Pam Currie and Aileen Connor sent an invite to the Central Ayrshire MP last week following comments made by Mr Donohoe in February regarding gay marriage proposals.

Declining the invite, Mr Donohoe’s office claimed he has a “prior engagement” on Saturday, December 21, when the wedding will take place in Troon Town Hall.

The MP courted controversy in February when, after voting against a gay marriage bill at Westminster, he told The Troon Times “it’s never to late” to stop gay marriage.

Speaking after hearing of Mr Donohoe’s decision not to go to the wedding, the couple said: “We are really disappointed to hear of Mr Donohoe’s decision not to come.

“He would have been able to come along and speak to our family and friends who are mostly constituents of his.

“We came up with the idea to invite him and maybe try to change his mind and show him that his way of thinking isn’t as in touch with his constituents as he thinks.” The couple insisted that Mr Donohoe’s views were “homophobic” and “outdated”, adding: “We were horrified to read Brian Donohoe’s comments in the local press in February 2013 that it was “never too late to stop gay marriage”; we believe that as an elected representative, he has a duty to support the equal rights of all of his constituents, including the LGBT community.

“We invited Mr Donohoe in the hope that he would rethink his outdated and homophobic views, and that he will realise that our wedding is respected and celebrated by our family and friends - many of whom are Mr Donohoe’s constituents - every bit as much as a wedding between a man and a woman.

“We believe that ‘marriage’ has evolved and been redefined over time and this will continue - such is social progression with social justice at its heart.” The couple are pictured in front of a Moscow sign in East Ayrshire when protesting against anti-gay laws in Russia.

After responding to the couple, Mr Donohoe criticised same-sex activists for attempting to “redefine marriage” and added: “I am, of course, against any form of discrimination however, I also believe that marriage is a term used to describe the joining of a man and a woman only and I worry about so called safeguards being overturned by the Courts at some point in the future regardless of what will be promised if this legislation were to be taken through Parliament.

“Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there’s no need, in my opinion, to redefine marriage. I do not feel it is discriminatory to support traditional marriage. “Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of the people in the country.”