Apologetics & vote details

If you want to know why we believe certain votes are morally right or wrong click on an ‘Apologetic’ link below. If you want to know more information about the votes or how particular votes were recorded, click on a ‘Vote details’ link below.

Sanctity of Life

The Sanctity of Life Apologetic  
3-parent babies Apologetic Vote details
Abortion Apologetic 1990 vote

2008 votes

2014/15 ‘Sex selection’ votes

Abortion and the disabled Apologetic

1990 vote

2008 vote

Abortion counselling and ‘cooling off’ period Apologetic Vote details
Abortion: Register of Pro-Life Doctors Apologetic Vote details
Embryo Experiments Apologetic 1990 vote

‘Saviour siblings’ vote

‘Animal-human embryos’ vote

‘The need for a father’ vote

Euthanasia and Assisted suicide Apologetic

1997/2000 votes

2015 votes

Human Cloning Apologetic Vote details

Marriage and the Family

Marriage and the Family Apologetic  
Adoption Apologetic Vote details
Civil Partnerships Apologetic Vote details
Civil Partnership – Sibling Amendment Apologetic Vote details
Divorce Apologetic

‘Fault’ vote

‘Wait’ votes

Parental Notification Bill Apologetic Vote details
Same-sex marriage Apologetic Vote details
Smacking Apologetic Vote details

Christian Freedoms and Heritage

Christian Freedoms and Heritage Apologetic  
Charities Act Apologetic Vote details
Church employment freedoms Apologetic Vote details
Incitement to ‘homophobic’ hatred offence Apologetic Vote details
Incitement to Religious Hatred Offence Apologetic

2001 votes

2005 / 06 votes

Religious Broadcasting Apologetic Vote details
Religious Education Apologetic Vote details
Sexual Orientation Regulations   Vote details
The Blasphemy laws Apologetic Vote details

Other

Gambling Apologetic

2004/05 votes

2006 vote

Gender Recognition Act Apologetic Vote details
Gender Recognition Act – Religious Liberty Apologetic Vote details
Homosexual Age of Consent Apologetic Vote details
Homosexuals in the Armed Forces Apologetic Vote details
Section 28 Apologetic Vote details
Reclassification of Cannabis Apologetic

2003 ‘class C’ vote

2008 ‘class B’ vote

More information

Most of the votes involved a free vote. It is a matter of concern that some political parties have used the party whip to require MPs to vote for policies which many Christians would see as morally wrong (e.g. the repeal of Section 28, or the introduction of homosexual civil partnerships).

Some votes have had to be excluded. For example, the votes on Sunday trading have proved too complex to analyse in the time available.

The vote on the introduction of the national lottery was also excluded as none of the main political parties opposes the principle of the national lottery. The main vote in Parliament on the legislation bringing in the lottery was not actually on the principle, but rather the particular scheme for implementation. An analysis of MPs votes would yield very little information about their beliefs on this question and hence has not been done.

Where votes in the House of Commons are referred to, the vote totals are always two higher on both sides than the totals given in Hansard (the official record of House of Commons proceedings). This is because there are two tellers (MPs who count the vote) on both sides.

By convention, tellers support the vote they count. The exception is where a technical motion has been used in order to force a vote. So far as we are aware, in the issues considered here this only applies to the votes on religious broadcasting and on banning sex-selective abortion.