Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill
Before we start, I say to Parliament that, as a consequence of the earlier decision to extend the debate on amendments by 30 minutes, decision time will also be moved by 30 minutes.
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08915, in the name of Alex Neil, on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill. I call Alex Neil to speak to and move the motion—cabinet secretary, you have 14 minutes.
16:10
I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill.
I thank the members of the Equal Opportunities Committee; its convener, Margaret McCulloch; and her predecessor, Mary Fee. Their careful and considered scrutiny of the bill is greatly appreciated. I pay tribute to and thank my team from the policy, legal and communications team, who have been helping with the bill within the Scottish Government. They have provided me with absolutely first-class support.
The stage 1 debate in November did this Parliament proud. There were many eloquent and moving speeches, with respect shown on all sides. I am sure that, although different views are honestly and earnestly held across the chamber, we will, nevertheless, represent those views in a respectful manner.
If we pass the bill, today will mark an historic day in the history of the Scottish Parliament. I believe that we have got the balance right in the bill. We are extending the rights and freedoms of people of the same sex who wish to be married and to have that marriage recognised by the state. At the same time, we are building in necessary safeguards for the rights of those who are opposed to same-sex marriage and who do not wish to perform same-sex marriage, particularly church organisations and celebrants.
We are doing a remarkable thing today. We are saying to the world, loud and clear, on behalf of Scotland, that we believe in recognising love between same-sex couples in the same way that we do between opposite-sex couples.
We have taken forward this process carefully, and I am confident that, following the two consultations, a robust committee process and today’s proceedings in the chamber, we have achieved an excellent package. Of course, the bill does not just introduce same-sex marriage; it also includes detailed provisions in other areas. I will give a brief overview of those provisions before moving to the provisions on same-sex marriage, because the other provisions are also important.
In the case of couples who wish to have a civil marriage, the bill allows flexibility for ceremonies to be undertaken anywhere that is agreed by the registrar and the couple, provided that it is not in religious premises. The bill establishes belief ceremonies alongside religious and civil ceremonies, reflecting the growing number of marriage ceremonies that are being solemnised by humanists. The bill also authorises Church of Scotland deacons to solemnise opposite-sex marriage.
Scotland has an excellent reputation for marriage ceremonies. Indeed, one of the strengths of the Scottish system is its diversity and variety. The bill seeks to protect that by introducing the possibility of qualifying requirements for religious and belief bodies to meet before their celebrants may be authorised to solemnise marriages or register civil partnerships.
The bill extends the normal notice period for marriage and for civil partnership from 14 days to 28 days, which will work as a deterrent to sham marriages and reflects the reality of how long it takes to check that a person is eligible to marry in Scotland.
As well as changes to marriage law, the bill makes some changes in relation to civil partnerships. Most notably, the bill introduces the religious or belief registration of civil partnership, where the religious or belief body is happy to take part. As debated earlier, the Government will consult publicly on the future of civil partnerships, taking account of the introduction of same-sex marriage.
Clearly, the major innovation in the bill is the introduction of same-sex marriage. The bill proposes to allow same-sex couples to do what thousands of opposite-sex couples do every year—get married. Same-sex couples will be able to choose whether to have a religious, a belief or a civil marriage ceremony, recognised by the state.
Although the bill will allow religious and belief bodies that wish to solemnise same-sex marriage the opportunity to do that, we respect the decision of those religious and belief bodies that do not wish to take part. Not only do we respect that decision, but we have put in place specific protections in the bill for such religious and belief bodies so that they cannot be forced to solemnise same-sex marriage.
The bill establishes an opt-in system for religious and belief bodies in relation to same-sex marriage and civil partnerships. It also makes it clear that there is no obligation to opt in. We have agreed an amendment to the United Kingdom Equality Act 2010 to provide further protection for individual religious and belief celebrants. That amendment will protect individual celebrants who refuse to solemnise same-sex marriage and civil partnerships from court actions claiming discrimination. Of course, a number of religious and belief bodies wish to take part in same-sex marriages and will welcome the opportunity to do so.
The bill does not include a specific opt-out for civil registrars. That is because a civil registrar is a public servant providing only a public function. The registration of civil partnerships by civil registrars in Scotland has worked well and there is no reason to expect that the solemnisation of same-sex marriage by civil registrars will not work just as well.
Those who are opposed to same-sex marriage have made it clear that their concerns go beyond issues in relation to celebrants and registrars and relate to other issues in society. Most notably, we have heard concerns in relation to freedom of speech. There is nothing in the bill that impacts on freedom of speech. Indeed the wide-ranging debate on the bill, in which diverse views have been expressed, shows that freedom of speech is, as it should be, alive and well in Scotland. The bill includes provision at section 14 to make it clear that the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scotland will have no impact on existing rights to freedom of speech, thought, conscience and religion.
We have listened to people’s concerns about potential prosecutions for speaking out against same-sex marriage. The Lord Advocate’s prosecution guidance puts beyond doubt that
“criticism of same sex marriage or homosexuality is not in itself an offence”.
In relation to guidance, the Government has sought views on updating education circular 2/2001 on the conduct of relationships, sexual health and parenthood education. We are considering the points that have been made and will issue updated guidance shortly.
In all our work, whether guidance or legislation, we have aimed to listen, to be inclusive and to increase rights and provide protections. In relation to same-sex marriage specifically, I strongly believe that the bill achieves the right balance between treating all of our citizens equally and respecting and protecting the rights of conscience and religious objection.
In addition to same-sex marriage, we make new provisions for the transgender community, which I hope will make life a lot easier for that community.
Our society has changed, and changed for the better. Within my adult life, we have seen an end to the criminalisation of homosexual acts and the introduction of civil partnerships. Today is a momentous day for equality in our nation. No longer will persons of the same sex be barred from showing their commitment to each other through getting married.
This legislation sends a powerful message to the world about the kind of society that we in Scotland are trying to create—a nation where the principles of fairness and equality are woven into the very fabric of our society; a nation that protects and promotes freedom of expression; a nation that cherishes love; and a minister who prepares a shorter speech to allow other members the opportunity to speak for longer in the debate.
I commend the bill to the chamber and ask my fellow MSPs to support it and support it well.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Cabinet secretary, you just destroyed all my calculations and I will have to start all over again.
16:19
Like the cabinet secretary, I am pleased to participate in the stage 3 debate on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill.
I commend the members and clerks of the Equal Opportunities Committee for their diligence in scrutinising the bill at stage 1 and, at stage 2, considering many of the amendments that we have also debated today. When there is a free vote in the Parliament, it places much more responsibility on committee members to take care in their considerations. Whatever their ultimate view, all the members of the Equal Opportunities Committee have done an outstanding job for the Parliament in subjecting the bill and its amendments to a robust level of scrutiny. I believe that Margaret McCulloch deserves particular recognition for so smoothly taking over from Mary Fee as the committee’s convener part way through the bill’s passage. [Applause.]
Ultimately, however, this is a Government bill, started by Nicola Sturgeon, who was clear in her commitment to same-sex marriage, and carried forward by Alex Neil, who may not have used all his speaking time but has certainly used his considerable political skill to deliver the bill itself.
Undoubtedly, there has been a volume of evidence both in favour of and against the bill. The consultation received a record number of submissions—over 70,000 in total. As Scotland for Marriage pointed out, more of those submissions were against the bill than in favour of it. I have to say that the correspondence that I have received over the passage of the bill is much more finely balanced. Views are passionately held and I respect that. However, I repeat something that I said at stage 1: this is about changing attitudes in Scotland. It is the case that attitudes are changing. We should consider the evidence on that, which I think we would all agree is robust and reliable.
The Scottish social attitudes survey in 2002 showed that 41 per cent of people were in favour of same-sex marriage and 19 per cent were against it. In the same social attitudes survey, but this time in 2010, the proportion of people who were in favour of same-sex marriage had risen to 61 per cent. I can only imagine what it would be today. A shift of 20 per cent in opinion on any issue in such a short space of time is, frankly, astonishing and it speaks to the way that we are progressing as a society. If we begin to unpack the detail of that, we find that support for equal marriage can be found across all echelons of society, among the religious and the secular, people of all ages and income groups and people resident across the length and breadth of the country. Support for this bill therefore transcends religious, social, demographic and geographical boundaries.
If we examine the detail even further, we see that, according to the survey, 55 per cent of those who identified themselves as Catholic supported same-sex marriage and 21 per cent were opposed. Among Scottish Presbyterians, 50 per cent supported same-sex marriage and 25 per cent were against. Of those living in the most deprived areas of Scotland, 67 per cent supported same-sex marriage, while the figure for those who live in the most affluent areas was 63 per cent. Frankly, it makes no difference whether someone lives in urban or rural Scotland, because support for same-sex marriage is roughly the same. Support among young people is higher than support among older people. I will explore that in more detail shortly. There is no doubt about current public attitudes.
Let us look at another data set, helpfully provided by Professor John Curtice, who as we know has a wealth of experience in these things. He described a cultural shift in Britain over the past 30 years. According to Professor Curtice, in 1983, 62 per cent of the population believed that same-sex relationships were mostly or always wrong. That figure has dropped to 28 per cent, which is quite extraordinary. His explanation for that shift is that it is young people who increasingly support same-sex marriage. The Equality Network backs that up by telling us that support for same-sex marriage is highest among those who are under 55. Taken together, I believe that that offers the kind of robust and credible evidence that we always pride ourselves on seeking before making policy in this chamber.
On that note, I want to consider what has happened in other countries that have legislated for same-sex marriage. In Europe, since 2001, we have seen the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Norway—I could go on and on—and, most recently, England and Wales, legislate in this area. We also see same-sex marriage in Canada, South Africa, Argentina, New Zealand, Uruguay, Brazil and 17 states in America where it is the norm. Many of those countries are considered to be very religious. A significant number, such as Spain, Portugal, Argentina and Brazil are predominantly Catholic. In Portugal an amazing 81 per cent of the population identify themselves as Catholics, but they have same-sex marriage in place.
In the Netherlands, which was the first country to introduce same-sex marriage, support for their bill was about 62 per cent in 2001. That has now risen to such an extent that I understand that almost everyone there supports same-sex marriage—the highest approval rating of any European country. Apparently some 16,000 people have a same-sex marriage each year out of a nation of 16 million.
When the Parliament passed a law on civil partnerships, we took a huge step forward. Same-sex couples had the legal rights associated with marriage. However, I recognise that, for some, that falls far short of a marriage in which their love and commitment are fully recognised. The Equality Network talks about a gold standard; whatever language we use, it is a matter of equality and fairness.
For a host of reasons, I believe that equal marriage is an idea whose time has come and I will vote in support of the bill this evening.
That said, very few of us in this chamber have been deaf to the concerns that have been raised. I am pleased that we had a robust debate at stage 2 and today in this chamber. I welcome the openness of the chamber to hearing the concerns expressed. It is a sign of a mature Parliament that we have been able to consider the bill in a calm, sensible and objective manner, with tolerance of those who hold differing opinions from ours.
The principal area of concern was in relation to the protections that have been put in place by the Scottish Government. I believe that most members have been persuaded that it will not be possible for any religious or belief body to be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. Celebrants will not be forced to perform a same-sex marriage if it is against their beliefs and no one will be compelled to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Under the Government’s proposals, it will be their choice to opt in.
Indeed, throughout consideration of the bill, it has been made clear on numerous occasions that no part of the religious community that does not wish to conduct same-sex marriages will be forced to do so. I believe that that is right and proper: these are matters of conscience, doctrine and belief that are properly for the church and not the state.
Religions already can and do refuse to marry people. That is a matter for them; it is not proposed that that will change in any way. However, I recognise the genuine concerns that people have raised about protections and I very much welcome the arrangement between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments to amend the UK Equality Act 2010. The 2010 act contains provisions about not discriminating when providing a service, with exemptions for religious and belief bodies that apply in certain circumstances. The Scottish Government has rightly sought the protection to be more comprehensive by asking for a further amendment that would help allay fears about challenges.
Amendments with the aim of respecting the right of those who, as a result of their religious beliefs, take the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman have been considered this afternoon. Concerns have also been highlighted about freedom of speech. I think that the assurances that were given by the cabinet secretary were sufficient to allay those fears.
The Equal Opportunities Committee asked the Scottish Government to look again at the gender recognition provisions and I am pleased that the Government has acted to address those concerns.
For me, the bill is about equality, fairness and social justice: values that are instilled in many of us by our parents, community and society. For many of us, the bill is also about how we see ourselves as a nation, and how others see us. It is about the values that we hold and whether Scotland is indeed a confident, progressive nation where equality is truly valued. It is about our recognition that tolerance and acceptance of all are essential qualities of a mature and civilized society.
We are not the first country to agree to same-sex marriage and we certainly will not be the last. Those countries that have led the way have not suffered any adverse impact on their social and cultural values; in fact, I would suggest quite the opposite.
It is time for change. It is time to support equal marriage.
16:28
When this parliamentary year started and we came back from the summer recess in full anticipation of passing momentous legislation on same-sex marriage, my personal assistant greeted me at the office and said, “Have you heard the latest? Neil Bibby and Mark Griffin have got engaged.” There was just a moment before the look on my face made her feel that she needed to qualify that and say, “Not to each other.” I noticed that they sat together at the back of the chamber throughout the debate on the amendments this afternoon. On the record, I wish them and their respective—on this occasion—opposite-sex partners every happiness in the marriages that they are about to embark on. [Applause.]
At the stage 1 debate, the Official Report of which I re-read, we heard some outstanding speeches from Ruth Davidson, Marco Biagi, James Dornan, John Lamont and Christian Allard, who was cut off in his prime by you, Presiding Officer, as he got to the peroration of a wonderful anecdote about two gay French farmers, the conclusion of which I hope to hear—
Christian Allard (North East Scotland) (SNP) rose—
—but in his own time.
On re-reading that Official Report I saw that there were also eloquent speeches from Nigel Don and John Mason, who put the alternative point of view.
As we move past the amendment stage this afternoon, the Parliament is entitled to take a celebratory attitude to the bill that we are about to pass. I congratulate all those across Scotland who have campaigned to bring this moment about: the Equality Network and its indefatigable parliamentary liaison officer, Tom French, and all the others across Scotland who have done this.
I know that there will be a big party in Hemma tonight. My clubbing days are gone; I do not know whether Jackie Baillie, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Neil plan to be dancing tonight. I think that Ruth Davidson could be. I look at Jim Hume and see a bit of a wannabe, so it is possible that he will want to be. Today is a celebration.
I echo what I said when I co-sponsored some equal marriage events. My wife and I have enjoyed 26 years of marriage, not civil partnership. I want every couple in Scotland, regardless of their sex, to be able to have exactly the same opportunity to enjoy a long and happy marriage such as we have had.
I also welcome the fact that those couples will be moving into modern Scottish family life. That includes the experience of single parents who are struggling, either through fate or circumstance or choice, to bring up children on their own. It includes my experience: my mother and father were married and I am the married father of two highly opinionated young sons—how they became so highly opinionated, I have no idea. It also includes the experience of same-sex couples. I hope that they will have the opportunity to enjoy marriage, to be able to rear children in a happy and stable family environment and to have everything that goes with that.
I also take a practical point of view. Our country has an ageing demographic. We do not want people to feel that they have to live alone. I want us to do whatever we can to make it possible for any couple to share a life together. If the marriage legislation that we will pass today encourages that, that will be all to the benefit of our nation.
There has been huge change in my lifetime from the brutal atmosphere in which gay people had to live when I was a teenager and young man, when gay people felt that they had to strangle their sexuality. I know some of those people—I am in the Tory party after all. [Laughter.] Okay, it is a common point for everyone else.
Today is a fantastic change to be celebrated in the mood, style, signature and stamp of my country, Scotland. Let me chuck in a bit of musical theatre, because it is that kind of debate, is it not? Rodgers and Hammerstein’s 1943 musical “South Pacific” was made into a movie in 1958, the year before I was born. As a 12-year-old, I was confronted by this particular lyric:
You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught from year to year,
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!
I do not ascribe any of those prejudices to anyone in the chamber this afternoon, but what that song said to me as a 12-year-old is that we can come into politics and hope to change the attitudes in the country about sexual, racial and religious equality. We politicians have the opportunity today to be part of a generation that teaches the next generation, without prescribing the word “teach” too strongly, about the kind of country that they want to work in, to live in, to marry in, and the country that I want to vote for tonight.
We now move to the open debate. We are heavily subscribed, notwithstanding the cabinet secretary’s efforts. I advise members that the first few speakers can have six minutes but, thereafter, all other speakers will get five minutes. That way, I will make sure that I can get all the voices in the Parliament into the debate.
16:34
Presiding Officer,
“I am a migrant with a German passport who was born in a former Soviet country. I want to stay because I learned that Scotland is a place where race and origin matters less than where I came from. This is the most wonderful place I want to live in. This is the society I want to contribute to. Please extend this liberty to other people who face discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.”
Valeri, from Fountainbridge.
“As a member of the Quaker community I find it unacceptable that we are unable to have our registrars conduct same-sex marriages or civil partnerships within our meeting houses.”
Anthony, from the old town.
“I have been with my wife for eight years and we became civil partners five years ago. I usually use the terms ‘wife’ and ‘marriage’ when describing my relationship as to me they describe perfectly the nature of our relationship, however, I am painfully aware that in the eyes of Scottish and UK law those terms are not applicable and we are left with the term civil partners, a term that makes us sound as if we are in business together as opposed to a loving monogamous relationship.”
Angela, from Haymarket.
“I remember as a little girl asking my mother why two ladies couldn’t marry each other and her struggling to answer. As I grew up I began to understand it was not for any logical reason but just that some of our rules are unfair but we don’t like to change things that have always been that way.”
Annie, from Dalry.
“When I came out as gay in my later teens clause 28 was still in law. Homosexuality was never mentioned at school, at least not in a positive context, making growing up gay isolating and often painful. But I do think about the young people growing up gay today and what a difference it would make to their self-esteem and confidence to know that they are equal in the face of the law and could get married, perhaps just as their parents did or their heterosexual friends may do. Without equality in the face of the law how can these kids grow up feeling equal?”
David, from the new town.
“My other role model for a successful loving relationship is that of my best friend’s parents. His father had a sex change about 30 years ago, and my friend grew up knowing her as his aunt. They are still married, and have been for almost as long as my own parents. I count them as close friends today, but growing up they were my second set of parents.
Because of the current unequal laws on marriage she’s never been formally recognised as a woman. They couldn’t face the divorce which would be required under the current laws. Forced to choose between state recognition of gender, or their marriage, they chose the latter. She has lived for 30 years with a physical identity at odds with her legal one.”
Patrick, from Fountainbridge.
“I ‘came out’ at the age of 15, just over ten years ago now, to a fairly rough school in Edinburgh. I was surprised to find that I was met with relatively little negativity from my peers, and nothing but support from my teachers. My mother took the revelation rather badly. She had an image of gay people, one that she presumed meant I would be bullied all of my life; that I’d never have a ‘normal’ loving partner to grow old with; that I’d never have children. She was convinced it was her fault—that she’d consigned me to a fate of certain pain. Yes, bullying will inevitably continue. But let’s not fan that fire by keeping equal people on different sides of a barrier. So please, let’s not look on this as a matter of ‘just’ words and definitions. Words and definitions go a long way to moulding attitudes and challenging prejudices.”
Adam, from Gorgie.
In November 2013, at stage 1 of the bill, I told my own story. On this historic day, I wanted to throw open the doors of this chamber to let in the voices of just some of the 429 constituents who have been moved to ask me to vote yes today. I never needed persuading.
I hear one last voice today:
“We give you our deepest dearest wish to govern well, don’t say we have no mandate to be so bold.
We give you this great building, don’t let your work and hope be other than great”.
That was Edwin Morgan. Wherever he is, today he is smiling.
16:39
I support same-sex marriage as a matter of principle. Not long after I was elected to the Parliament, I was proud to pledge my support to the equal marriage campaign. However, legislators have a responsibility to make sure that all sides of the debate are heard, that everyone’s rights are respected and that all bills undergo proper scrutiny.
That is exactly what I have tried to do as the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee and I can say the same for my committee colleagues. Whatever our initial thoughts about the principles behind the bill, we worked together to take evidence, over several months, to produce a balanced and comprehensive report on the bill and to debate many of the amendments that have returned to the chamber in some form today. At the end of that process, having listened carefully to the different arguments that have been made, I am more convinced than ever that it is right to pass the bill and to legislate for equal marriage.
Much has been made in the debate of the state of public opinion. We have been told that the majority of respondents to the Government’s consultation opposed changing the law and that to do so would therefore be against the wishes of the Scottish people. It has even been suggested that the bill should be put to a referendum. However, I do not believe that the rights of any minority should be dependent on the will of a majority at a particular point in time. Nor do I believe that members should take a view on the bill on the basis of the way that they think the wind is blowing. We must do what we believe is right.
Nonetheless, let us take a closer look at public opinion. Professor John Curtice reminded the committee that pro forma letters and emails that are part of an organised campaign might tell us more about the structure than the state of public opinion. Opinion polls actually show that 60 to 65 per cent of the public support same-sex marriage and that is consistent with the findings of the independent Scottish social attitudes survey.
Many of the amendments that have been presented today, like those that were presented to the committee, relate to concerns about how the bill might affect people who have a traditional view of marriage. In my view, such amendments are unnecessary, because sufficient safeguards to protect the rights of those people either already exist or are provided for in the bill. The only religious or belief bodies that will solemnise a same-sex marriage and the only religious celebrants who will participate are those who want to. That is what the opt-in approach that has been taken in the bill is all about—legislating for equal marriage but securing the right of religious and belief bodies to decide whether they want to be part of it.
No prospective foster carer or adoptive parent should be refused solely on the basis of their views about same-sex marriage. The best interests of the child should come first, as they do under the law at present. Furthermore, the right to express a traditional view of marriage as being between one man and one woman is already protected by our freedom of expression; it does not require a specific mention in the bill.
There is one amendment that was withdrawn during stage 2 on which I want to press the cabinet secretary today. One of the Equal Opportunities Committee’s concerns at stage 1 was that the bill does not allow couples in a civil partnership that is registered in another country to change their civil partnership to a marriage in Scotland. That could leave those couples trapped outside the law as the only same-sex couples unable to marry in Scotland. I was, therefore, happy that at stage 2 the Scottish Government recognised the problem and committed to dealing with it. However, the point is to be addressed by order and not through primary legislation, to allow the Government time to consult on the detail of it. It is important to me and to several other committee members that the Government act on that point and that any change is done right.
At stage 2, my committee colleague John Finnie asked the cabinet secretary:
“can you give an undertaking that the general policy approach on the matter will be, as far as possible, to enable all same-sex couples with foreign civil partnerships to marry in Scotland?”
The cabinet secretary’s response was:
“Absolutely, and that is why I need time to get the approach right.”—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 19 December 2013; c 1707.]
In the light of that guarantee given at stage 2, I ask the cabinet secretary to provide more information about the process of introducing an order to deal with that specific point and the timescale that we could expect the order to be delivered in.
This Parliament has come a long way since the debate on section 28 and it has come even further since the introduction of civil partnerships. The case for equal marriage has been made. The safeguards are there. The bill does not curtail religious freedom, it enhances it. The bill does not deal in half measures for same-sex couples, but gives them the same rights that every other couple has. Let us vote today for a bill that we have already waited too long for. Let us vote today for a fairer Scotland.
16:45
Members will not be surprised to discover—if they do not know already—that I will vote with the minority at decision time tonight. However, I have no intention of dwelling on that, as I wish to talk about other things that have happened during the passage of the bill.
First, I highlight the respect that has existed between the two sides during the process. I draw attention in particular to the work of the committee under its convener. The committee was fairly evenly split, yet it conducted itself in a manner befitting the Parliament. In fact, the quality of the debate and of the evidence that we received from both sides is to be highly commended.
There have been one or two bad experiences. After the stage 1 debate, I, like many members of the Parliament, had some interesting emails and tweets. However, none of the more hostile correspondence that I received came from anyone who had a vested interest in the debate. I believe that those who took one side or the other in the debate have conducted themselves in an exemplary manner throughout.
I will say a little about those who were opposed to this change in the law. It is vital that both sides are heard during the legislative process, and it was therefore essential that, in a debate in which there was likely to be a majority position and a minority position in the Parliament, those on the minority side who came to give evidence felt that their views were taken seriously and treated with respect.
A number of us on the committee, and others in the Parliament, have worked hard to ensure that the minority view has been represented. I hope that those individuals and organisations feel that the Parliament has given them a fair crack of the whip. It is essential that both sides feel that they have been listened to, right to the very end of the process.
It is disappointing that none of the amendments—particularly those lodged by John Mason and Siobhan McMahon for consideration today—was accepted by the Parliament. I believe that, if some token had been given, those who take the alternative view might have felt engaged in the process right to the end. However, there has been significant involvement and buy-in throughout the process.
Will the member accept that it should be the quality rather than the quantity that matters when it comes to amendments?
Indeed. That is very much the case, as the way in which the evidence has been treated throughout the process indicates.
As I said, I am disappointed that we were not able to find some compromise that would have allowed some of the amendments to be accepted. It remains a concern among many on the minority side that there will be an on-going effect. I think that it has been accepted in the arguments from both sides that the bill makes such a substantial change that it changes many things in ways that we will not be able to predict.
I hope and pray that we will have the positive outcome that many people have spoken about and that we will not experience the potentially negative consequences that some have described. Nevertheless, we should all be ready in case we are not so lucky.
Looking to the future, my one disappointment with the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill is that although it dealt with a number of key issues, it did not deal with the significance of marriage in society as a whole. I am not stupid enough to fail to realise that there are today many different models and that we have to work to support all the models with equal vigour. However, I also believe and am prepared to argue that society itself in recent years has been weakened by the weakening of marriage as a bedrock of society. I believe that we need to look carefully at the significant role that marriage plays in building strong families and a strong society. Although I accept the broad and different definition of family that we have today, I believe that it is right that we continue to argue for the strength of marriage as a cornerstone of society.
It is for that reason that, although I accept that I will not be on the successful side after the vote tonight, I believe that we must continue to press for marriage to be the cornerstone and bedrock that makes for strong families and a strong society. During my lifetime, marriage’s role in society has weakened and I think that we have seen society suffer. However, I think that we can reverse that trend. I believe that we can do that even in the context of substantial changes to marriage such as that in the bill.
I would like to see in future a Government that consolidates the achievement of the bill as it becomes an act and ensures that we go on to take advantage of the opportunity that marriage and family give us to strengthen society and make the future of our children stronger as a result.
The next speeches will be of five minutes.
16:51
I start by responding to the point that Alex Johnstone just made. I would have thought that, if anything, the bill would strengthen marriage because it makes marriage much more acceptable for every sector of society. I also think that Alex Johnstone’s argument about the weakening of marriage being at the root of all evil over the past decades is a bit simplistic. However, the bill can only help to strengthen marriage and make it more acceptable to everybody across society.
I would like to thank Jackson Carlaw for his kind words, but he clearly does not want to hear my words as he is not present. He gave a very eloquent speech, but it left me feeling a wee bit empty because when he started to talk about “South Pacific” I was fairly confident that he was going to sing but, unfortunately, he did not.
When I got elected to Parliament in 2011, I realised very quickly that we were going to be part of something special and that Scottish National Party members were going to be part of at least one memorable day and event, which would be the referendum. What I had not quite realised was that there would be other opportunities to do something really historic. Today is one of those rare days when I can say as a politician that, no matter what happens, even if today is my last day as a politician—and given that the vote goes the way that I hope it will tonight; I do not know what time it will take place now, Presiding Officer, but it will be some time after six—my colleagues and I will have made a difference to improve the lives and rights of many people across Scotland. We should all be proud of that.
Like others, I recognise that there has been a change in society. I recognise what it was like a long time ago and when I was growing up. That we have come to where we are in such a comparatively short period of time in historical terms—although I have been here a fair length of time, to be fair—is something that we should be immensely proud of. As I said in a previous speech, I have no concerns about safeguards with regard to the bill. All the safeguards are in place and I am confident that celebrants and religious bodies will find that to be the case.
In my speech last November on same-sex marriage, I talked about my brother Michael and how he had just contacted me to tell me that he was going to get married. As things often happen, he phoned me very quickly after that and said “I’m not just getting married, James. I’m getting married next Wednesday.” So, I had to contact Joe FitzPatrick, who I have to give huge thanks to because he was incredibly helpful, along with the whip’s team—Bill Kidd, Fiona McLeod and Graeme Dey, who covered for me when I was away—and I managed to get away to see Michael getting married. It was a lovely ceremony that was very small and family oriented.
There were two things about it. One is that I was the only member of our family who was there. That is understandable as it was very short notice; I also have a very understanding boss and I could afford to go. Other members of my family could not afford to go in that time period, and my mother is 79 years of age and she could not travel to Lisbon, so there was a hole. It would have been perfect if members of the family had been able to go. I have no doubt that if we had had the legislation in Scotland, the wedding would have been here, because Raoul has a smaller family than ours and they are more mobile than us, so they would have come over here and we would have had that opportunity. That was a shame.
The other thing is that it did not rain. I looked back to that UK Independence Party comment and I thought, “No—that just can’t be true.” There was no thunder and lightning. It was a lovely sunny day. The sun was even shining through the windows. It was just a perfect, lovely day, so that was really strange.
In my previous speech, I said that my opinion was that they were getting married because they had got to an age at which they thought that it was right to ensure that their affairs were settled, and I knew that it was a strong relationship. But when I was over there, what really got to me was that I realised just how much the day meant to them. That kind of surprised me. It was the right thing for them to do to ensure that, as they get into their 60s, everything is settled, but it is a marriage based on love, and it was an absolutely lovely thing to see. I was honoured and delighted to be there. I just wish that it could have been here.
I finish with two quotes. One is from more than 2,000 years ago and the other is from more than 150 years ago. The first is:
“The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.”
If we take it that “men” means the species as opposed to the gender, that is a good quote. I said that because Nicola Sturgeon was giving me a funny look. [Laughter.] The other quote is from Robert Ingersoll, who was a civil war veteran, a political leader and a radical orator. He said:
“The true civilisation is where every man gives to every other man every right he claims for himself.”
I suggest that that includes the right to be married. On that note, I am delighted and proud to support the motion.
16:57
Tonight, I will be out of step with the majority of the Parliament, and I regret that. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at what is undoubtedly an historic moment for Scotland. It is historic because the institution of marriage, which has been at the core of our culture for centuries, is on the cusp of being changed forever. Many people welcome that. They say, “Why not have equal marriage? Why deny gay people the right to marry?” They argue that the status quo is discriminatory. I understand that line of argument, which has certainly been embraced by the vast majority of my fellow parliamentarians, but it is not one that I can agree with.
It is my conviction, and the conviction of many thousands of Christians, Muslims, people of other faiths and people of no faith, that marriage is unique—a unique relationship between a man and a woman. In recent months, polls have been cited to indicate that Scotland supports the bill, but I am not convinced that that is the case. Some 54,000 people signed Scotland for Marriage’s petition against the bill and, of the 62,000 people in Scotland who expressed a view during the Government’s main consultation on whether same-sex marriage should be introduced, 64 per cent—almost 40,000 people—said that it should not. Many of my fellow citizens have spoken clearly, but I am not convinced that we are listening.
Whether or not one accepts that the majority of Scots oppose the bill, the balance of views in the Parliament, where there is near-overwhelming enthusiasm for same-sex marriage, is hugely disproportionate to that in the country at large. That is why the various amendments that John Mason, Siobhan McMahon and I lodged, which were discussed earlier this afternoon, were significant and deserved the support of all MSPs, including those who favour same-sex marriage. Those amendments sought to ensure that the many thousands of Scots who disagree with the bill would have their views respected and protected once the law is changed.
In reply to Mr Harvie’s comments on amendment 1, I can say that I was branded homophobic in various emails. I brought my children up to respect people for what they are. Basically, that is how my make-up has always been.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not. I have only five minutes.
There are adoptive parents out there who are frightened that their opposition to same-sex marriage will be misunderstood.
I ask Jackie Baillie and the cabinet secretary to tell the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator about charitable status, because OSCR ain’t listening to the cabinet secretary. He can write OSCR a letter and see where that gets him. I found out as a councillor that written policy counts for more than letters; when someone said “It’s policy, councillor,” that was fine—we could drive it forward.
My good friend Jim Eadie and I first met when I entered the Parliament. He told me that he was adopted and that he was gay. He is my friend, and I hope that I will still be his after today. I respect his views and I know that he respects mine.
Supporters of the bill claim that the amendments that I mentioned would have permitted discrimination against same-sex couples. That is untrue. The fact that such a claim was made shows why protection is necessary. Not one non-Government amendment was supported, which was disappointing.
Time and again, we have heard supposed reassurances from proponents of the bill that no church will be forced to conduct a same-sex marriage and that religious celebrants will be protected. That is all well and good but, as those who oppose the bill have said repeatedly, that is not the major issue.
As the Rev David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland said at stage 1,
“My concern is not so much about the clergy—to be honest, we can look after ourselves—as about other people, who might find themselves victims of discrimination.”—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 12 September 2013; c 1451.]
That has happened even before the law has been changed. A former leader of my party, Gordon Wilson, was voted off the board of his local citizens advice bureau in 2011 because of his public support for marriage. Some MSPs who do not support the bill have experienced vitriolic abuse for refusing to back the change in the law.
That is why many people have concerns about the impact that the change in the law will have on many Scots who, for sincere reasons of conscience, cannot endorse same-sex marriage. They are not bigots, as some suppose, but they are fearful, particularly if they are in public service jobs.
In closing, I will say a few words about recent events surrounding St Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society. The success of that agency’s appeal is great news and demonstrates a welcome dose of common sense. However, the cost, time and effort for that small charity to get the result, and the fact that OSCR sought to remove its charitable status in the first place, underline why we are worried.
You need to bring your remarks to a close.
That happened before the law is changed.
I know that I will not win tonight, but I will vote in line with my conscience, in the way that I have always stood up for my constituents.
17:02
The debate is no less welcome for being long awaited. At decision time, Scotland can become the 17th or the 26th country or territory around the world—it depends on how we count it; I will not go into the constitutional issues—to legislate for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. We will pass what many regard as the last great reform that is required to achieve full equality in law for lesbian, bisexual and gay people.
It is true that equality in law will not immediately mean the end of discrimination in all its forms, but it will mean the completion of the first phase of a campaign that began in Scotland at the end of the 1960s and which achieved the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1980, as others have said. That landmark achievement was slowly followed by equalisation of the age of consent and, ultimately, civil partnerships—an imperfect but at the time progressive move towards our vote today. The bill also makes significant progress on the inclusion of trans and intersex people. After today, campaigning for LGBT people—for example, for better sexual health and education policies and against bullying or stigma—will go on, but the crucial point is that it will do so on a similar basis to that for other groups and from the starting point of full legal equality.
While other countries around the world, including our neighbours in England and Wales, have taken the lead, those of us who have supported marriage equality in Scotland have watched and hoped that our day was coming closer. As each country has taken the step, the pressure for change has increased.
In each nation, the story of the fight for equality has been different. Each land has its own progressive coalitions, which have been built up over time and which are unique to the relationships and experiences of its people. However, the discrimination and oppression that too many gay and lesbian people have faced have been all too similar. It is said that the world is becoming a smaller place but, for lesbian and gay travellers throughout the generations, the most far-flung destinations must have seemed familiar, because the reality of discrimination has been a constant and near universal fear, wherever is called home. Therefore, I am proud that Scotland can today join the places where difference is neither to be feared nor tolerated but is, rather, accepted.
When I spoke in support of the bill at stage 1, I said that I wanted to do more than just win an argument for tolerance. Therefore, I also mean something more when I use the word “accepted”. The prize is not that we no longer care who gets married to whom, but that we recognise individual human relationships. The commitment to love another person and to spend our days with and for them can be a very private matter, but it can also be a proudly public one, if that is wanted. To my mind, that is the right that the bill creates, and it is one that, distinct from civil partnerships, should be available in the same terms to all couples, regardless of their sexuality and whether they profess a faith. That is the right that other countries have created, and we should join them. We should do so not just for our own people in Scotland in order that the state is truly the enemy of discrimination among its citizens rather than just the arbitrator, but because history has already taught us that we are on her right side.
In the coming weeks, the eyes of the world will be on Sochi and the winter Olympics there. We will be reminded that the world is not so small and that the attitudes that we rightly condemn in Russia are far more the norm there and elsewhere than what we might boastfully feel are our own enlightened views.
Each Parliament that has already made the change has done so in its own fashion. In some, there have been tears, hugs and the singing of national or protest songs. Jackson Carlaw took us somewhat towards that, but not the whole way, thankfully. Our chance at history comes at just after 6 o’clock, but it must be living history for much longer afterwards. We need a Scotland in which we renew our determination to eliminate homophobia and to celebrate, not just tolerate, diversity. We need determination that our small—and, I predict, positive—example will help to ensure that we are not for long the latest legalisers of equal marriage but rather are among the early adopters of change that has already taken far too long. It should be remembered that, for many people in the world, we will be just a far-off dream.
Those of us in the Parliament who have campaigned for equal marriage will be pleased with our work today and our work towards today, but there are many days of individual celebration ahead. Those days—not this day—will show that what has been done in the first few countries is more than a dream; it is a hope for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, wherever they live and whatever their experience. That is why I feel very privileged to support the bill.
17:07
It is an absolute delight to be in the chamber today and to pass the bill very soon, I hope.
I thank not only all those who have worked hard to bring to fruition the principles that many people have worked for for years but those who have worked hard on the technicalities and have tried to ensure that, as far as possible, as the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, Margaret McCulloch, said, everyone was heard with dignity and respect on a subject that evokes strong emotions on all sides.
I am glad that we are here but, for me, it is not really the detail that matters; it is the principle and the ethic that says to me, “This is absolutely the right thing to do.” Everybody can think of people, whether from their childhood or family members, who have been badly affected by the discrimination that has happened. Let us not forget that it was only in 1980, I think, that we decriminalised homosexuality in this country. That is not that long ago.
I want to see the kind of society that has said at a top level, “We’re creating equality by allowing same-sex marriage,” and in which people such as my great-uncle do not have to run down to London and live apart from their family, as my great-uncle had to do so that he could live with someone he loved. There was also my uncle, who had an absolutely rotten childhood, adolescence and adulthood, very much based on his psyche and his having to live a life that was a pretence. Members will notice that I am not saying their names. That is because there are still people out there to whom that would be a bit of a revelation. I respect the memory of both men; they hid what they were for very valid reasons.
I also want to live in a society in which actors do not have to portray in real life the characters that they portray on screen. Yes, we have come a long way on that but there is still a bit of discrimination going on in that area.
I want to live—and represent the constituency of East Kilbride—in a country in which I do not have the occasional young person coming to me and saying, “I have to admit to everyone that I am gay,” or “I have to admit to everyone that I am bisexual,” and asking, “Do you know anyone who will support me or help me?” I do not want people to have to admit to anything. I want people to just be people and to be the way that they are, and I want everyone to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
To go back to the earlier discussion about civil marriage, religious marriage and civil partnerships, everyone should be equal and have equal chances and equal opportunities. My colleague Stewart Maxwell was quite right about that. The reality is that we have civil partnerships now—they are there. There should be equality for anyone who wants to take part in any of those options.
I am not married—I have chosen not to be married. Duncan may have something to do with that as well, right enough, so we have chosen not to be married. If we choose to have a civil partnership—if that comes in—it does not matter what the differences are between civil marriage and civil partnership. It will be my choice and absolutely no business of anyone in the chamber or anyone else what we choose to do if the law says that we have that opportunity—that everyone has that opportunity.
I loved Stewart Maxwell’s comment that sometimes people are forced to choose between different kinds of apples; it is not always about choosing between apples and pears. I will leave my colleagues to decide whether I am a soor old Granny Smith or a sweet Pink Lady. [Laughter.] Maybe I do not want to hear the answer to that.
Yes, we have done something pretty wonderful today and I am really pleased about that, but let us not kid ourselves that everything is solved just because we put this into legislation. There is still a long way to go. There is still discrimination out there and there are still a lot of people who need support before we get to the point at which, in reality, it just does not matter a toss what someone’s sexuality is.
I cannot mention everyone who has been involved in the bill but I will mention the Equality Network—
It will have to be brief, Ms Fabiani.
Absolutely. The Equality Network is saying that there is still a lot more work to do to tackle prejudice and to ensure that LGBT people receive equal treatment across society—yes. It is time for change so let us move on and build on what we have done today.
17:13
Fairness and equality run through the veins of every true Liberal Democrat I know. We want Scotland to be one of the fairest and most equal places in the world. That is why we support the bill enabling gay, transgender and lesbian couples to marry. When MSPs met to debate the bill back in November, I was pleased to have the opportunity to vote in favour of the bill and I of course remain supportive of the bill.
The bill demonstrates that our society values every person equally, irrespective of their sexuality, and that we regard every relationship as worthy of equal recognition. If two people in a loving relationship want to formalise that relationship through a religious or civil marriage ceremony, that should be the case. They should not be prevented from doing so. In other words, there should be no differentiation between what is available to same-sex or to mixed-sex couples.
I strongly believe that that sense of fairness and equality also runs deep in the psyche of every Scot. Indeed, that view has been reflected in the emails and letters that I have received over the past few months. Key to the whole debate has been the issue of respect for everyone’s opinions and getting the balance right.
The bill as it stood earlier struck a good balance. It was recognised that, in voting to uphold the intention of the bill to allow for equal marriage, it was also important to respect the rights of individuals and faith organisations not to carry out same-sex marriages if they do not wish to. I believe that the stage 2 amendments acknowledged that balance.
As a Lib Dem and someone who was brought up in a household of good churchgoers—with a mother who broke another mould by becoming the first woman elder in the parish—I believe that it is important to do the right thing. Inequality is a form of oppression and can manifest itself in many forms, some more subtle than others, and to varying degrees. It is true that society has come a long way on gay rights and equality issues, but I do not buy the argument that gay people should be happy with what they have, as though they have already been given some special concession.
The idea that a gay couple should have no legal right to a religious or civil marriage ceremony makes the massive assumption that marriage does not apply to those in a same-sex relationship and that they cannot express their religious view or commitment to marriage. To take that a step further, preventing same-sex couples from marrying is preventing a section of the population from expressing their marriage beliefs, which in my view represents a subtle and creeping oppression.
Back in the 19th century, the businesswoman Anne Lister, whose diaries, which were discovered after her death, revealed much about her private life, said it best when she wrote of her sexuality:
“This is my nature. To act in opposition to my nature would be more wrong for me than to be a married woman. I am living my life with the nature that God gave me. It is perfectly ok”.
As an aside, it is interesting to note that Anne Lister should primarily be remembered for being the so-called “first modern lesbian”. In fact, she is arguably a role model for women and men to this day. She was an independent businesswoman in her own right and became one of the first women to climb the Pyrenees. She lived her life her way, with the nature that God gave her.
We are not giving preferential treatment to any one group; we are simply saying that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same rights. Anything less is inhumane. I am proud to stand up for equality of marriage in Scotland. There can be no excuse for isolating a section of the population for any reason, whether that is on the basis of religious affiliation, skin colour or gender. For that reason, I will be proud to support the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill through its final stage today, as will, I believe, my fellow Lib Dems.
I should recognise the many constituents who have contacted me and others in support of the bill. We should also recognise the positive campaign, in particular by Stonewall and the Equality Network, throughout the debate. We should of course have respect for other people’s views, in the chamber and outside it.
We should also give recognition to Alex Neil for his determination to bring the bill to the Parliament and for the meetings that he held with me and others to ensure that Scotland can be seen as a leading light for equality. I look forward to voting yes for this historic bill at decision time today.
17:17
The process has been a long one. I thank members, the clerks and others who have helped with a professional attitude throughout. I first said something publicly on same-sex marriage in August 2011, which was about two and a half years ago, and I realise that others have been campaigning on the issue on either side for a lot longer than that. Therefore, it will be good to reach a decision today; then we can, I hope, get on with other business and with rebuilding relationships, which might have been strained during the process. I have to say that I am disappointed that none of my amendments was accepted today.
I have previously said that I am relaxed about the introduction of same-sex marriage if no one will be disadvantaged by it. However, early on in the process, it became clear that changing marriage would have significant repercussions throughout society. We need to be realistic and accept that this is a significant change in how our society operates. Although some see it as a major step forward on human rights, others feel that a key part of their lives and experience and a key building block of society is being undermined. As we have seen in other countries, same-sex marriage will continue to be an area of controversy even after it is introduced.
Ideally, we all want a society in which everyone is treated equally and minority views are at least tolerated, if not welcomed. However, the fear among some people is that we might see a switch from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people being discriminated against to religious or other people with a traditional view being discriminated against. Will Christians and others be squeezed out of working in the public sector? We are not sure.
I do not like to say that the member is scaremongering, but does he have any evidence at all of religious organisations being squeezed out?
We have gone over some of this already, but it appears that, for example, somebody with traditional committed Christian or Muslim beliefs cannot be a registrar in the public sector.
I do not think that that is the Government’s intention, and I accept that some safeguards have been built in. I also accept that we can never have 100 per cent safeguards or know where the courts will go in future. I am therefore disappointed at the Parliament’s response to the amendments on that issue that were proposed today.
There are parts of the bill that are not controversial. The controversial part is clearly same-sex marriage. However, the bill comes against a backdrop of questions about the place of religion in society, which will be an issue in the future whether or not Scotland gains independence.
There is a clear trend away from religion these days. Society seems to be becoming increasingly secular and humanist. However, it is also interesting to look a little below the surface and see how people react at times of stress and loss.
We did not take evidence from the Scottish Independent Celebrants Association, but it has spoken to MSPs in Parliament. Independent celebrants report how many people approach them for a funeral not wanting a full church or religious service but still wanting a hymn and a prayer, which the humanists cannot provide.
It was also interesting how many people speaking about the recent helicopter crash who would not normally be seen as religious talked about our thoughts and prayers being with the families of victims and attended church services and mass.
We are in an untidy kind of society that is perhaps not as Christian as I would like or as humanist as Patrick Harvie would like, but we need to recognise where people are at. For many, that includes a bit of faith and religion, at least below the surface.
The relationship between church and state is part of the debate as well. I am clear that church and state should be separate and that the church should not be in a privileged position, as it has been in the past—neither the church nor the state benefited from that.
The bill is not perfect and could have been improved more along the way. However, the key point for me and others is that we may well be, and probably are, opening the door for more discrimination against religious and other people who think a bit differently from the rest of society. I hope that I am proved wrong in that, but the signs are not encouraging.
For that reason, I feel forced to vote against the bill.
17:22
I thank the various groups that provided briefings for the debate. One line in the Equality Network briefing said that it would make Scotland fair and more equal if we agreed to the bill, and I agree with that.
The Parliament has an important role in serving the people of Scotland, and we know that the people of Scotland have different genders, races, sexualities and localities.
The committee structure plays a key role in our scrutiny of legislation. Much has been said about the Equal Opportunities Committee. I thank our convener, Margaret McCulloch, for her comments and her résumé of the work that took place. I also thank our valuable committee staff, who were tremendously helpful in providing support to enable us to scrutinise the bill.
A lot of evidence was taken and, like many, I have had a lot of communications. Some of them have not been particularly measured and others have clearly indicated that they have not read the proposals, which is a bit disappointing.
Of particular interest was a line of emails that I got. As someone who has spent all but a handful of years in the Highlands—I was born, was brought up and live there—I found being told that I could not possibly be a Highlander or I would not support the bill to be quite dismissive of an entire population and, indeed, the geography of the place.
In many locations around the globe—sadly, 21st century Scotland is no different—people choose selective tracts from a book of their choice to support various things. That might be girls not being educated; women not being allowed to be doctors or to drive motor vehicles; the mode of dress that can be worn; boys and girls not being allowed to be educated in the same room; the races being segregated; children being beaten; interfaith and interrace marriages being banned; goats being thrown off towers to their deaths; and people who love each other not being allowed to marry.
There have been many entirely reasonably expressed views. I do not go for the hierarchy. We either believe in equality or we do not; there is no hierarchy within that.
I will quote two of the communications that I have had. One is from a monk in an abbey in the Highlands and Islands, who concludes by saying:
“Of course the main victims in your favoured legislation will be children—but they don’t vote, so obviously can be safely ignored”.
I have to say that I will be safely ignoring that gentleman.
I commend the approach to children that is taken by Stonewall Scotland, which says:
“Existing law already states, rightly, that all decisions on adoption or fostering must be based on the best interests of the child. Stonewall Scotland agrees that prospective foster carers and adoptive parents should not be rejected solely because of their views on same-sex marriage. We do believe, however, that potential adoptive parents or foster carers should be assessed on whether they have a range of skills to support looked after children, including those who may grow up to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender or may be experiencing homophobic or transphobic bullying.”
What a contrast between the views of that proponent of faith adherence and the support that we have had in the way of briefings from equality groups.
Similarly, like other members, I have received a communication from a Free Presbyterian minister, who says:
“If you ignore this warning”—
the warning not to support the bill—
“I am clear from complicity of you dying in your iniquity.”
He adds that his
“conscience will be purged from any involvement in the national sin.”
I have news for the Rev Campbell: I am going to die, and my death certificate will not state that the cause of death was iniquity or involvement in the national sin.
To those sadly loveless communicants, I say that I, too, can quote from a book. The book that I will quote from says:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
A lot has been made of statistics, and Jackie Baillie has alluded to the social attitudes survey. To me, it is not about who can get the bigger gang together but about which group values equality more. We have heard about the civil registrars and the contrast with the faith adherents, but who would want to get married in a situation involving duress anyway?
It is quite clear to me that one person’s morality is another person’s prejudice. I am sad to say that we have heard a lot of prejudice in relation to this bill. As I have said before, I do not think that there can be any caveats in relation to equality.
We have an opportunity to make history. Not many people get that. There have been vital votes on franchise and slavery, and the future analysis of that has been important. James Dornan will be seen to have acted to make a difference.
I have one final quote—
You need to make it brief.
Martin Luther King Jnr said:
“I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too big a burden to bear.”
I ask others to facilitate the love that would allow people to marry, and to support this legislation.
17:27
In my view, this bill is the single most important piece of legislation that the Parliament has delivered. That is a hard feat to achieve. It is bigger than the smoking ban and it is bigger than the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill. The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill will deliver real change on equality in Scotland.
We have all heard about the evil consequences that are going to occur and about the effects that same-sex marriage will have on children. However, I am sure that we can all agree that continually talking about same-sex relationships in demeaning and bigoted tones will promote more harm to children, especially those who may have difficulty in accepting their sexuality.
The Bible and the teachings of Jesus are supposed to promote love and forgiveness. However, throughout this campaign, I have seen little evidence of that from certain opposition groups. I ask those who are concerned about and campaign about the consequences of same-sex marriage for children: where is the campaign to stop divorce? In 2011-12, there were 9,503 divorces in Scotland. What of those children and their rights? As the Bible says,
“What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Is it the case that that law of God is wilfully being ignored? The Bible also explicitly forbids cutting one’s hair and trimming one’s facial hair. The Bible also supports slavery.
I would like to stress at this point that I am not criticising any individual for their religious belief; I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of certain opposition groups. The Bible has been used in representations to me as a means of reinforcing opposition to the bill. I merely point out a couple of other areas in the Bible that should perhaps be reflected on if groups want to be fair and honest and to have due regard to equality.
Our society has become increasingly liberal, tolerant, accepting and understanding. I hope that that continues over the decades and centuries to come. We have also become more secular; there is a correlation between increased secularism and liberalism. The bill is stronger than it was at stage 1, although there were amendments that were not agreed to that would have increased equality for LGBT couples, especially young transgender adults. In easing the worries of opposition groups, the Scottish and UK Governments have made amendments to the Equality Act 2010 and guaranteed the freedoms that we have been asked to protect today.
As I said in November, enough safeguards are already in place without needing some of the amendments that were lodged. In our current political landscape, we hear about Scotland becoming a fairer and more equal society. Today, those who perpetuate that statement have the opportunity to take a step towards ending the discrimination that same-sex couples face.
Commitment between two loving and consenting adults, not the ability to create a family, should be the basis for marriage. In many cases, families are created before marriage—again, there is no precondition that must be met before marriage.
In the stage 1 debate, I pointed out that single-parent families are increasingly accepted as normal and that the language used by opposition groups adds to the stigma forced on single parents, especially mothers. As we come to the end of the legislative process, let us remember that, as long as a child has a loving and stable home, it does not matter if they come from a one-parent family or their parents are a same-sex couple or a mixed-sex couple.
Today, Scotland will take a massive stride in equality. We will catch up with our neighbours down south and other progressive nations throughout the world, becoming the 17th nation to make marriage equal. This Parliament has continually acted against the social and moral inequalities that discriminate against LGBT people, and today we will add marriage equality to the list of other actions that we have taken, such as repealing section 28, allowing same-sex couples to adopt and ensuring that LGBT people are protected under hate crime laws.
The work of the Scottish Government and Alex Neil is to be commended. Praise must also go to Tim Hopkins and Tom French at the Equality Network, Stonewall Scotland, the Scottish Transgender Alliance and LGBT Youth Scotland.
I am proud to stand up for social justice, equality and fairness, and today I will be proud to vote for equal marriage in Scotland.
17:32
Earlier today, during stage 3, Mr Mason asked us to accept one or two amendments to show that we have been listening. Later, Alex Johnstone said that we should have accepted some amendments as a “token”. We should not agree to amendments or make legislation for tokenistic reasons. We have struck the right balance. On showing that we have been listening, I have been listening to the many constituents who have contacted me. By 10 to one, folks in my constituency have told me to vote in favour of the bill today.
I have respect for people of all religions and am glad that we have the bill that we have. I will quote one of my constituents, who wrote to me just the other day:
“I am a Christian and urge you to remember that there are Christians in your town who wish to support inclusion and equality.”
We must all take cognisance of the views of individuals and not just the views of organisations, which sometimes do not reflect the views of those who participate in those organisations.
That is my wee bit of politicking. All this is about equality. I think about two wee girls in Aberdeen with two wee mummies—not two wee mummies; two mummies. I am going to get into trouble for that. They should have the same rights as any other family. If their parents want to marry, they should be allowed to marry. Those two wee girls may well have married mummies sooner rather than later.
Alex Johnstone talked about strong families; I am a great supporter of strong families. I talked in the stage 1 debate about my family and the strength that I have taken from having parents who have stayed together for many years and who have gone through the joy and happiness and the trials and tribulations of marriage. I hope that others in our society will soon be able to have those same experiences—although maybe with a little less of the trials and tribulations, it has to be said. Like Alex Johnstone, I think that strong families often breed strong societies. He said that marriage should be “a bedrock”. I do not disagree with that statement, either. The only problem that I have, which I hope we will address today, is that folks who love one another and who are of the same sex cannot marry at the present time.
Many folk have said that today is a historic day. I agree. I hope that we take the bold step today to rid our society further of discrimination. Most of all, I hope that we will think about the families that already exist across this country in which the parents are not allowed to marry, and the people who will want to follow the line of marriage in the future.
I said at stage 1 that I will bear no malice, no matter how folk vote on this issue, but I hope that they will vote for the bill, because I think that it is a good piece of legislation, which has been strengthened by the efforts of the cabinet secretary and the many campaigning groups, on both sides, that have contributed to making it what it is. I will bear no malice, but I will make the same appeal that I made at stage 1: think of the future. Think of your sons and daughters and grandchildren, who may well turn out to be LGBT. Give them the same opportunities that many of you had. Allow them to marry.
17:37
I start by turning to the very front of the bill, which says:
“An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision for the marriage of persons of the same sex”.
That is why I, as a Christian, found it very difficult at stage 1 to accept that that was the right way forward. I did not want to redefine a word that has a meaning in literature and liturgy and which has a significance to Christians, which I felt should not be ignored. Others have agreed with that.
At stage 1 we did not have a choice about an alternative route. The bill did not say, “An Act to eliminate discrimination against those of the same sex who might wish to form some legal relationship other than civil partnerships”; it said on its face that we were going to redefine marriage. At that point, I took exception to it and I argued and voted against it.
I felt that the Government could have brought forward something that was based on civil partnerships. In fact, so did the Government; the paperwork says that it did consider that, but it also notes that it had not consulted on it, so it did not do so.
We have moved on. That stage 1 debate is behind us. This Parliament decided by a very substantial majority that the bill is the way forward. At this point I say not that Parliament decided that this is the way forward, but that we decided that this is the way forward.
We have decided that we are going to redefine marriage; I am now left to address the practical consequences of that. I am now looking at a bill that moves to eliminate discrimination against couples of the same sex. I support that, as I always did. If we are going to change the definition of the word, so be it. I will, accordingly, support the bill tonight.
17:39
I commend my colleague and friend Jackson Carlaw on his speech. As a fellow Conservative, I fully understand and empathise with many of the thoughts and views that he expressed.
I have received many of the emails that John Finnie received, to which I will come back.
I welcome the change in the bill—which not many members have mentioned—that acknowledges the role that humanists, for example, will play in solemnising marriage, by putting belief celebrants on the same footing as religious celebrants. I also welcome the extension to the normal notice period for marriage and civil partnerships from 14 to 18 days. Those changes have been lost in the main core of the debate today.
I am delighted to be in the Scottish Conservatives, which had in 2004 under our leader David McLetchie, and has today, 10 years later, under Ruth Davidson’s leadership, a free vote. I fully respect the views of all my colleagues and others who choose to oppose the bill.
I was the only MSP to abstain in the 2004 vote on civil partnerships. At that time I could see quite clearly the points that were being made on both sides, so I thought that abstaining was the right thing to do. However, at stage 1 and today again, Jackie Baillie stated that the Scottish social attitudes survey in 2002 showed that 41 per cent of people were in favour of same-sex marriage and 19 per cent were against. We can assume that 40 per cent were undecided. In the 2010 survey, the proportion who were in favour of same-sex marriage rose from 41 to 61 per cent. I was probably one of the 40 per cent who were undecided in 2004, but I will vote for the bill tonight.
I ask myself, “What was my tipping point?” Like John Finnie, I read all the emails that came in, as I did in 2004. The language of some individuals—not churches, but individuals—who opposed the bill was the tipping point for me to vote in favour.
The divide across income groups, geographic areas and religious communities is interesting, with 50 per cent of Presbyterians and 55 per cent of Catholics in favour. In the most deprived areas, 67 per cent support same-sex marriage, and in the most affluent areas the figure is 63 per cent. Whether people are urban or rural, rich or poor, religious beliefs and attitudes are changing.
I thank Mary Fee, because we have all been talking about same-sex and different-sex marriage, and Mary Fee was the only one at stage 1 and today to raise the issue of single parents. I am a single parent. I was married; my husband walked out when my children were aged one and two. I did not ask him to do that; I did not want that to happen. I hope that Mary’s points will be embraced today. When my children went to school in Dundee, my daughter was asked, “Hands up those from a broken home.” I can tell you that that teacher in that school never asked that question again after I visited. [Applause.] I believe that whether we are in our role as MSPs, parents or citizens, we should all, individually or otherwise, address that type of humiliation, embarrassment, isolation and bullying, whenever and wherever it arises. I thank Mary Fee.
I do not agree with all that John Mason said about extending marriage to same-sex couples: that is, that it dilutes its value. In fact, I think that it is a fair and just society that extends marriage to people who love each other, no matter where they live or whom they love. People are equal, and this Parliament is voting to give the same rights to everyone.
Following my vote in favour at stage 1, I received emails saying that I would be struck down by the wrath of God for supporting the bill. Others have mentioned potential discrimination. Just as I would not discriminate against same-sex relationships, I would not move to discriminating against those who hold traditional Christian beliefs. That is why I listened very closely to John Mason’s and Richard Lyle’s arguments about their amendments, and why I listened equally carefully to the responses by the cabinet secretary. I have supported John Mason’s call for a five-year review, which is reasonable.
I read the stage 1 debate and noted that Joan McAlpine said that when she was growing up, she did not know anyone who was gay. Neither did I, while I was growing up in Angus—but “gay” meant something quite different then. I remember going to Links park in Montrose with my father in the early 1960s and asking why the referees were all gay, although that was not quite the word that was used. I do not remember my father’s answer very clearly, but the term was used in a very derogatory manner, particularly when the ref’s decision did not find favour with the fans.
I am sorry, Ms Scanlon—you need to wind up.
Later on, at Tannadice, my son asked me about the ref’s sexuality, and I found it difficult to explain why these mysterious men in black, with all the power and authority on the football field, should be at the mercy of that term.
This weekend, I read a chapter from David Walliams’s book “The Boy in the Dress” to my seven-year-old grand-daughter. I hope that she will be much more prepared for the diversity of the real world than I was.
17:45
First of all, I would like to clarify where I come from on same-sex marriage, then I would like to tell members briefly about how I participated in the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee on the bill, before concluding with what I think the bill is really about for me.
Yes—I come from France, a country that has just passed similar legislation. As Jackson Carlaw hinted, in the debate at the end of stage 1 in November last year, I finished my contribution with a childhood memory of a conversation that I had with my father. On the following day, members asked me to clarify the reason why I introduced chicken farming to a debate on marriage and civil partnership. I think that the words of my father might have been lost in translation.
I spent an idyllic childhood in rural France in one of those typical French villages. My father ran a chicken farm and I still remember the day, 40 years ago, when he told me about customers of his who lived as a couple in a remote farm nearby. I was struck by the way that my father spoke about this same-sex couple with great respect and in a friendly tone. I wonder what happened to those farmers and how much those two men would have liked to take the opportunity to get married, like every other farming couple in rural France.
I have something else to add about that. We have heard many contributions from members today, and it seems to me that no one has said that we all have prejudices. I have to say, maybe to my shame, that despite what my father told me, I did not twig. When I went to school, and then to secondary school, I was still full of prejudices towards gay people. I could not understand it; I never realised what my father was trying to tell me. Yet, I went to church every Sunday and was even an altar boy. My father did not go to church. He made the excuse that looking after his chickens was a seven days a week job. I went to church and listened to everything, but I also listened far too much to my peers at school.
I changed my mind when I grew up, but I feel that, out there, there are still a lot of people who are like I was when I was young and full of prejudices even though I had a strong family background, such as Alex Johnstone talked about.
I welcome the fact that Parliament and the Scottish Government have introduced the bill. We need to send the strong message to people that same-sex marriage should be more than tolerated—that it should be celebrated.
However, all that I have told you about was in the past and we are here today, perhaps 40 years too late, voting on a bill that will give everyone the right to marry. When I was preparing for the debate last night, I happened to read a message on social media from John Mason, who spoke earlier. I congratulate him on the message that he posted in which he thanked everybody who had contacted him, in particular the people who disagreed with his position, and for doing so in a calm and sensible fashion. The member for Glasgow Shettleston must be commended for his words and his tone—not just then, but today.
I also take the opportunity to offer my thanks to everyone who wrote to me on the issue. As will other members of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I will do my best to respond to the many people who asked me to support the bill.
I listened carefully to John Mason; I also listened to Nigel Don. I urge John Mason to reconsider and to vote for the bill, despite his reservations.
We have heard about the meaning of the word “marriage.” That word does not belong to the state or to any religion; it belongs to the couples who marry, in church or not, whether or not they are same-sex couples, including farmers. The bill is not about words; it is about people.
I pay tribute to James Morton of the Equality Network and Scottish Transgender Alliance, who came to our committee to give evidence and to explain how equal marriage matters to trans and intersex people.
Please wind up.
I also thank Linda Fabiani for defending the transgender community’s cause. If this bill has achieved anything that we did not expect it to achieve, it has been to get out in the open the transgender community’s agenda.
17:51
I was not really expecting to hear about chicken farming, Tannadice or “South Pacific”—well, perhaps I was expecting to hear about “South Pacific”—but we have heard some cracking good speeches. I, for one, feel privileged to be a member of the Parliament and to have the opportunity to speak in the debate.
The comments that Marco Biagi read from some of his constituents put me in mind of how I might have felt had this legislation been passed in Scotland when I was coming out—or, more particularly, when I did not yet feel able to do so. The message that we send by passing the legislation will be extremely positive. The response of young people, some of whom are baffled that it is even an issue, will become the mainstream response. A few years down the line, a great many people in Scotland will wonder what all the fuss was about.
I pay credit to the Government, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and Nicola Sturgeon, who was the previous minister in charge of the bill, the committee and its previous members, and the many campaigners who have worked so hard on the issue. It has taken us a little bit longer than Westminster to get to this point but, partly because of the time spent and the committee’s amendments, we have a better bill as a result.
There has been a good degree of cross-party consensus, which speaks volumes. That was not always the case. From decriminalisation through to the equalisation of the age of consent, the introduction of anti-discrimination law, the repeal of section 2A, legislation on gender recognition and adoption and fostering, moves towards equal family law, and the introduction of civil partnerships and now equal marriage, we have heard the voices of dissent. I believe that they are diminishing in their number in society at large and in the substance of their arguments, although that persistent opposition remains.
I must say to Alex Johnstone in particular that those arguments have not always been expressed to me in the respectful tones that he described. A vociferous opposition to LGBT equality and human rights exists in our society. Those people have inherited the views of those who objected every step of the way, from decriminalisation onwards. Judging from the correspondence that I have received, some people simply seem baffled at the idea that same-sex relationships should be treated with respect or equality. Often the prejudice is couched in religious terms. I make the case that claiming religious justification for prejudice does not make that prejudice any less objectionable, although I endorse Kevin Stewart’s comments that, very often, the hierarchies that represent that prejudice do not necessarily represent the views of the people whom they claim to represent.
Many people perceive the bill principally in religious terms, but let us remember once again that most people who get married in Scotland choose not to involve religion in any way; indeed, most marriages are fully secular. It is important to assert that religious freedom includes not only freedom of religion but freedom from religion. Those are both important aspects of religious freedom. I have yet to hear—in this debate or in any other so far—any clear, coherent moral argument that same-sex relationships are in any way inferior or less worthy of respect and equal status.
Now that the bill is on the verge of being passed, it is important that we look beyond our current situation and beyond Scotland to countries where the fight for equality and LGBT human rights is not about pensions and inheritance, but is still about life and death. In some of those places, some strands of organised religion and their hierarchies continue to offer the single most consistent source of hostility to LGBT people’s dignity, rights, equality, wellbeing and safety.
As we welcome to Glasgow some of those countries where people are struggling with that question of life and death on LGBT equality, we should take pride in telling the story of Scotland’s progress from being a country that felt unable to decriminalise homosexuality at the same time as the rest of the UK and in which, in Glasgow and Edinburgh, people felt that it was not yet safe to have a pride march—we could not do that here—to being this country, which is proud to pass equal marriage legislation for this generation and for the future.
17:56
I am grateful to speak in the debate on an issue that means so much to me and to so many of us. This is a day that many of us did not think we would see in our lifetime. I am immensely proud that this Parliament will, at decision time this evening, pass into law a bill that will allow same-sex couples to marry. There have been some outstanding speeches from the front benches and across the chamber this afternoon.
I believe that the bill is the measure of a civilised and just society. It is the hallmark of a country that is comfortable in its own skin and which says with quiet dignity and confidence that we value all our citizens equally. Loving and committed relationships between two people should be accorded parity of esteem and equal status before the law, whether they are between two women, between two men or between a man and a woman. Like Marco Biagi, I have been reminded of that by the rich personal testimony that I have received throughout the extensive passage of the bill. Christian Allard is right to say that the bill is about people. It is life changing.
Only yesterday, I received a letter from a woman in my constituency who urged me to support the bill. She said:
“I am in a civil partnership and feel it is second class marriage. The terminology is terrible, ‘civil partnership’ sounds cold and legal, and I have to explain what it is—that it is marriage but not quite marriage.”
She went on:
“I am forced to mark myself as different, as not straight as not married. That is tiresome and I don’t want these battles. Talking about my partner shouldn’t be about the terminology—it should be about our relationship.”
I was humbled to receive a letter today from a young man of 26, who said:
“I have always known that I wanted to be married, not civil partnered, not something other, not something different: married. I had thought we would have to go abroad to do this but thanks to the decision taken today we can marry here in Scotland. I now look forward to what will be the happiest day of my life, marrying the person I love in the place I call home.”
I said in the stage 1 debate that Scotland had been a “cold and inhospitable place” for many people—myself included—to grow up in as gay or lesbian in the 1980s and 1990s. I am glad that Scotland is no longer that cold and inhospitable place. I believe that the bill will have a hugely positive impact on our society and on the health and wellbeing of LGBT people across our country. Future generations of young people in Scotland can grow up as gay and lesbian without the self-doubt and self-loathing that many people of my generation and previous generations faced. They will know that their intrinsic worth as a human being is accepted by the society of which they are members.
Scotland now has one of the most progressive equal marriage bills in the world. We started the process earlier than England and Wales, and we have taken longer in our consultation on and consideration of the legislation, but, like the Equality Network, I believe that the length of time that it has taken has made it well worth the wait.
Scrapping the spousal veto and allowing the option of gender-neutral marriage ceremonies means that the legislation will provide genuine marriage equality for all, including for trans and intersex people. As Linda Fabiani reminded us, 34 years after Scotland decriminalised male homosexuality in 1980, we have the opportunity to remove the final piece of sexual orientation discrimination from Scots law and to create full legal equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Many people deserve credit for achieving this milestone in our history. Special mention must go to Tim Hopkins and Tom French of the Equality Network; to Colin Macfarlane of Stonewall Scotland; to the Scottish Transgender Alliance; and to the many others who played their part in bringing us to this day.
We should also remember those who are no longer with us. I think of the Scottish Homosexual Rights Group many decades ago, and people such as Janey Buchan, Robin Cook, Father Anthony Ross and our own Scots makar, Edwin Morgan.
Today is a day to pause and reflect on how far we have come as a society. The mood has been celebratory, as Jackson Carlaw reminded us. This is a day when we come together as a Parliament and as a nation to proclaim the importance of marriage as an institution that is open to all. Men and women across Scotland have new cause to hope for their future, with the wondrous possibilities that may present themselves and the chance to share their lives with the person they love.
Like all of us, I, too, have cause for optimism for my future. Perhaps a personal ad in The Scotsman: “Slim, athletic, professional 45-year-old male seeks husband to share his life and passions. Must like a good debate, but not take themselves too seriously. All applications will be carefully considered”—I jest.
This is a profound moment in our nation’s history. Although we do not yet live in a society that is free from prejudice and discrimination, this law is a bold and positive step towards creating a Scotland that is based on the first principles of fairness and justice for all. It is the final step in the journey for equality for the LGBT community in Scotland, and it is one of which I and all of us within and outwith this chamber can be rightly and immensely proud.
18:02
Late in the debate as it is, I am delighted to have this opportunity to state my support for equal marriage. I believe whole-heartedly that this can only be a positive step for Scottish society and in particular for its LGBT community, who have for so long been denied the choice that so many of us have taken for granted: the choice to say “I do”.
I pay tribute to the work of Stonewall Scotland, the Equality Network and the Scottish Youth Parliament, which, among many organisations, have been strong, considered and rational voices calling for this necessary change.
As well as highlighting the positives, it is important to reiterate to those who do not support the bill that they really cannot have anything to fear from this move towards equality. I believe that the religious safeguards that are currently proposed, whereby religious institutions are permitted, if they so wish, to hold equal marriage ceremonies, suitably protect both institutions that do not wish to do so and those that do. There are institutions, such as certain parts of the Jewish faith and the Quakers, that wish to conduct equal marriage ceremonies, and to disallow that would in itself be faith-based discrimination.
Several countries across the world have already legalised same-sex marriage, including a number that are signatories to the European convention on human rights. Religious freedom has remained in place for those with traditional views on marriage, and I suggest that that will also be the case in Scotland.
Among its many provisions, the Equality Act 2010 makes it illegal to deny a person or an organisation access to public services—or to deny charities support—based purely on views on same-sex marriage. The act ensures that no duty is placed on any religious body or individual celebrant to conduct these ceremonies. The existing law already rightly states that all decisions on fostering or adoption should be based on the interests of the child, not on the views of the prospective parents.
Marriage does not belong to any one organisation. Many people in the LGBT community wish to be married in order to have equal status in society. Civil partnerships do not put same-sex couples on an equal footing. As human beings, they do not wish to be treated differently from anyone else. I believe that the bill will help to make Scotland a more equal society.
Many in the LGBT community want to be married in accordance with their religion, and many religions are in favour of same-sex marriage, including Unitarians, Quakers, humanist-liberal Judaists, the Metropolitan Community Church and the Open Episcopal Church. Like other members, I have received correspondence from some Church of Scotland ministers and from observant Protestants, Catholics and people from other denominations in which they express their support for same-sex marriage, so we must not believe that everyone in every church feels that the bill is wrong.
The evidence overall suggests that the bill has public support. Opinion polls have consistently shown that the level of support for same-sex marriage is around two thirds of those polled. The 2010 Scottish social attitudes survey found that, when asked the question “Do you agree or disagree that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry?”, 61 per cent of respondents said that they agreed; only 19 per cent said that they disagreed. Perhaps Scotland really is moving on.
The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and the Green Party all had equal marriage proposals in their 2011 election manifestos, with varying degrees of commitment, and a Conservative-led Government has introduced same-sex marriage in England and Wales.
I can remember when homosexually itself was considered a criminal offence. Scotland has come a long way in a relatively short space of time. I hope that the passing of the bill will form one more link taking us towards a progressive, equal and tolerant Scotland. I whole-heartedly support the bill.
We now move to the winding-up speeches. Margaret Mitchell has six minutes.
18:06
That the bill will be passed this evening has been a foregone conclusion since the overwhelming vote in favour of it in November last year. That being the case, I believe that supporters of same-sex marriage could have moved some way to try to allay the fears and accommodate the different but equally passionate and legitimate views of those on the other side of the debate. I am therefore saddened that the proposed amendments to the bill that specifically sought to protect freedom of speech and religious belief have not been agreed to, as those amendments would have led to better, more robust legislation.
I note that the submission from Stonewall Scotland stated that it
“is clear that the freedom to hold and express the belief that a marriage can only be between one man and one woman is already, rightly, robustly protected by law.”
If that is so, there should have been be no difficulty in making sure that that freedom was set out in the bill. However, Stonewall Scotland took a rather skewed view on amendment 26. It stated:
“This amendment, however, seeks to elevate one belief above others and would enshrine in law that same-sex relationships are uniquely worthy of criticism.”
Today, a compromise was offered by those opposed in principle to the bill, in the form of amendments that were lodged in an effort to clarify and strengthen the legislation. However, disappointingly, there has been no corresponding empathy shown or quarter given by the majority of those who support the bill.
Will the member take an intervention?
If Mr Biagi does not mind, I am expressing the minority view and I would like the time to develop it.
That situation is a sad reflection on our Parliament, as there is no doubt that the bill sets in competition two equality strands: the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, and the right to religious belief. It is worth pointing out that, had that lack of empathy prevailed with those, including me, who are opposed to same-sex marriage but who voted in favour of civil partnerships for same-sex couples, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 would not have been passed.
Will the member give way?
I do not think that Ms Mitchell wishes to give way.
I have made the reason for my position on interventions quite clear, Mr Stewart.
Quite simply, it would have been wrong not to support the 2004 act, because that legislation addressed the unjust discrimination against same-sex couples that existed in law at that time.
The role of Government should be to ensure fairness under the law for those who hold differing beliefs. Despite that, the Scottish Government ignored the results of its own consultation on same-sex marriage, with two thirds of those who responded to the same-sex marriage question indicating their opposition.
Furthermore, in legislating for a redefinition of marriage, the Government has eroded the boundary between state civil provisions, where it has a role to play, and religious belief and teaching, where it does not. It has done so in the name of equality, but equality is about fairness; it is not about making everyone the same. The indisputable fact is that the bill diminishes the deeply held views of those who consider that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing fair in causing those opposed to same-sex marriage to feel apprehensive about expressing that view, yet that situation will now prevail in Scotland.
The majority of contributions in this closing debate have been passionate, witty and decidedly upbeat—not least, the contribution from my colleague Jackson Carlaw—with members expressing the view that the introduction of same-sex marriage tackles discrimination. But let us be clear: terrible and vile discrimination still exists against same-sex couples. It is not to be found in these reasoned amendments, as some seem to believe, but, rather, in the intolerance of certain religious teaching and ethnic minority cultures—here in Scotland, the UK and globally. The bill does absolutely nothing to tackle that issue. If it did, it would have my overwhelming support this evening.
The bill will inhibit people from expressing their religious beliefs. In a democratic society, the ability of the minority to feel free to air their views is fundamental. The bill undermines that ability and, in doing so, has not achieved fairness or equality but instead has elevated the beliefs of one group of society, to the detriment of another. For those reasons, I regret that I will not be voting for the bill this evening.
18:12
I say at the outset that I regret some of the comment in the previous speech, which struck me as being out of step—even with those who have disagreed with the bill. We have heard powerful testimony and experience from a number of members, and there have been excellent contributions from across the chamber. I will attempt to do justice to most of them, but members will forgive me if I run out of time.
It may come as a surprise to people outside the chamber, but we often agree across the parties. We are capable of working together, although that might not be evident when they look in on Thursday’s First Minister’s questions. I welcome the First Minister to the chamber. I think that we can agree that we are proud of Parliament and of how we deal with difficult issues that inspire passion on all sides.
There was substantial committee scrutiny, substantial external scrutiny of the bill and quite a bit of comment on top of that. Like Jackson Carlaw and many others here today, I want to pay tribute to all the campaigners. With only a few exceptions, they have engaged maturely in the debate. I have no doubt that their contributions have made today a historic day.
Jackson Carlaw was almost singing from “South Pacific”. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or not; I will leave it for others to judge. I am always happy to take an intervention, if he wants to regale us with song, but I put it down to the excitement of the occasion. Indeed, his observation, which was echoed by Mary Scanlon, about those in the Tory party who had to strangle their sexuality, earned a laugh of substantial recognition. I will leave that sticking to the wall.
In a considered contribution, Marco Biagi brought the voices of his constituents directly into the chamber and, in an emotional and well-thought-through speech, made this debate very much about them and what we now do for them.
Margaret McCulloch, ever the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, was rightly pursuing the cabinet secretary right to the end on the question of converting to marriage civil partnerships that have been conducted outside Scotland. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take some of the considerable time that we have at our disposal to respond to her points in his closing speech.
James Dornan spoke about his brother’s marriage in Lisbon; I was jealous of the sunshine of Portugal that he brought into the chamber. He was right to say to Alex Johnstone that the bill can only strengthen marriage. It is about celebrating all marriages and it underlines the benefits that flow from marriage. As the cabinet secretary said, this is about a nation that cherishes love.
As Drew Smith said, demonstrating love and commitment to each other can be a private thing for many couples; for others, it is a proudly public matter. On that note, I will correct Jackson Carlaw. I know that he is not often wrong, but I am sure that he will take what I say in the intended spirit. It is not just Neil Bibby and Mark Griffin who are engaged to be married; Drew Smith got engaged to Jillian Merchant on Christmas eve. I suppose that I should declare an interest—I am not sure what our register of members’ interests requires—because she used to work for me, so I take some credit for bringing the two together. I say to Jackson Carlaw that, for the error that he made, Drew Smith will send him the gift list in the post. [Interruption.] I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth to stop heckling from a sedentary position.
In all seriousness, I say that John Finnie was right. As we listened to the debate, it was clear that the measure is not about a hierarchy in equality. People either believe in equality or they do not; there is no pick and mix. I am pleased that Parliament came to the same conclusion with a series of amendments.
I hesitate to say that Mary Fee has been married for 36 years to Brian. She told us all at a Burns supper last week that he has bought her presents including a lawnmower and even a pan loaf. That is a clear example that shows that, even with the most extreme provocation, marriage is about love and commitment that endure.
Kevin Stewart and I have often disagreed, and about many things, but he was correct to say that legislation should not be tokenistic. Legislating is about doing what is right and what will stand the test of time.
In her usual quirky way, Mary Scanlon reminded us all that we have a responsibility to challenge discrimination, as she did, whether it is in the classroom or on the football pitch in interesting circumstances.
Christian Allard treated us to an exposition on chicken farming moving into the 21st century. He was right to say that what we are doing today is celebrating same-sex marriage.
Patrick Harvie said that no clear, coherent or moral argument has been heard in the chamber against same-sex marriage. He reminded us of the story of our progress; he said that we should share that progress with countries that come to the Commonwealth games and that we should use the games for a positive purpose.
What can I say to Jim Eadie? I look forward to the invitation to his wedding, as do most members.
In the stage 1 debate, Alex Neil was right to say that
“we are not redefining marriage ... the bill does not in any way redefine ... marriage. It does extend the eligibility for marriage, which is the key point of the proposed legislation. People in Scotland who have been ineligible for marriage will now be eligible for marriage and for that marriage, and the love that it represents”—
irrespective of whether it is same-sex marriage or otherwise—
“to be recognised by the state”.—[Official Report, 20 November 2013; c 24691.]
That is crucial.
In front of the First Minister, I pay tribute again to Alex Neil. That does not happen often, so Alex Neil should savour it—although it probably will not do his career in the SNP much good. Alex Neil has piloted the bill through Parliament with considerable skill, for which I thank him.
Today, we take a decision on the essential character of Scotland and on how we see ourselves. Equal marriage is about equality, fairness and social justice. Let us vote for it. It is time for change.
I call Alex Neil to wind up the debate. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary continued until 6.30.
18:19
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is never a problem to do that.
I begin with a plea to Jackson Carlaw, who said that he will not go to the party tonight. I think that he should go to the ball tonight. If he is worried about his age letting him down, I will give him a loan of my slippers so that he can get home safely and well.
I pay tribute to the work of Nicola Sturgeon, who demonstrated the bravery and vision to initiate the bill in the first place. Without her contribution, we would not be here today agreeing to—I hope—the bill. [Applause.]
I pay tribute to those on both sides of the argument, who have, with very few exceptions, conducted the argument both in and outwith Parliament with a great deal of dignity and respect for everyone’s points of view. That is how things should be.
It is fair to say that the people who are worried about freedom of speech in Scotland should not be worried at all, having listened to this debate and to the entire debate over the past two and a half years, because freedom of speech is alive and well on all sides in Scotland, and that is also how things should be.
I want to answer the precise and fair question that was asked by Margaret McCulloch in her role as convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee and as an individual MSP. She asked specifically about overseas civil partnerships and converting them into marriage. Obviously, I appreciate the views that have been expressed on allowing people who are in civil partnerships that have been registered outwith Scotland to change their relationship to a marriage in Scotland, if they so wish. Assuming that the bill is passed, we will treat that as a priority and aim to lay an order as soon as possible. The powers in section 7A of the bill are wide enough to cover all relationships from around the world that are recognised as civil partnerships in Scotland.
Therefore if, following consultation of stakeholders and other jurisdictions, the view is that all overseas civil partnerships should be covered, we will do that. We want to ensure that we are not doing couples a disservice by putting them in an uncertain position with regard to the legal status of their relationship, so we will work with the committee to ensure that there is an early resolution of that issue.
More widely, I agree with Jackie Baillie and thank her for her very kind comments about me. Again, this has been an outstanding debate that has done Parliament very proud.
I think that all the members who are opposed to the bill and were the authors and supporters of amendments that we discussed earlier said in their speeches that they are concerned that none of the amendments was passed. That is not because there was a lack of consideration of those amendments or a knee-jerk reaction. We considered each and every one of the amendments in great detail and decided not to accept them for the reasons that I outlined.
However, in Parliament’s 15-year history, no piece of legislation—there is no exception—has had as much consultation as this bill. We have gone through various stages of consultation and have done much more consultation than our colleagues down south. That was the right thing to do. I agree with Patrick Harvie; as a result of the consultation, we have ended up with a better bill than would otherwise have been the case, and with a better bill than the legislation down south.
From listening to people, I am aware that there is no precedent in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world that has passed such legislation, for the many protections that we have in the bill. There are five sets of protections for people who are opposed to same-sex marriage or who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages. First, the system is a voluntary, opt-in one. That is a protection. Secondly, the amendments to the Equality Act 2010 represent a series of protections—in particular, for celebrants and churches. Again, the protections are stronger than those in the UK legislation.
Thirdly, there will be protections in the education guidance that my colleague Mike Russell will publish shortly. In addition, there are protections in the prosecution guidelines that the Lord Advocate has already published and—with regard to many of the issues—there is protection in the fact that, under the Scotland Act 1998, Parliament must embed the European convention on human rights in all its legislation.
The provisions in many of the amendments that were debated today are covered more robustly in some of the legislation that I have mentioned. Indeed, the reason for not accepting a number of the amendments was that much of the existing legislation—in addition to the bill that is before us and the draft amendments to the UK Equality Act 2010—is stronger than the wording of some of those amendments. The legislation is not confusing, but is straightforward and clearly understandable, and will be absolutely adhered to in its implementation.
One example, which was mentioned earlier, is Siobhan McMahon’s amendment concerning the hiring of property and facilities. A very specific element in the draft amendments to the Equality Act 2010 relates to people who are using premises on behalf of a religious organisation, and states that they cannot be discriminated against for refusing to allow those premises to be used for same-sex marriages.
I believe that, as Jackie Baillie said, we have struck a good balance. We are extending the freedoms and rights of organisations such as the Unitarian Church and the Quakers that want to perform same-sex marriage, and the rights of people of the same sex to marry and have their marriage recognised in law. In so doing, we are also safeguarding the rights of churches and celebrants who do not want to perform same-sex marriages, and we are protecting the right of free speech so that people can continue to express their opinion for or against same-sex marriage in an open, free and democratic society.
The balance of measures that we have introduced is very fair. It reflects the diversity of opinion in our society, and at the same time it can take us forward.
The priority now is to get the secondary legislation in place and to get the amendments to the Equality Act 2010 agreed. I give that commitment to members—I cannot give a guarantee, because it depends on the amendments’ passage through Westminster, although I put on the record the excellent co-operation that we have had from Maria Miller and her officials in the UK Government. Following the passing of those amendments and the secondary legislation we will, ideally, see the first same-sex marriages in Scotland this year. [Applause.] That sends out a loud and clear message.
I finish by saying this: I was brought up, as every member in the chamber probably knows, in a mining village in South Ayrshire—
Members: Oh!
It was south of the Ayrshire Mason-Dixon line. Dreghorn, where the Deputy First Minister comes from, was north of that line; I note for her sake that my village was called Patna.
I was christened in the United Free Church and married 36 years ago in the same church. I always remember the philosophy in that mining village. Our motto, if we had one, was the same as I think it is in every mining village and in many other communities in Scotland: “Live and let live.”
My belief is that couples of the same sex can fully realise their potential, fully live out their aspirations and fully live out and show their love only if those people are able to marry the person whom they love who is of the same sex. We should let live; let live those who want to get married to someone of the same sex and those who want to perform marriages of people of the same sex, and let live those who are not in favour of that because of religious belief, so that they are not forced to do something that they do not want to do. If ever there was a motto to sum up the Government’s and the Parliament’s approach to the bill, it is live and let live.
I believe that, when the history of the Parliament is written, if we pass the bill, as I believe we will, today will be one of the great historic days of the Parliament, not just because of the provisions of the bill but because of the message that it sends out about the new Scotland that we are creating in the 21st century—a Scotland where we all believe in live and let live. [Applause.]