Hendon MP Matthew Offord defends his disapproval of same-sex marriage

Times Series: Hendon MP Matthew Offord Hendon MP Matthew Offord

Hendon MP Matthew Offord has denied comparing same-sex marriage with polygamy.

Mr Offord was criticised for his comments on same-sex marriage in the House of Commons on Monday.

 

He said: “Has the government considered introducing other forms of marriage such as polygamy and if not, when can minorities who believe in such a practice expect their own consultation?”

Many people took to Twitter, slamming Mr Offord for “comparing” gay marriage to polygamy.

 

Defending his choice of words, Mr Offord said: “I did not compare same-sex marriage to polygamy.

"The point I was making was that where does this process end? Why does the government believe that it is right to fundamentally change the definition of marriage for one minority, for example same sex couples, but not for others, such as Mormons?"

 

Mr Offord cited Canada, where same-sex marriage was recognised from 2005 and where there are now campaigns to introduce polygamy.

He added: “We were told in 2004 that civil registration would not lead to same-sex marriage but the announcement proves that is not the case so where will such changes lead?”

Mr Offord does not approve of the Government’s plans to allow gay marriage in register offices or religious places such as Unitarian churches, Quaker meeting houses and reform synagogues from 2015.

He said: “I am not in favour of same sex marriage as I believe Civil Partnerships, which I am in favour of, already provide legal protection to same-sex couples.

“I disagree with the proposals because I believe that marriage is the traditional union between a man and a woman and the Government does not have the right to fundamentally change the definition of marriage after hundreds of years without including the idea in a manifesto, Queen’s speech or even as a consultation.”

 

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:53pm Wed 12 Dec 12

nlygo says...

matthew has completely lost the plot on this issue

and his comments are deeply offensive
matthew has completely lost the plot on this issue and his comments are deeply offensive nlygo

7:50pm Thu 13 Dec 12

anna marie says...

I totally agree with Mr. Offord comments. I am for equal rights and opportunities - I have, as a professional woman fought for it all my life. Marriage has been for a long time (believers or not) between a man and a woman and it has had it's important purpose and influence on the society. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not, but I do not believe that same-sex marriage will contribute the same value to the society. And why, cannot I have a different believe? Why should I be branded prejudiced, politically not correct and other? We all have the right to our opinion if we truly believe in freedom. Why then should be Mr. Offord's or anyone else's different opinion "deeply offensive"? He didn't say anything offensive. Just freely express his opinions and thoughts. Good for you.
I totally agree with Mr. Offord comments. I am for equal rights and opportunities - I have, as a professional woman fought for it all my life. Marriage has been for a long time (believers or not) between a man and a woman and it has had it's important purpose and influence on the society. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not, but I do not believe that same-sex marriage will contribute the same value to the society. And why, cannot I have a different believe? Why should I be branded prejudiced, politically not correct and other? We all have the right to our opinion if we truly believe in freedom. Why then should be Mr. Offord's or anyone else's different opinion "deeply offensive"? He didn't say anything offensive. Just freely express his opinions and thoughts. Good for you. anna marie

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree