Login Register

'Fired up' over marriage plans

By Wells Journal  |  Posted: January 17, 2013

Comments (0)

Voters in Wells have been urged to lobby Tessa Munt MP against Government proposals to redefine marriage.

Activists for the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) group, which opposes the Government's plans, are targeting 65 key seats throughout the country. Last week they were leafleting voters on the streets of the constituency where Ms Munt holds a majority of only 800.

C4M says it has 841 supporters living in the Wells constituency, and 625,000 supporters nationwide.

C4M's national campaign director, Colin Hart, said: "Our local activists are fired up to make sure voters have their say.

"We have identified Wells as a key seat, together with 64 others nationwide.

"MPs can expect local voters to be pressing them on where they stand on the redefinition of marriage.

"These plans are unpopular and divisive. The voters were ignored by the politicians, this was in no party's manifesto and the public consultation was a sham. The Government should concentrate on reviving the economy and delivering better public services, that's what ordinary people want – not playing politics with marriage."

The Government hopes to introduce very soon a Bill to the House of Commons to redefine marriage, but 130 Tory MPs have already said they'll vote against it.

Polls show 70 per cent of the public want to keep marriage as it is, and a national petition against the plans has attracted more than 620,000 signatures.

Read more from Wells Journal

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • x_Tink_x  |  January 20 2013, 7:42PM

    ''Polls show 70 per cent of the public want to keep marriage as it is, and a national petition against the plans has attracted more than 620,000 signatures.'' Really because I don't know anyone who has been asked this, this article is really bias by only giving a very one sided opinion in the press it doesn't give people the options to disagree as they don't have all the facts. even though no one asked me in this poll I would defiantly be in the so called 30% who thinks the laws are outdated and we live in a modern every changing society and if people don't want to see a same-sex marriage why don't they just not attend it, how is it really going to affect them? no one is forcing the campaigners into a same-sex marriage jeese ---- o yeah and who ever wrote this article might want to think about making a more balanced argument next time.

    |   1
  • Nerva  |  January 19 2013, 9:24PM

    Of what possible "interest" could the proposals to open up CIVIL marriage to same-sex couples be to religious groups? These groups should be looking at implementing the canons of religious marriage as per the Bible, which they are always quoting. Perhaps the Government should be looking at insisting that all marriages should be conducted by a civil registrar - and then those couples who also want a religious marriage ceremony can trot off to a place of worship for that ceremony. But then they would moan at that as their ministers would loose the fees the receive for the civil registration part of the joint ceremony. All the recent polls that I have seen suggest that their is widespred approval to allow civil marriage for same-sex couples - some of them in excess of 60% approval. So Mr. Hart is part of a minority, yet he he virtually "threatening" the democrataclly elected Member of Parliament for Wells, and other MPs. @bwilde: You are so correct! The article has no balance and is totally unbalanced. But then with a "free press" in Britain, the Wells Journal can do what they like!

    |   2
  • countryman2  |  January 18 2013, 9:24PM

    841 is a tiny proportion of those living in the Wells constituency. I cannot see what politics has to do with this. What polls are being quoted? This seems like very lazy journalism. I'm not aware of a groundswell against this. Most people surely would see two people committing themselves to each other under God a positive act irrespective of whether the couple were heterosexual or not. Are we to disallow marriage between a couple simply because they are unable to have children? What nonsense this is.

    |   3
  • bwilde  |  January 18 2013, 8:31PM

    This article is so biased. It's like an advertorial for C4M. Where is the balance in this article? I would ask you to listen to the people the legislation directly affects, rather than a lobby group which is not directly affected by the proposed changes in the law. Why arent' you representing and listening to the voices of those people in committed same-sex relationships for who this change in law will directly affect?

    |   3