Gwent MPs split in gay marriage vote

Gwent MPs split in gay marriage vote

Gwent MPs split in gay marriage vote

First published in Monmouthshire news

GWENT’S six MPs stuck to their guns in the House of Commons on Tuesday, with most voting for gay marriage and two against.

Newport West MP Paul Flynn, Newport East MP Jessica Morden, Blaenau Gwent’s Nick Smith and Islwyn’s Chris Evans voted with other MPs to get the bill through the Commons.

However, Monmouth Tory MP David Davies and Labour’s Paul Murphy, for Torfaen, voted against the bill.

The split remained as it had done at a previous vote.

Mr Murphy, who is a papal knight, has previously stated his concerns as a Christian about redefining marriage, while Mr Davies has spoken out against the plans.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill passed its third reading, 366 to 161, but is now set to face the House of Lords.

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:53pm Thu 23 May 13

Katie Re-Registered says...

"Mr Murphy, who is a papal knight, has previously stated his concerns as a Christian about redefining marriage..."

In the light of recent tragic events, this just goes to show that it's not just Muslims who can be religious extremists. In addition to this, a campaign group called Coalition for Marriage has been running a deeply homphobic, transphobic and sexist campaign for several years' now. Btw...of what practical use, in the 21st century world, is a 'papal knight'? Seems like it's not only the taliban who are stuck in the 14th century!
"Mr Murphy, who is a papal knight, has previously stated his concerns as a Christian about redefining marriage..." In the light of recent tragic events, this just goes to show that it's not just Muslims who can be religious extremists. In addition to this, a campaign group called Coalition for Marriage has been running a deeply homphobic, transphobic and sexist campaign for several years' now. Btw...of what practical use, in the 21st century world, is a 'papal knight'? Seems like it's not only the taliban who are stuck in the 14th century! Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Thu 23 May 13

Realist UK says...

Apparently, it was a free vote of conscience without party whip involvement. Therefore, those who don't accept the current "metropolitan trendy" view that gay marriage is "cool-baby" shouldn't be pilloried. I don't agree with Murphy on a vast majority of his views but this time I agree that redefining the word marriage is a step too far.
Apparently, it was a free vote of conscience without party whip involvement. Therefore, those who don't accept the current "metropolitan trendy" view that gay marriage is "cool-baby" shouldn't be pilloried. I don't agree with Murphy on a vast majority of his views but this time I agree that redefining the word marriage is a step too far. Realist UK
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Thu 23 May 13

Limestonecowboy says...

Mr Murphy should be respected for his view as he is correct - same sex marriage cannot be legal.
Mr Murphy should be respected for his view as he is correct - same sex marriage cannot be legal. Limestonecowboy
  • Score: 0

8:33am Fri 24 May 13

Katie Re-Registered says...

Surely though, marriage has already been 'redefined' regularly - particularly over the last 100 years. There was a time when marriage wasn't between a man and a woman, but was in effect, a transaction between two men in which a man approached another man - usually the father of a woman - and asked for his permission to marry his daughter. Not too infrequently, this was in part a business transaction as men who could bring wealth into the family unit. These were in effect very much arranged marriages. Once married, anything that a woman owned became her husband's property. This persisted until relatively recently until the Married Woman's Property Act was passed - 1867(?) Even to this day, there is a cultural hangover from this as we talk about a father 'giving his daughter away' etc.
Surely though, marriage has already been 'redefined' regularly - particularly over the last 100 years. There was a time when marriage wasn't between a man and a woman, but was in effect, a transaction between two men in which a man approached another man - usually the father of a woman - and asked for his permission to marry his daughter. Not too infrequently, this was in part a business transaction as men who could bring wealth into the family unit. These were in effect very much arranged marriages. Once married, anything that a woman owned became her husband's property. This persisted until relatively recently until the Married Woman's Property Act was passed - 1867(?) Even to this day, there is a cultural hangover from this as we talk about a father 'giving his daughter away' etc. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree