Why I left the Conservatives part 2: Gay 'marriage' and the quadruple lock lie

Whilst it may not be a major concern to many readers, I have decided to bump this piece up the pecking order following today's front page story in the Daily Mail (read it here) that David Cameron now regrets having "forced through gay marriage law".

We know how you feel, Dave

Despite a pledge to introduce gay marriage not being in the 2010 manifesto of any major party, and despite the public having never been asked for their opinion (Cameron's sham consultation only asked how, not if, legislation should be introduced), the Bill received Royal Assent and passed into law in July 2013.

In an attempt to assuage the fears of her backbench colleagues, Maria Miller announced the so-called 'quadruple lock' designed, we are told, to prevent any religious leader being forced to conduct same-sex 'marriages' against their beliefs. Her statement to the House of Commons focused particularly on the Church of England, given its unique position as the established church and which had opposed the legislation.

The quadruple lock consists of the following measures:

1. The legislation states that neither religious organisations as a whole nor individual ministers will be forced to hold same-sex weddings on their premises;

 

2. Parliament will amend the Equalities Act so that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations who refuse to conduct gay marriages;

 

3. Religious organisations who do support gay marriage can opt-in, and then their individual ministers will also then need to opt-in before they can conduct the ceremonies; and

 

4. The legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the Church of England and Wales to marry same sex couple: the Church of England had already said that it did not want to carry out same-sex partnerships.

This lock would, we were told, ensured "beyond doubt" there could not be a successful action brought in the courts against any church for failing to conduct a same sex 'marriage'.

Regrettably, and all too predictably, the 'quadruple lock' is not worth the fresh air into which Maria Miller's words were breathed.

On 24th June 2010, a chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the matter of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria. The applicants claimed they had been discriminated against as Austrian law did not allow them, as a same-sex couple, to contract marriage.

Their claim did not focus on any specific benefits available to married couples which they were unable to take advantage of. Rather, their claim focused solely on the fact they were being prevented from contracting marriage based only on their sexual orientation. In other words, they argued that a law defining marriage as being solely between one man and one woman was discriminatory.

Although the chamber of the Court found, unanimously, against the applicants, the detailed judgment handed down puts the lie to the 'quadruple lock'.

Whilst the European Court's case-law had previously determined "...the emotional and sexual relationship of a same-sex couple constitutes 'private life'" [para. 92], the judgment in this case ruled for the first time such relationships also constituted 'family life', because "... the rapid revolution of social attitudes towards same-sex couples has taken place in many member states" [para. 93].

So as a result of legislation sanctioning same-sex marriage and/or civil partnerships having been enacted by a number of EU countries, the European Courts have already started to re-write the rules.

In ruling that, notwithstanding the new case-law it had just created, it was not discriminatory for states to legislate only for opposite-sex marriage, it was made eminently clear this position was not set in stone.

The judgement reads:

"The Court cannot but note that there is an emerging European consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples. Moreover, this tendency has developed rapidly over the past decade. Nevertheless, there is not yet [emphasis added] a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples. The area in question must therefore still be regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus, where States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes " [para. 105]

In other words, once a majority of EU countries - or more likely, those countries constituting a majority of residents of the EU - have legalised gay marriage, the Court would see its way open to rule it discriminatory (i.e. illegal) for member states not to permit same-sex marriage.


In those circumstances, not only would the UK have then been compelled by the EU (had it not already) to sanction same-sex marriage but the Church of England, as the established Church and de facto extension of the state, would equally be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages.

So there we have it. Irrespective of the Conservatives' 'quadruple lock', the European Court has already indicated it is only a matter of time before it forces all member states to recognise and conduct same-sex marriages.

But that is not the worst of it. Look again at when this judgment was handed down - 24th June 2010. Long before the government brought forward its legislation, and long before Maria Miller announced the 'quadruple lock'.

In other words, the announcement on the 'quadruple lock' was made despite full knowledge of its long-term impotence, and of the judgment of the European Court.

It goes without saying that I could no longer remain a member of a party which not only brought forward this legislation without any democratic mandate to do so and whilst ignoring the millions of faith in this country who objected, but who have lied to us in doing so.

I am proud to have joined UKIP, the only party to stand up for faith and the traditional, the only, definition of marriage.