News

The Reverend Michael Bentley: "I believe marriage is meant for one woman and one man."
advertisement

What Does Bracknell Think: Are you in favour of gay marriage?

By Becky Barnes
February 20, 2013

THIS week we asked our panel if they would have voted for or against gay marriage and whether Bracknell MP Dr Phillip Lee made the right decision for his constituents when he abstained from his vote?

Rev Michael Bentley, former Great Hollands Neighbourhood Association chairman: “This must have been a very difficult decision for MPs because the bill for gay marriage produces many different views.

“I have sympathy with the dilemma that our local MPs (the MP for Windsor, which includes several areas in Bracknell Forest Council area) who voted against the bill; and Phillip Lee who abstained.

“I believe marriage is meant for one woman and one man.

“A faithful, loving relationship can certainly be had by gay people but it does not produce children – which is one of the purposes of marriage.

“I find it difficult to understand why those who are gay are not satisfied with a civil partnership, which, I understand gives them all the legal benefits they need.”

Caroline Allain, from Forest Park: “I would have voted for gay marriage, and I feel Phillip Lee should have taken more action to discover what his constituents actually wanted, by asking us.

“If he visited, or even dropped a leaflet through the door with contact details asking what we thought, I would have told him, and I’m sure he would have had a much more representative idea of how his constituents actually feel.”

Darren Bridgman, Bracknell blogger: “Well oddly for a Lib Dem supporter, I don’t believe in abstaining on any vote.

“Phillip Lee should have made a stand one way or the other. I don’t see any problem with having gay marriage in law.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (7)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 7 of 7

Wiztwas for MP! That has to be the sanest response to this whole nonsense.

Love who you want to love people. Stuff the church, state, and Old Oaks.

Mme. Madeline Vegas
22/02/2013 at 11:46

So, that report on how Bracknell thinks in brief: for, against, and more concerned with someone else being undecided. Helpful to know.

Nowtas, West Berkshire
21/02/2013 at 09:30

Marriage has always been about 2 people committing themselves to a relationship with each other.

Marriage got hijacked.

Hijacked by the government, who used it to gather intelligence and trace people, by the church as the agent of the state, by the wealthy in retaining property from marriage.

Marriage is not about children it is not about reproduction.

Hand fastings were about reproduction. A hand fasting would be a kind of pre marriage to test reproductive ability and to avoid childlessness.

It always has been the case that some people are just genetically incompatible and can't conceive with each other, although they can conceive fine with other people.

A hand fasting allowed a couple to live together and see if they could conceive. The "rules" said that as soon as they slept together they would be married, in truth this meant if they conceived.

I think that we should go back to hand fasting and marriage being no more than a declaration to our friends and neighbours, we should not need state or church to be involved we should do it ourselves.

As for the legislation.

First the state should remove the legal obligation of the Church of England to provide marriage and further separate church and state.

Civil union should be extended to cover different unions of people with different genders to avoid gender preference discrimination against straight couples.

Marriage should be replaced by civil union as far as the law / state is concerned. Marriages prior to this would automatically be considered equivalent to civil unions.

What people do with in their own faith/belief is up to them, their churches ,gods, goddesses and flying spaghetti monsters and noting to do with the state.

Wiztwas, Binfield
21/02/2013 at 09:01

Why do people who insist they are 'gay' always insist on some sort of pseudo hetro equality..? In the same way that a man is NOT equal to a Woman (pauses for torrents of outrage) a 'gay' is not equal to both. Vive la Difference my homosexual and hetrosexual friends, vive la difference. ;)

Timothy Jefferies, Disgraced Mayor Of Crowthorne.
20/02/2013 at 23:10

The question above is quite easy. The real question is why would anyone vote for the Dogs Dinner of legislation that just went through the Commons?

For example Maria Miller, the equalities minister, said that "abolishing the legal concept of adultery in the name of equality would strengthen marriage."

What?

Olds Oak, Finchampstead
20/02/2013 at 21:22

Follow me on Twitter @digWinstanley

Winstanley, Bracknell
20/02/2013 at 16:14

What the hell is this tripe by (the otherwise commendable) Rev?

So without marriage we can't have children? What a backward view that is. Marriage is not a purpose at all. It is a union between two people brought together by mutual affection and a desire to commit their lives to each other. I didn't marry my wife in order to have children and whether or not we were married would not have been a consideration for a second.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Caroline Allain - Phillip Lee did b*gger all to canvas opinion on this matter yet quotes 'an overwhelming majority of my constituents'.

In this day and age it is very easy to connect with voters, seek opinion, and make an effort to represent public feeling. But then making an effort does not appear to be in Lee's repertoire of skills.