I WAS disappointed to read your correspondent’s suggestion that I do not represent my constituents equally (Postbag, February 28).

All MPs have a duty to represent all their constituents, regardless of whether they agree with them or not.

Since my election, I have always been happy to represent individual views to government ministers, and take up individual cases – and will continue to do so. I do this equally for those who voted for me, and those who did not.

However, as the MP for Salisbury I have a responsibility to vote on legislation, though inevitably some constituents will disagree with the decisions I make. MPs cannot abstain from every vote.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in particular was not in our manifesto, and was a conscience (nonwhipped) vote. However, for the record, Ms Cranmer may be interested to learn that I received approximately 1,010 individual representations from constituents against the Bill and just 25 asking me to vote in favour.

JOHN GLEN MP 

I AM interested in Tina Cranmer’s letter in the Journal. I wonder if she is aware of John Glen’s Christian principals ably suggested in his brilliant speech in the House of Commons recently or in the meaning of the word marriage.

DIANA GIFFORD-MEAD, Berwick St James

REGARDING the letter from Tina Crammer, maybe MP John Glen is simply following the vast majority’s wishes by voting against gay marriage, and Tina Cranmer simply does not believe in free speech or thinks that anyone that does not follow her views is wrong.

KEN MCKEAN, Hanging Langford

CONTRARY to what Tina Cranmer said about John Glen MP, we are extremely fortunate to have a member of parliament who is prepared to speak and vote against the Prime Minister on a moral issue.

This takes guts and integrity, and he should be applauded for making a stand against the redefining of marriage to suit a handful of equality fanatics.

MALCOLM READ, West Grimstead