Baroness Barker Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill House of Lords, June 3, 2013

My Lords, I declare an interest. Many years ago I had the great good fortune to meet someone. She and I have loved one another ever since apart, that is, from the occasional spectacular argument, usually about driving or DIY. As the slogan on T-shirts in the 1980s said it happens in the best of families. Whilst marriage is robust and enduring, what is meant by marriage has developed and changed significantly. Marriage was redefined in 1986, otherwise there would not now by any civil marriages in this country. Marriage laws were redefined in 1949, otherwise under-16-year-olds would still be able to get married. The Bill that we are considering today does not undermine any existing or future marriages. What is does is extend the status of marriage to gay men and to lesbians who want to make a public commitment in the presence of their families and friends and in some cases co-religionists, the majority of whom want to celebrate the marriage of lesbians and gay men. Some noble Lords say that allowing gay people to get married is unfair as it leaves other sorts of relationships, such as those of siblings, without the same legal rights as those who choose a marital status. If enabling gay marriage will be unfair to a relationship, for example between two sisters, then existing marriage laws are equally wrong and unfair. Opponents of gay marriage never make that argument. But, my Lords, relationships which adults enter into voluntarily are wholly distinct from relationships determined by consanguinity. If family members could become civil partners, it would be easy for a bullying parent or sibling to place members of their family into a partnership, or prevent them forming a partnership of their choice, simply in order to protect property. Nobody should want to legislate for that. A great deal has been made of the issue of a conscience clause for registrars and other public servants. My Lords, I grew up in a time and a place when discrimination in public services on the basis of a persons religion was not uncommon. It caused resentment and divided communities. The idea that individual public servants should decide according to their personal beliefs who does and does not receive a public service is quite wrong. Taxes are levied on a non-discriminatory basis and services should be provided on a non-discriminatory basis. Some opponents of this Bill say that we should not be addressing this issue when we face economic difficulties. I disagree. That is because discrimination always comes at a cost.

In the USA, hundreds of employers, some small and some of the biggest like Nike and Microsoft, are assisting legal cases in support of gay marriage. These employers need to recruit and retain the most productive staff to make their businesses competitive, and that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers. These businesses want their LGBT employees to be able to focus on their jobs, not on dealing with the inequality that means their families can only sit in the back of the bus. My Lords, if businesses and a growing number of countries have worked out that same-sex marriage is good for business then so should we. My Lords, this Bill is about religious freedom. As someone who was raised a Methodist, that is something which has always been important. No religion will be compelled to offer a same-sex marriage. And on the same basis we should not deny the rights of those religious organisations who wish to extend their fellowship to gay people and their families. My Lords, there is no impediment which would prevent this House from subjecting this Bill to the high standard of scrutiny which it would apply to any other. Members of your Lordships House will think long and hard, as they always do, about what is right and in the best interests of society. I look forward to joining with noble Lords from all parts of the House to ensure that gay people and their families are afforded the dignity and respect that others take for granted and that families, faiths and communities can grow strong together as a result. My Lords, my upbringing was in the Methodist Church and I have listened to great preachers all my life. A sermon to which I listen often is the one from 2004 when, speaking at Southwark Cathedral , Archbishop Desmond Tutu, described how: We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about our very skin. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination that homosexuals endure, even in our churches and faith groups. Opposing apartheid is a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination against women is a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a matter of justice.