So, protecting the rights of those who dont agree with samesex marriage. Marriage is one of the most Important Institutions we have. It binds families and society together, it is a Building Block that promotes stability, this bill supports and cultivates marriage and i commend this bill to the house. Thank you very much, really is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman to jestersfield to has articulated to many people across the country how we have come to the conclusion that law should be there for one and all and marriage should not be an exclusive institution. I have a gay man who grew up in a world part of our country in a workingclass background and i grew up 20 odd years ago in an environment that made it hugely difficult for me to be open and honest and upfront with my family, friends and workmates about the choices i wanted to make in life and the people wanted to see. That was unacceptable 20 odd years ago, and unacceptable today but for hundreds of thousands of people across the country remains the case. I stand to welcome this historic legislation which i think will end discrimination and send a signal that this house values everybody equally across the country and that signal will deeply affect those people like me at 20 years ago who saw this house vote to equalize the age of consent, the first time i saw on the tv screen other gay people for the first time to speak out. I realized i was not alone and it changed my life. We should remember thousands of gay men and women were put to death in concentration camps 40 years ago, thousands more were criminalize, their lives ruined. 30 years ago we still had people being subjected to scientific torment in search of a cure. We have have a long way in a short space of time. It is absolutely right in my view that this house take the next step and delivers equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Let me say to those hon. Members who say you would say that because he is a gay man, this view is one that is born over hatred of discrimination and prejudice of all types whether it is about gender or skin color or religion, as the community we should be valuing treating everybody equally. These values are enshrined in one and all. It is the community i grew up in and proud to represent, one that values community. Not one and all apart from a few are black or catholic or if you are gay. It is a community that distrusts abuse of power which is exactly why my right hon. Friend the secretary of state is so right, to have made sure this house will not compel people and religious organizations to do anything that they choose not to do. We have struck the right balance between assuring quality and preserving religious freedom. As a house we must question those who wish to toward privilege for themselves. We know that marriage is an Important Institution that delivers many positive benefits, benefits in terms of stability, health, happiness. If we recognize those benefits why would we keep them away from some of our neighbors who seek to experience them if they choose to and their faith allows it . We would not tolerate this level of discrimination in any other sphere of life and we should end it tonight in this one. Equal marriage will not be the end of the struggle for gay equality in the same with delivering the franchise of women or ending apartheid in those battles but it will stop allowing us to ask the right questions, it will send a clear signal that we value everybody equally. Thank you, mr. Deputy speaker, i congratulate the hon. Gentleman for his honest and forthright contribution to this debate. This is my own personal view and i know it is probably going to be much different to the vast majority of my own party and i respect the difference. For the first time in history our government has recorded a bill that will change the nature of marriage in law. To society, a shared view of the essential purpose of marriage, primarily an institution that supports the bearing and raising of children, and marriage in civic life was launched yesterday evening and again. Roger gale. To follow my friend, to concur with his speech. Mr. Deputy speaker, i have the privilege of chairing the Civil Partnerships bill, as has been said very clear undertakings were given by the government and the opposition benches that this was not the thin end of the wedge. This was not a bill for samesex marriage. This was an engine itself to write very considerable wrongs in law. That it did and that is what the European Court of human rights have determined and in those respects it is indistinguishable from what we know as marriage. My right hon. Friend when i put this to her earlier told me that no government could bind another and of course she is correct. No government can bind another. That kicks the bottom out of every undertaking my right hon. Friend has given. To most of us on this side of the house. That this bill, a product of this bill will end before the courts, will end a before the European Court of human rights and people of faith will find that faith being trampled upon but that to us is intolerable. The cabinet paper, i give way to my right hon. Friend, my understanding is the cabinet paper was entitled redefining marriage. It is not possible to read the fine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and woman. Has been historically, remains so. It is alice in wonderland territory for any government or any political persuasion to come along and try to rewrite the mexican. It will not do. There is a way forward. It has been suggested but has been ignored. I dont subscribe to it myself but recognized merit in the argument and that is this. If the government is serious about this, taking away, abolish several partnerships bill, abolish civil marriage and create a Civil Union Bill that applies to all people irrespective of their sexual of the or their relationships and that means brothers and brothers and sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters as well. That would be a way forward. This is not. I urge [shouting] can i suggest to the hon. Gentleman that what he just suggested is profoundly offensive not only to a great many people in this country who perform Civil Partnerships but people on both sides of this house. The merit in the argument comes from a very eminent lawyer in this house, that it would create what i think the hon. Gentleman wants which is equality. It would create a level Playing Field and it would leave marriage and faith to those who understand that marriage means faith and that marriage means a union between a man and woman and nothing else and the hon. Gentleman may seek to back my argument with a promise in this house and outside it there are very many people who share this view. To conclude i urge members on both sides of this house not to abstain if they support this measure, vote for it. If they vote against it, vote against it. Thank you, mr. Deputy speaker. Marriage is one of the most Important Institutions in our society. It concerns many of us yet many live away from marriage, one group turns towards it. Gay couples are now asking to be admitted. Here we have a sexual society who are saying they want to declare commitment, values stability in the sight of the public and perhaps of god. We defenders of marriage should be grateful the opening the doors yet the reaction of some has been to slam the doors shut. It is said that they people should accept Civil Partnerships and no more which confirm most of the legal rights of a marriage. Thousands of people like me have cause to be grateful for the courage of hon. Members who voted for that change. Entering a single partnership was the most important thing i have done in my life. Danceable partnerships were opposed by the churches, opposed by a significant portion of the public and opposed by many hon. Members. Eight years later only a small minority of the public oppose them and many hon. Members who voted against the change now say they support it. But People Choose marriage for a reason. They know that it means something special. It is because marriage is different than many are opposing this change. We cannot say Civil Partnerships are the same or dismiss the debate as being about a name. How many married couples would like to be told they were banned from matrimony and able only to take a Civil Partnership. The church of england and the Catholic Church object to gay marriage. I disagree with them but their religious freedom is surely among the greatest prizes in our democracy. I would not vote for this bill unless i believed it protected religious freedom. No faith groups should be compelled by law to conduct game marriage against its will and none will be. But religious freedom cuts both ways. Why should the law prevent unitarian churches from conducting a marriage as they wished to do . The proper safeguards for faith groups and individuals to exercise their conscience and disagree, i do not believe there are sufficient grounds to oppose a measure that allows game marriage for others. To enter a gay marriage your church does not have to conduct a game marriage, you simply have to agree that someone else can enter a gay marriage. Of their marriages of millions of straight people are about to be threatened because a few thousand gay people are permitted to join . What will they say . Darling, our marriage is over, Sir Elton John has just gotten engaged. I appreciate the sincerity with which many people oppose equal marriage and the serious points made and ensure religious freedom is protected is a proper concern but some of the objections do not bear scrutiny. We are told because theyre not a Legal Definition of consummation theres a terrible flaw in the bill but many loving heterosexual marriages exist without consummation. I they inviolate . For some the objection is homosexual conduct itself. Today that is a minority view thankfully in decline. I am grateful does he agree with me that achieving legal equality is critical but it is only part of the battle forward . I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Many do not share this view have a principal concern that gay marriage would mean redefining the institution for everyone yet parliament has repeatedly done this. If marriage has been redefined in 1836 there wouldnt be any civil marriages. If it hadnt been redefined in 1949 under 16yearolds would still be able to get married. If it hadnt been redefined in 1969 we wouldnt have todays divorce laws. All of these changes were opposed. I thank the hon. Member from giving way and creating advocacy in the cause of equal marriage. Can i say the definition of marriage is in fact what it means most to us as individuals. I define marriage as someone about a loving longterm relationship and that is something to be celebrated and something that should be open to all in our society. I agree with the hon. Gentleman this is an institution that should be open to all. When i was born homosexual conduct was a crime. Not so long ago it was possible to sack someone because they were gay. Thank goodness so much has changed in my lifetime. Is progress should be celebrated but we should not believe the journey is complete. I think the gay children who are still believe that schools or are fearful whether their friends and families accept them. Vital role models still dont feel able to come out and i know the signal we sent today about whether the law will recognize lastplace of gay people in society will really matter. Above all, simply want their commitment to be recognized as it is for straight couples and that in this end is what it is about. Not just gay people, and a society where people are except for who they are. Remember our votes. I hope once again this house will do the right thing. We should indeed treat each other with tolerance and everybodys search well with the understanding that the fundamental question we are deciding today is whether english law should declare for the first time that we to people of the same sex can mary. Parliament is of course sovereign. We have to be very careful that law and reality do not conflict. In 1648 the earl of pembroke seeking to make the point that Sovereign Parliament was sovereign said parliament could do anything but make a man or woman or when a man. In 2004 we did exactly that with the gender recognition act. We propose to make equally stark changes with the essence of marriage and in the Civil Partnership debate i was given solemn assurances on the floor of the house by some people sitting opposite me now that the Civil Partnership bill would not be too full samesex marriage. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman who gave those assurances to me. Can i just say assurances from me are not necessarily going to determine the future of what happens in parliament. Several hon. Members have our raise what i said in the debate then. It is true that at the time i believed Civil Partnership was the be all end all of the store. Since then i have entered a civil party should and i now believe the world has moved on. Many hon. Members on his side of the house voted against the will partnerships and britains mind has changed and want to reflect that in the change of the law. The worry some of us have is the world and the hon. Gentlemans mind may move on again and many of the assurances we are being given may not count for very much. This parliament is sovereign. It matters not what anybody says in any debate because parliament can trump that with a new law. The point the hon. Gentleman made, not the first time he has been wrong by the way. I am one of those who fancy symbols partnerships, expect that to be the end of the story but we are confronted with thousands of people in our country who are into partnerships and wish to enter several partnerships, and that is what this is about. That is precisely what i want to talk about. What is the nature of marriage . Catechism of the roman Catholic Church did of the describe this institution, anybody of any faith or no faith who supports traditional marriage could equally echoes these words, marriage is a covenant where a man and woman establish themselves in a partnership for the whole of life. It is by its nature ordered towards the good of the spouses and appropriation and education of offspring. What does this tell us . Marriage, i believe, and many millions of our fellow citizens believe marriage as defined is by its nature a heterosexual union. Is bringing together of one man and one woman. It is not just a romantic attachment which can exist between any two people. It is not just a sexual relationship. It is the act of marriage which by its definition requires two people of opposite sexes. If you take that basic requirement away what you are left with is not marriage. The minister claims marriage has always been evolving, but this, mr. Deputy speaker, is not evolution comet it is revolution. True, i am blessed with six children. I realize every married couple was able to have the gift of children. Or indeed may want to. This doesnt change the fact that that concept of marriage has always been bestowed with a vision of procreation. Every marriage has the potential it brings together biologically the two elements needed to generate a child. The very reason marriage is underpinned with laws and customs is because children usually result from it. They need protecting the tendency of adults to break their ties and cast off their responsibilities. Marriage exists to keep the parents exclusively committed to one another. That is the best, most stable environment for children. If marriage was solely about the relationship between two people we would not bother to enshrine it in law, nor would every culture and society and religion for thousands of years have invested it with so much importance because it is about protecting the future. Marriage is not about me, me, me, it is not about my rights, not about my relationships, it is about a secure environment for creating and raising children based on lifelong commitment and exclusivity. Marriage is also profoundly pro women since it is generally men who have the propensity to want to wander off into other relationships. It is women in general who literally are left holding the baby. We have to get away from the idea that every single thing in life can be forced through the merciless prism of the quality. I am a conservative. I do believe we should be concerned with the quality but not at the expense of every other consideration. Not at the expense of tradition. We should protect terrorists institutions and Cultural Heritage otherwise what is conservative party for . We are alienating people who voted for us for all their lives leaving them with no one to vote for. I would just add this comment from a lady who email me. As i gave woman in a 24yearold relationship i commend you for your stand against nonsense now being perpetrated by the government. We have Civil Partnerships to give Legal Protections. I contract won in 2006. I have the conservative voters for 50 years and see this latest piece of nonsense as a final kick in the teeth for conservatives. I for one will be voting tonight to proclaim my support for the future of our children and the essence of traditional marriage. Thank you, mr. Speaker. It is an honor to follow the hon. Members. I feel over the last six months a certain distressed about the way this debate has been managed and the pressure put on so many of my colleagues from pressure groups and churches who in my view should have known better. I feel i have been laboring under a false sense of security given the changes that have been made legislatively over the last decade. If all state of security. I object to the Prime Minister not just for this bill but also the changes he has brought about within my party which has led to my own election and that of many others and change the face of the parliamentary party. But i do feel that as a result of this debate, over the last six months, we have gone two steps forward but we have also gone one step backward. The modernization of the conservative party is not yet complete. I will give way to the hon. Lady. I think the aid the lady for giving way. Shea like me has been particularly demonstrated by the tactics of the Campaig