James Spencer, on the left of this photo, campaigning in happier times for the Tories in Bridge Ward
Spencer used a blog post on his website, Bridge Ward News, to announce he would not be standing, saying that he had been prepared to “soldier on whatever my doubts” whilst he believed that Ben Gummer MP had “broadly the same beliefs” as he has, but that he will no longer support him now that he has supported the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.
The government pushed for a vote on redefining marriage even though their members are privately predicting that this will involve a massive attack on religious liberty, whether it is church’s, priests, schools or believers.
I’m not a doctrinaire libertarian, but it’s a deep belief in personal liberty that bought me into politics.
I thought I had an MP who had broadly the same beliefs.
And so thought that I was obliged to support him
And that I would soldier on whatever my doubts.
I don’t. I won’t. I can’t.
Not any longer.
Mr Gummer’s stance on same sex marriage was welcomed, however, by a broad spectrum of politicians in Ipswich. Labour councillor Glen Chisholm praised his stance on twitter, as did Tory councillor Nadia Cenci.
@glenchisholm @ben4ipswich of course Ben did. I didn’t even have to ask or look it up!
— An Ipswich Tory (@StokeParkCllr) February 6, 2013
The loss of Mr Spencer will be a blow to Tory hopes of ever retaking Bridge Ward, where he has stood for several years. He has name recognition some councillors would be pleased with, but whilst he was unlikely to win the seat in these dog years for Tory candidates, he was keeping the sitting Labour councillors, two of whom live on the other side of the town, on their toes.
Mr Spencer was clearly also unhappy with the speech that Mr Gummer made in the House of Commons about the historical context of the 1836 Marriage Act, claiming he was making a false historical analogy, and describing him as having
“the look and feel of a 14 year old prodigy who’s showing off to the sixth form debating club when he tries to make a clever point.”
Mr Gummer, who has a Double Starred First in History from Peterhouse College, Cambridge, used his intervention in the debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill to explain to his fellow MPs that the Marriage Act 1836 had been introduced to provide for civil marriage, and why that had been necessary.
He told MPs that “The Act was introduced to protect people who dissented from the common view at the time. Before 1836, people had to get married in a Church of England church, which was anathema to the many Roman Catholics, non-conformists and Quakers and the very small number of atheists. The then Government under Viscount Melbourne introduced the legislation to protect the liberties of those people. A case cited in the House at the time involved a Roman Catholic lady who had married a fellow Roman Catholic in a clandestine marriage. The husband then ran off and she was left destitute because they did not have a proper marriage contract in law.
“The 1836 Act, in seeking to protect a number of minorities, was a very forward-looking piece of legislation. The arguments marshalled against it were not dissimilar to those that we are hearing today. It was argued that marriage was somehow exclusively the preserve of religion, and that extending it into the secular sphere in any way would devalue it. At that time, the number of people, such as atheists, who were married in secular ceremonies was minuscule, but the figure has now risen to 60% of marriages and we do not regard such marriages as being of any less worth or involving any less love than those that are conducted in a church. I believe that, 177 years later, we should now seek to protect the love, the freedoms and the liberties of another minority that has been oppressed and forgotten for so long.”
Mr Spencer responds by recalling his own historical study of the period: “I studied this era longer ago than I care to remember but I never remember Anglican vicars being threatened with legal action for not allowing Catholic marriages in their churches or for Anglican church schools being closed down for refusing to teach that non-conformist marraiges were just as valid as those in the Church of England. But then I suppose that must me not being clever enough, and not Mr Gummer making a false historical analogy.”
No doubt he would have preferred Mr Gummer remembered a different quote from Viscount Melbourne. “Why not leave it alone?”
Filed under: Campaign Activity, Cock Ups, Election News, Government Tagged: | Ben Gummer MP, Bridge Ward, Conservatives, James Spencer, Same Sex Marriage
I am saddened that James feels like this especially as churches will not have to carry out these ceremonies. Man and wife will still be able to go about their business and will not be in the least bit hurt by gay marriages. Gay couples are allowed to adopt so why should those children not have married parents? Religion must never come above the law and those who resign from the party are fighting the wrong fight. We need to fight socialism until the day we die!
religion should never come above the law. Yes I agree with you but God comes way above religion and law and he said that marriage was the joining of as man and a woman together not a man and aman or woman and a woman. Stop messing with what is written in the Bible and is the real law. Gays can be lawfully bound together in anything in my opinion as long as it isn’t called something that is defined in the bible very specifically. I’m not anti gay but I am against same sex marriage
When Ken Anderson says “Stop messing with what is written in the Bible and is the real law” I am wondering whether he is talking about the New or Old Testaments or both. Now I don’t have great knowledge of either parts so I’m happy to be corrected, but as far as I understand, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality either for or against. The Old testament certainly does. However if we must obey what is given as the law in the Old testament,does that mean that those of us who are not Jews can legally have slaves? Does it mean that we can stone people to death for blasphemy?
Let me share this with you
Letting Go of The Past – A Story of Two Monks and a Maiden http://www.pocketmindfulness.com/letting-go-of-the-past/
I’m not going to comment on the psycho-babble in the story but it’s a sign of the times when a Conservative talks about “Letting go of the past” Isn’t that precisely what conservatism is against? The clue is usually in the word conserve.
Thankfully Mrs Thatcher didn’t stick by that thought, otherwise we’d still be controlling the economy through fiscal, supply side reform, rather than using monetary policy. Oh, wait…
I am more likely to vote Tory now after his resignation!
[...] I don’t know if I’ve met any of the current Ipswich Spy writers, apart from Ben Redsell and the last time I met him was a ten minute chat outside Costas more than a year ago. Hence my surprise at Ipswich Spy knowing my motives better than I do. [...]
[...] Hall will be standing in Bridge division after perennial Tory candidate James Spencer announced his refusal to stand as a candidate over Ben Gummer MP’s support for equal [...]