Pink News, an homosexual online news source, has called MPs with conscientious objections ‘unfortunate’ and suggested that if the newly elected leadership really want to lead a progressive country ‘they must think carefully’ about changing the practice of ‘free votes’ when the issue of homosexuality is involved. An article published on the website said:
‘… if Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg really want to lead a progressive, liberal Government they must think carefully about ending the practice of giving a free vote on LGBT equality issues. The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people must be fought and thought about on the same basis as race, sex or disability. There must be an end to the absurdity of being able to vote on conscience. This new Government must at the very least allow those unfortunate MPs with conscientious objections to gay equality to simply abstain but not vote against the rights of millions of law abiding LGBT citizens.’
Such suggestions will shock many, not least because they represent a fundamental challenge to one of the central principles of liberalism which underlines the importance of the individual politician being able to speak and vote according to their personal view on moral or ethical issues.
In March 2010, when Lord Alli, an openly homosexual member of the House of Lords, introduced his amendment to the Equality Bill aiming to lift the ban on civil partnerships taking place on religious premises, no objections to the free vote (vote of conscience) were voiced by the homosexual lobby after it turned in their favour. The amendment passed on a free vote by 95 to 21. The lobby responded:
‘We are proud that Labour's Lord Alli has been pushing for this change in the law, and this vote is a great result.’ (See the PinkNews report)
Speaking about the issue of conscience, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a former Lord Chancellor serving under both Margaret Thatcher and John Major between 1987 and 1997, said in a recent debate in the House of Lords:
‘It is not the purpose of liberal democratic government to manage diversity by trying to compel people to violate their consciences... Such an approach certainly won’t help promote understanding and goodwill between different communities.
‘It is the purpose of a liberal democratic government to make space, space for people to be what they are, true to themselves.’
In another debate, Lord Mackay commented: ‘Failure to respect conscience is a fundamental mistake on the part of any State that aspires to be Liberal Democratic in relation to human dignity and the maintenance of law and order’.
Within a legislative body, a ‘conscience vote’ allows members to vote according to their own personal convictions rather than according to an official party line. Historically, conscience votes have been the norm for religious, moral or ethical issues (in contrast to administrative or financial matters).