‘Fisking’ the anti equal marriage letter from ‘Conservative Grassroots’

Yesterday’s Telegraph letter from the chairman of an organisation called ‘Conservative Grassroots is so wrong, almost from beginning end that it deserves a ‘fisk’. It lacks the absurd ‘cultural Marxists under the bed’ conspiracy theories of the organisation’s most recent contribution to the equal marriage debate, but it still twists and distorts both the facts and the concept of ‘conservatism’ to such an extent that it cannot go unanswered.

Here’s their letter and my response:

“SIR – I have written to the Prime Minister in response to his letter to me on behalf of Conservative Grassroots to express our deep concern about the negative effect of the gay marriage Bill on both Conservative Party morale and electoral appeal.”

It’s pretty hard to see what gives ‘Conservative Grassroots’ the right to speak for root and branch Tories. They seem to be self appointed spokesmen who absolutely don’t speak for most Conservative members. Its website only lists five people who have signed up for it, there’s no evidence of any polling or consultation of ordinary Conservative members that would give their public pronouncements any credibility. Their Twitter feed shows a near total obsession with gay marriage.

In terms of the impact on electoral appeal, leading psephologist, Anthony Wells suggests that, “in terms of a direct effect, my guess is that, by the time of the next election, gay marriage will have negligible impact on Tory support.” Of course, any u-turn, as well as being the wrong thing to do, would also have a negative impact on Conservative attempts to reach out to swing voters who decide elections.

On top of that, it’s worth remembering Lyndon B Johnson’s words to his advisers when they warned that passing civil rights legislation would be politically risky should be remembered. His famous retort to them was “well what the hell’s the Presidency for?” Equal marriage is the right thing to do.

“There is no solid evidence to support the Prime Minister’s claim that “from what the evidence tells us, the vast majority of public opinion agrees”. Polling data shows just how divided both the country and the party are.”

There’s plenty of evidence to back up the Prime Minister’s claim. The most recent poll had 55 per cent supporting and only 36 per cent opposing. Another had 62 per cent supporting and 36 per cent opposing.  That’s hardly an even split. Every poll (with the exception of polls with skewed questions funded by the anti gay marriage lobby) has shown a significant majority in favour of equal marriage.

“Conservatives have always been at the forefront of innovation, development and growth but success has always hinged on recognising the enduring value of the fundamental institutions of society, marriage and family.”

Indeed – which is why the institution of marriage should be extended to gay people. It’s wrong that they’re shut out from such a beneficial institution.

“The Prime Minister believes that “enabling same–sex couples to get married will strengthen – not weaken – family ties, helping to ensure that marriage remains an essential building block of our society“. In fact, all the evidence from countries that have introduced this legislation over the last ten years shows that marriage is further devalued in the eyes of all and the tie between marriage and bringing up of children is seriously weakened.”

That’s simply untrue. MV Lee Badgett produced a detailed study of the effect of equal marriage in the Netherlands. She said that she “looked hard for evidence of changes in the cultural idea of marriage… but I couldn’t find any…The trends in marriage and divorce didn’t change… all the evidence suggests that same-sex couples will fit right into our current understanding of marriage… Marriage itself will not be affected.”

There’s absolutely no evidence that equal marriage will have a negative impact on the institution of marriage and there’s plenty of evidence that it will strengthen the institution. In each country where equal marriage has been introduced, support for the measure has increased over time. Only 18 per cent of Spanish voters not want the law to be repealed and 82 of Dutch voters now support the measure – hardly evidence of a great crisis being provoked after the introduction of the measure.

Detailed research by Policy Exchange last year showed that the introduction of equal marriage has had little impact on the number of divorces in countries where it was introduced. The number of divorces after the introduction of marriage equality reduced in the Netherlands and flatlined in Belgium. Canada and South Africa also saw decreased divorce rates. The number of divorces increased in Spain, but that is because equal marriage was passed at the same time as the relaxation of previously very strict divorce laws.

“The Prime Minister also states that, since this is a “conscience issue”, he would never put pressure on Parliamentary colleagues to vote against their conscience. Doing a shabby deal with Labour to get the Bill through the Commons and reports of coercion combined with the Government’s voting down of every proposed conscience amendment does not sound at all like “a free vote on a matter of conscience” and is inconsistent with Conservative principles.”

Shabby deal? There was a clear and decisive majority in favour of equal marriage in the House of Commons.

Conscience amendement? Is this member of Conservative Grassroots now advocating extending civil partnerships to heterosexuals and creating an alternative institution to marriage. As a believer in the institution of marriage, I believe that would be wrong and damaging to the institution of marriage.

“Long-serving party members – many of whom have had the responsibility of bringing up children themselves – believe that the family lies at the heart of Conservative values.”

The majority of people in this country, including most of those who “have had the responsibility of bringing up children themselves” believe in equal marriage. Besides, a belief in family and marriage is entirely consistent with a belief in equal marriage. Is the author of the letter arguing that gay people who have adopted children should not be allowed to marry? And it remains unclear why the author of the letter thinks he has the right to speak on behalf of “long-serving party members.”

“The golden inheritance of every previous generation, that has been lovingly handed down to us, is now being smashed on the anvil of “equality and fairness”.

No it isn’t. The beneficial institution of marriage is being extended to a group of people who have been shut out from the institution through no fault of their own. Does the author of the letter believe that equality under the law or fairness are bad things? I think that they are unarguably good things, which should be protected, not denigrated.

“Is this the “new intolerance”?”

One for John Rentoul – certainly a ‘Question To Which The Answer Is No’.

“We sincerely hope that the Lords will take a more objective view of this misguided legislation, transcend party politics, uphold our constitutional processes, defend our freedoms – and reject the Bill.”

The democratic chamber has made its view resoundingly clear – it would be outrageous for the Lords to overturn this decision and provoke a constitutional crisis. It’s perverse that the author thinks that extending marriage to gay people would somehow damage our freedoms – what of the freedom for gay people to express their love and commitment through the universally understood medium of marriage?

David Cameron should be proud that his government is bringing forward this legislation. It is in the great conservative social reforming tradition and marks his government out as standing on the right side of history and doing the right thing.