Homeless Youth Today study found 42 per cent of them identified themselves
as LGBT and 25% of these youths said they had been forced out of their homes
and of their own families because of their sexuality.
Susan Burden also looked into this statistic that found that
one child in four is forced out of their homes because of their sexuality and
it is true that we are moving in the right direction with regards to tolerance
for different people yet we must continue to fight for equality because these
statistics demonstrate that homophobic ideals are still prevalent in our
society. We live in a hetero-normative society where everybody is presumed
straight unless proven otherwise, where a non-heterosexual relationship holds
no value to the majority, and where society fails to challenge homophobic
remarks which in turns gives validation to the homophobic beliefs held by some.
Freedom from intolerance is not an ideal that we can selectively implement. It
is the birthright for all. Homophobia is the last accepted form of
discrimination.
The main justification that we hear for not having equal
marriage is predicated solely on the religious definition of what marriage is.
However, marriage has evolved beyond that in society and you can now get
married outside of a church with your own vows and no input whatsoever from
organised religion. To follow this religious argument, you would therefore
negate all marriages that took place outside of religious institutions because
they too do not follow the religious definition of marriage being a union
between two people before God. Legal marriages happen in registry offices every
day and they have nothing to do with religion, and by excluding homosexuals
from having this legal right to a civil marriage we are discriminating against
homosexuals and destroying the notion that this country is founded upon equal
rights for all. I come from a political party founded on social justice,
equality and I will be proud to vote in favour of this motion.[APPLAUSE]
Cllr Kim Gibson: Thank you Chair. As we’ve heard and I know you
don’t want me to repeat but basically I have to read from my phone I’m afraid,
during the Prime Ministers speech he did say that one of the main things was
that saying your vows in front of people keep families together more. We
believe this is one of the things that we exist on and the other thing really I
shouldn’t read from that, is that we are talking about equality and I know that
I myself do go to church and I did have thoughts about this moral side of it
but this is nothing to do with the churches. This is about law, this is about
equality in law. The churches will still
make their own rites, some churches still don’t marry divorced people, that is
their right to choose and they would still have their right. We need to get
away from this idea. It’s not moral in the sense that this is law. Do we have
equality in law? I believe we should have. I will be voting for this. Thank
you.
Chair: Cllr Fenner.
Cllr Michelle Fenner: Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to address
the issue first of all of whether it is appropriate for TDC to take part in
this consultation. It is a consultation set up by the Government and they
invite representations from any group so in this sense TDC representing through
its elected Members, the local community has a valid point to make in this
consultation. We are a progressive and inclusive administration. We welcome the
debate on equal marriage and the consultation that is taking place. We want to
advance the equalities and diversity agenda, not just within the Council but
within our local community. And it is a moral issue, it is a moral issue in the
sense that its to do with equalities. This is why the Labour Group was happy for
me to second the motion presented it for the debate. Some people try to stop
the debate, some people try to muddy the water in this debate by introducing
the definition of marriage through religious beliefs. This consultation is to
do with civil ceremony with implications in fighting against discrimination and
what I can only describe as the forces of conservatism which stops society from
moving on.
Civil partnership and marriage are two separate institutions with
two separate legal situations. Separate is not equal and as long as civil
partnership is for same-sex couples only and is the only form of legal
recognition available to them, informing an employer or a service provider of a
civil partnership is equivalent to declaring sexual orientation and that
amounts to discrimination. The theory is that there is similar rights though
Cllr, that it was argued earlier that most rights, but the reality is
different. Often for instance when filling out a form we are asked for the name
of our spouse, not of our partner. There are some difficulties that have been
reported when dealing with pension benefits or when travelling abroad when a
civil partnership is not recognised. There is also a problem with transgender
people [timer chimes] who currently have to end their civil partnership or
their marriage. Transgender people applying for gender recognition are forced
to end any current marriage or civil partnership. The process for starting a
new marriage or civil partnership is bureaucratic and humiliating therefore if
this motion is agreed and voted on tonight we will send our motion to Central
Government as part of the consultation process. The old adage “Live and let
live” is not enough.
Chair. That’s sufficient thank you. You’re well over your
time. Cllr Clive Hart.
Cllr Clive Hart: Thank you Chairman. I would have to argue
with Cllr Bayford who says this is not a matter for, wasn’t elected to discuss
this or make any sort of decisions. Just when questions get awkward or
difficult, that is no time to shirk them or shy them, and try to bury it on the
basis that you weren’t elected for it, that’s exactly what we were elected to
do. It’s certainly what I stood for as a Labour Councillor for equality. It’s
absolutely what I stand for. It’s at the core belief of the Labour Party for
equality, and it’s also a core belief of this new administration to have an
open and transparent debate on anything we possibly can within the scope of our
Council, so our Group was indeed all voted unanimously to debate this issue,
absolutely unanimously, we are not whipped on how we vote with the final vote
on how things go, but what I would say is that as Labour Councillors, all our
Labour Councillors are firmly minded for equality, it’s our core value and
that’s what will guide the way I vote. Thank you, Chairman.
Chair: Thank you. Cllr Wells.
Cllr Chris Wells: Thank you Mr Chairman. I apologise in advance,
I’m going to spoil the party. I am personally deeply concerned about both the
Government consultation and the manner in which this issue has been exploited
locally. I wish to formally record my disappointment that as Chairman of the Council
sir, you have allowed this debate this evening when it is clear that no member,
no member has any remit from their electorate on this matter. What has gone
before and been said so far and what is to come afterwards are no more than the
personal views of each member. It would have been far better to have simply
made the public aware of the consultation and how and where they could record
their views as we did with animal exports and those of us who have read the
consultation and responded to it can attest the consultation itself as a
document, it’s framed more for personal response than anything else. Why this
Council with no power over registrars and operations is pushed to consider this
is a story of two Councillors, both of whom have already abandoned the ticket
on which they were elected after less than a year. They seek to define
difference between themselves, the voters and colleagues have variously
abandoned. It’s the tale which must cast doubt on the individual integrity and
commitment, ironically the key elements of successful marriage, the issue they
have chosen to exploit.
As this day has got closer, we have all heard the
accusations of homophobia, the refusal to countenance any view not in accord
with the campaigners’ demands, including a disgraceful public demeaning dismissal
of a local priest’s mild contribution to debate. So let me deal with that
first. I have professionally worked with
the LGBT groups in Manchester and Brighton and celebrated my own son’s civil
partnership here in Thanet less than two years ago. So let’s get this straight and
dispense with the Pavlovian automated response of homophobia that allows one to
duck proper debate. I simply ask that the Council should listen to what I say
next and weigh it carefully in their considerations. I currently oppose the
introduction of civil marriage equality for two very simply reasons. Firstly,
to an extent it reduces the role of marriage in our society, from a 3-dimensional
form to a two dimensional institution. Traditionally, Marriage has been about
the loving relationship of two people, and the family that is naturally created
through that union. Families that, we are told by researchers, produce more stable,
rounded and secure young people than other forms of union. [Loud Murmuring] The
discourse of consultation and campaign which airbrushes the fundamental importance
of children and their upbringing from marriage is and must be fatally flawed.
All in this Chamber know only too well the problems that crumbling family life
bring [Chair: Can you wind up now?] Equality and diversity are the watchbirds
which underpin this and many other changes in society. My point is simple. The
LGBT community already has equality before the law. [Public: Time!] Why is it
such a terror to commit to diversity for others? Isnt that the very point
heterosexuals are often berated with.
Chair: Thank you. Cllr Moores.
Cllr Simon Moores: Thank you Chair. Whether we like it or
not this is a matter that will be decided by Members of Parliament. We need to
remind ourselves as I’m sure speaking as I said beforehand, local Councils,
District Councils such as ourselves is there to provide services, we provide
services such as emptying the bins, providing entertainment on our sands,
making Thanet a better place, it’s been argued it is not for us to actually
make moral decisions on the part of the people we represent. Now the Government
is seeking local authority responses to a government consultation and it says
clearly that “Do you agree or disagree with enabling all couples, regardless of
their gender to have a civil marriage ceremony?” and it further adds “Please
explain the reasons for your answer. Please respond within 1,225 characters
which is approximately 200 words”. I see nothing in the consultation which
suggests that we here tonight should be having a debate on this matter. The
consultation is about how we might best remove the ban on same-sex couples
having a civil marriage, not whether or not this should actually happen and I
can’t see how Thanet District Council should respond to this, except to say
that it’s not actually within our remit.
So I would urge members to think very
clearly about this, we are a District Council, we are not Kent County Council,
we’re not registrars for births marriages and deaths and we are not here to
make moral decisions on part of the residents. We are here to clean their
streets, we are here to collect their community charge, [shouting] we provide
some 600 different services which are [Chair: Please be quiet in the public
gallery] some 600 or so different services which our residents expect from us
in return for the taxes they pay. The decisions on whether this should or
should not happen, the implementation as part of the consultation is a matter
for Members of Parliament. It is way beyond our pay grade and yes by all means
let us consult on how we might best, and I stress how we might best implement
this, not challenge it, not discuss it, but implement it and that’s all really our
role happens to be. Thank you Chairman.
Chair: Cllr Mrs Johnston.
Cllr Iris Johnston: Thank you very much Chairman. There have
been a number of times when the opposite side were in control there were
consultations sent to this Council that never came before this Council for us to
debate. I brought the one particularly on maternity issues at the QEQM and I
asked a question then in opposition of the then Cabinet member and I got a
silly answer. We took control and I then further went ahead to deal with this
question of maternity services and the Officer told me that she had been
instructed to write the answer herself. That is not how the Council works now.
If a consultation and somebody asks us to do something as a Council and it
comes to an Officer and I want it to be a named Officer as in the Chief
Executive, it should then go to a Senior Management Team and should then go to
the rest of the Council. So what I did over the maternity services was to send
out a letter to all of you, very short notice to all of you and if you were all
happy 56 we would send it as the Council response. Im telling you this very briefly
as an example of how this Council should be dealing with consultations [Chair:
Can we keep to the subject please?].
I'm coming to the subject cause this is
extremely relevant, its extremely relevant and that Council I have read the
document from your Government and your Coalition Government and it does say
“local authorities including registrars”. We are consultees, we are a target
for consultation. Now somewhere that application has come into this Council. I think
Im reasonably on the ball but I didn’t know about it until I saw Cllr Drivers
motion so I asked the question “When did it come into the Council? Has anyone
seen it because I haven’t. So it’s something we have to get right Chairman, and
you are our Chairman, get our house in order about consultations that come in.
I have read the document from cover to cover, back and front. I am an
Irish-Protestant. I come from 32 clergy background including the odd bishop so
I know a little about religion but this is actuallyabout equal rights for
people. Treating people equally. I looked into equal partnerships as opposed to
equal marriage and there is definitely an issue. If you ever went for a job and
the cheek of it they asked if you were married or single or divorced or
anything else, you have to tick a box, but if you have to put in another line
to say “civil partner” as you said Cllr Fenner, it immediately says what your
sexual orientation is. None of their business. They used to ask you how many
children you had and when I said five that was it. I’m sure Cllr Wells when you
said twelve, you were finished [laughter] .
So I’m sorry, I will be supporting
this and will be supporting both parts of the answer and I’ll tell you why on
the transsexual side of it and I really did question and worry about this one,
because I’ve known people who have suddenly, 30 years into a marriage, decided they
were actually women instead of men, and how does the other person the woman on
the other side feel and what should happen, and what the reason [Chair: Wind up
please] the reason I’m supporting it is that if you still love each other
whatever your sexuality and two people who married 45 years ago and still love
each other, if they have to divorce, that other person, the woman who’s already
feeling upset, loses every right to the man’s pension. So we’ve got to support
it. I’m doing it. I’m an old Irish Protestant. I have all of that background of
clergy and everything else. It’s not a religious matter for me tonight, its an
equality matter. [Applause]
Chair: Thank you. Cllr Worrow.
Cllr John Worrow: Yeah, thank you very much. It’s amazing how
the Councillor for Westgate-on-Sea didn’t object to debating on live animal
exports, I wonder why did you allow that to go ahead, why did you debate
Margate football ground for example [Chair: Can you keep to the point please?].
I will keep to the point. For the benefit of Thanet’s unique version of the
Conservative Party because they do not represent, I have spoken to people around
the country that are Conservatives that find this situation quite embarrassing.
When I was a Conservative before I resigned the whip, I was made to feel quite
uncomfortable and on the 8
th December one of the reasons why I voted
for a more progressive administration was because the behaviour, particularly
of the so-called Conservative Cabinet, the unique version of the Conservative
Cabinet, who do not represent the Conservatives throughout the country, who
have no women, not one [Chair: Cllr Worrow, Cllr Worrow, you are wandering off
the subject . Can you return to it?] They have not one single woman on the
frontbench. That tells you what they think about equality.
I’m going to read a
passage from our Prime Minister, David Cameron, OK? In his speech, David
Cameron, the Prime Minister of the Conservative Party, the proper one, said “I
once stood before a Conservative Conference and said it shouldn’t matter
whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man
and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on we are consulting on
legal gay marriage and to anyone who has reservations I say, yes, its about
equality. But its also about something else. Commitment. Conservatives believe
in the ties that bind us, that society is stronger when we make vows to each
other and support each other". David Cameron said he doesn’t support equal
marriage despite being a Conservative. He said he supports equal marriage
because he’s a Conservative.
I know, from firsthand experience, from speaking
to South Thanet MP Laura Sandys, that she, Laura Sandys, supports equal
marriage. So Laura, if you are watching this webcast, I ask you to go public
and declare your support for equal marriage because you’re a proper
Conservative. You are not part of the unique version of the Conservative Party
here in Thanet which I resigned from. As for Sir Roger Gale, he may be entitled
to his opinion but at a time when so many young gay people are taking their
lives and the likes of the Cllr for Westgate-on-Sea makes fun of gay people on
the blog, at a time when young gay people are taking their lives, I think it’s
very irresponsible for the MP for Thanet North to refer to people as “militant
homosexuals”. You are sitting over there [timer chimes] and you know why.
[Applause]
Chair: Cllr Mrs Tomlinson.
Cllr Shirley Tomlinson: Firstly thank you Chairman. Cllr
Worrow has never talked to me about my views but I think he probably knows my view
because I have very very many LGB and T friends [ Cllr Worrow: Ive got one
friend…whoo!] and I have black friends
as well [Worrow: Im sure you do]. However I will be abstaining tonight because
I have not got the views of all the residents that myself and Cllr Gregory
represent. Probably a third, so I cant stand here and vote either for or
against. I have a gay son-in-law, step son I mean, and I am very proud of him
and I am proud of all my gay and lesbian friends. Thank you.
Chair: Right. Cllr Cohen.
Cllr Jack Cohen: Thank you Mr Chairman. When I look at what we’re
discussing tonight is in two parts, a) and b), and I do hope we will be taking
separate votes on these, Mr Chairman, because they are two different proposals
and have different connotations to them. If you look certainly on the
transsexuals side, there is a serious, shall we say, injustice with the
possibility of loss of pensions and loss of security and even such things as
inheritance tax and everything else, that could come into this, and it would be
very sad if people after such a long association have to face this prospect.
As
for the part a) of this supports the removal of the ban of same-sex couples
being able to have a civil ceremony, yes. I look at it, but I look at it as a
certain degree of concern because, as it is established, then comes in the
question of equal rights, and we see all these equal rights and what happens
with these equal rights not being able to remove from this country that it
might be very undesirable and maybe equal rights does play a part here because
once a person has a civil marriage, they then possibly have a strong
entitlement to a religious marriage and that then the civil rights could be,
civil equal rights could come in, and then we could be in a situation of where
religious groups are really forced, almost virtually forced to go ahead, and
that’s what really worries me. I worry really sincerely and I have very great
reservations on that particular problem. Thank you Mr Chairman.
Chair: Thank you. Cllr Bruce.
Cllr Alasdair Bruce: Thank you Chair. Cllr Worrow’s made a rather
sweeping accusation about Cabinet. He may wish to reconsider that because as he
might recall he came to me and asked me about his preference. I gave him my
opinion, unambiguous, he knows it today as it was when he first asked me and I
shall be voting accordingly.
Cllr Worrow. I was referring to the…
Chair: No
Cllr Worrow: I was referring to the relevant Members of the
Cabinet…
Chair. No, no no. Sorry, sit down please. Cllr Nicholson
please.
Cllr Richard Nicholson: Yes, thank you Chairman. Much has been said
about the morality of what is before us this evening, also about how can we
vote because we haven’t talked to all our residents in our particular wards. No
one in this Chamber has ever spoken to all their constituents on every subject.
We’ve got about 80 in front of us this evening, I wonder how many of them find
Members will stand up and say they’ve spoken to everyone in my ward who want my
opinion on this. Partly here to make decisions, they’re not always easy
decisions but we are here to make decisions. As to the morality, that morality
has no place in Thanet and District Council, I think that’s a terrible thing to
say, absolutely terrible and reminds me of the poem. This is not word perfect by any means. Yeah,
first of all they came for the Communists and I said nothing. Then they came
for the mentally disabled and I said nothing. Then they came for the Socialists
and I said nothing. Came for the Trade Unions and I said nothing, and on and on
and on. And the point he was making was that eventually they came for me and he
was a German Minister pre, in the Nazi era, died in a concentration camp
because he said nothing, so I think people need to think long and hard before
they think morals has got no part to play in our level of government or any
level of government. I think we all have a duty to speak out and we should
continue to do so. Thank you.
Chair: Cllr Harrison.
Cllr Mike Harrison: Yeah, I reiterate what Cllr Nicholsons said
right at the beginning. I certainly, and Im sure that other Members in this
Chamber haven’t consulted any of my constituents, I have actually spoken to a
couple of mine about this issue but I haven’t spoken to them about the Draft
Corporate Plan, the Housing Revenue Account, the Parking fees, the Strategic Assessment,
the Community Safety bit, Ive not spoken to any of them about that, and Im sure
that by saying that, Members opposite are taking the soft option. They are
taking the cop-out. In fact if that’s the case, they should never ever vote on
anything. Of course I suppose its no suprize to me that they take the soft
option, they take the line of least resistance because it is a contentious
issue by all means, and it is also an equality issue but I personally think it’s
about more than equality. I actually think it’s about freedom of choice. People
have freedom of choice to live in this country in the manner in which they see
fit. Now by having civil partnerships and/or a marriage and both, either or
whatever, it’s about making a commitment to somebody for the rest of your life.
Now, I’m going to a wedding on Sunday and as it happens its being held at a Barn
near Rochester, but it’s a civil ceremony. But I’m sure my niece and her
husband to be will be no less married on Sunday evening than they were than my
nephew who got married in a church. They are married, end of story. It’s not a
religious ceremony, it’s not about religion, it’s about the legal position of
two people living together, joining together and making a commitment to each
other. It’s a legal position and it’s the consequences of the legal position
that I think we should be concerned about Chairman. As has been said, this is a
request by Government to respond to a consultation. We can respond to that
consultation as best we can and it is perfectly valid to do so. So I for one
will be supporting this Chairman. I’m proud to support this and I’m not ashamed
to say I support this for a long time as somebody who worked in an industry
that for some reason seemed to attract quite a few gay people and having
attended at least two gay weddings in my time I know how happy these people
are and I’m sure there are some very strong relationships that last and last
and last and you don’t have to be male and female to enter into that sort of a
commitment.
There are a lot of loving
long lasting relationships and I think it’s incumbent upon us as politicians of
whatever level to make sure those people that enter into a relationships are
given some sort of legal protection in fact that’s a lot of what is having
legal protection whether you die or your partner takes on your pension, or the
fact that the reverse applies if you split up, there’s quite often
unfortunately as I’m able to know at my cost, a dispute about property. Now, if
you are in a legally agreed marriage [timer chimes] you also have some protection
about property rights as well Chairman, So I think Council should support this
we should send a really very strong message to the gay community in Thanet in
general that you are now living in an area that is governed by an
administration that believes in equality and freedom of choice [applause]
Chair: Cllr Gideon.
Cllr Jo Gideon: Thank you Chairman. I think it’s a great shame
but it doesn’t surprise me sadly that the debate has become polarised in a sort
of, if you believe in equality and progressive Government, then you must be a Labour
Party member or Independent. If you’re not then you’re homophobic and you sit
on the Conservative benches. [murmering] Sorry. Im sorry we actually have that
part of the debate. It is very very sad and it does us no credit as
Councillors. I think most people who know me know that and Cllr Driver will
agree with this, that I have campaigned throughout my time as a Councillor on
the equalities agenda. I have sat with Officers and have ensured as far as it
was in my power that the Council treats people in Thanet…the equalities agenda
is really important in its role as a Council. That is quite different from what
we have before us tonight. My personal view is irrelevant here.
I stand here as
a Ward Councillor and that I can tell you as a Ward Councillor that the
representations I have had from my ward have sadly, sorry that’s less than you
know what my view is, but have been entirely against the motion and therefore I
think it would be dishonest of me in my role as a Ward Councillor to support
the debate [Chair :Would you please be quiet in the public gallery?]. However
then to categorise me, you know somehow a progressive as in some way not
supporting equalities would be grossly unfair and I would say to everybody here
is that, part of equalities, part of progressive community is actually being
tolerant of other people’s views. Other people’s views, if they don’t agree
with you on things are not necessarily wrong views and tolerance and equality
are listening to other people and respecting diverse views, and I hope you
reflect on that.
Chair. Thank you. I’ve got another two speakers and then I
propose to go to Cllr Driver to wind the matter up.
Cllr Martin Wise: Thank you Mr Chairman. I find myself in a, beg
your pardon, “speak to the Chair” [Cllr Fenner motioning at Cllr Wise], you
want me to turn my back on you you mean? Or my back on the audience… Mr
Chairman, turning my back on the people who have turned up to hear us tonight,
I find myself in a rather difficult position because I am someone whose belief
that marriage was a union between two people for the procreation and stability
of children and now I am being asked to change the way that I’ve thought since
I can remember. Beg your pardon? I am… [Chair: Cllr Wise, it’s not helping is
it?] I’d like to barrack back actually, but I find myself in the position where
I’m having to be forced to think over the last 6 weeks, two months, whatever
because there doesn’t seem to be anything else going on in Thanet politics for
the last 6 weeks, two months, certainly the debate that has come amongst the
people…Have I? [Clark: Will you please address the Chair?] People keep talking to me Chair [Well, just
ignore them at the moment, Campbell – Not got the experience then] …are
actually in a position where I’m considering whether I should change that view
Chairman, the view I’ve held all those years, but does seem that the people who
are trying to force this on me are trying to do it in a way that runs roughshot
over what I believe, what millions of other people believe and have no interest
or sensitivity of any of those views.
And I take great exception to the fact
that these two mavericks in the Council who are unrepresentatives,
unrepresentative in their wards have been allowed to bring this to the Council
when frankly there are a million more important things for us that they
could’ve brought to this, for example we could talk about people in the Third
World that don’t have clean water to drink, or sanitation [Fenner: Its TDC,
Clark: if the public gallery continues to upset this meeting, I shall clear the
gallery, I don’t want to do that so please be quiet] There are a million things
that we could talk about but this self important, self-righteous, self-absorbed
group of mavericks have chosen to bring this to the Council. I tell you, I have
changed my view Chairman. I am going to vote for the motion, because [applause]
I believe that is the right thing but that should not make anybody believe that
I believe the two people who brought this to the Council have had anything really
positive to bring because I do not believe they have any integrity and I do not
believe you are fit to sit in this Council. Don’t kiss me, Cllr Worrow.
Chair: Thank you. Cllr Green.
Cllr David Green: Thank you Chair. First of all I’d like to
disassociate myself from some of the remarks that have been made in public by
the person bringing this motion, firstly about Roger Gale and secondly about
people with religious beliefs. I do not hold any of those views whatsoever.
However I have listened to the arguments against this motion and the only one
that I think still needs answering is this question about marriage being for
the bringing up of children. Well, it made me think of at least two of my
relations who in comparatively recent past, got married, both past the age of
60, in a church, and very happy they are through having done that.
So the
question about whether marriage is for bringing up children is frankly rubbish
and the church doesn’t recognise it either. So that made me think of what this
civil partnerships thing is about. I mean if there really is very little
difference between it legally and marriage , then the only effect it has is
against equality and it discriminates against a minority group of people and
therefore I’m against it. I’ve always been against discrimination, particularly
discrimination against people for things they can do nothing about. That to me
is morally wrong and that is why I will be voting for this motion. [Applause]
Chair: Thank you, Cllr Driver to wind up please.
Cllr Ian Driver: Thanks Chair. A lot of what I was going to say
has already been said so I’ll try and be as brief as possible. I am quite
disappointed by the lame excuses and the clever words and the ducking of the
issues that many of the Conservatives have indulged in tonight and trying to
suggest this is not a matter for Thanet Council to discuss. Chairman, there are
several thousand LGBT people living in Thanet and to deny those people their
democratic right to have a 30 minute debate does say a lot about the
Conservative Party in Thanet, their attitude towards the LGBT community. That
silence, that manipulation, that manoeuvering does say a lot about their
attitude.
One thing that’s not been said and actually makes this issue very
very relevant to Thanet Council is the local economy and the economic impact of
equal marriage on Thanet and it’s been estimated that the average wedding,
people spent £15,000 a heck of a lot of
money and by a very very conservative estimate, there’s probably gonna be at
least, if this legislation is passed, 20 to 25 equal marriages taking place in
Thanet every year, year in, year out and that’s £300,000 going into the pockets
of local businesses creating local jobs, so anybody who opposes equal marriage,
opposes the creation of local jobs and the stimulation of a local economy
[applause]. Lets say another thing, if Thanet tonight passes this motion, it
will be the first Council in England to do so, it will also be the first
Council in Kent to do so and it will send out a message loud and clear that
Thanet is an LGBT friendly place for people to visit, for people to set up
businesses, for people to come and live and for people to bring up families,
and I say[applause] I say if this motion is passed tonight, lets fly the
rainbow flag on top of the Council. Lets fly the rainbow flag on the Turner
Contemporary and tell the bigots and the homophobes that Thanet is no place for
you. Grow up and get over it.
Chair: Thank you. I am now going to put it to a vote.
