Bill must be approved by the house of lords. Heres a 90 minute portion of the debate. I beg to the death of marriage to samesex couples bill be read a second time. Mr. Speaker, you and i know that every marriage is different. Indeed any husband or wife is a member of this house is a very distinct set of challenges to face every day. [laughter] was marriage offers us all is a lifelong partner to share our journey, a loving, stable relationship to strength a nice and a mutual support throughout our lives. I believe this is something that should be embraced by more couples, feeling, love and commitment is no difference between samesex couples and opposite not couples. This enables society to recognize that commitment in the same way through marriage. Parliament should value people equally and a lot and enabling samesex couples to marry removes the current differentiation and distinction. Theres no single view on equal marriage from religious organization. Some are deeply opposed, others tell us they see this as an opportunity to take that to a wider community. [inaudible] will the right honorable lady give a guarantee that if this bill becomes law, no religious denomination, no place of worship, no clergymen or equivalent in other religions will be forced by legal action in the chorus or the community to carry out weddings without their wishes . The honorable judge gimenez preempted the later parts of my contribution, but i can say to him was taken seriously all the points hes raised about the need for protection and he will see in some detail on the bill heller put them into place. I think by right honorable fred. Written to honorable members on the issue of equality between samesex and different sex individuals. The issues of consummation and adultery, while they will continue to be important aspects, they will not apply to marriage. They are both equal and should be a lifelong union. My honorable friend will know already theres no legal requirements to consummation, their provisions will mean ochiltree stays in couples will have the opportunity to decide on reasonable Good Behavior as many do already and issues he raises adults and not way. Perhaps we can make more progress because theres no single view from religious organizations on this issue and i know also that some colleagues in the house feel that they cannot agree with this bill for principled religious beliefs. And i entirely respect if the honorable gentleman would give me a bit more progress. I dont think its the role of government to tell people what to believe, but i do think parliament and the states have a responsibility to treat People Fairly. Ill give weight to my honorable friend over there. Im grateful for the minutes. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that those opponents of this bill, many hundreds of my constituents are not amarnath tickets. [shouting] i think my honorable friend makes his point very well. I think my honorable friend. I very much support this bill. I do regret its been programmed. There should be two days to second race of people can express views. My honorable friend knows that tape is not a serious seriously and id. We have to make sure there is sufficient debate. I think per the usual channels they made sure that is the case. I hope my honorable friend will be very pleased to see the progress weve made on that. If i can perhaps nothing make a little more progress and not take mentions in a moment. Some say this bill, mr. Speaker, redefines marriage, but marriage is in fact an institution with a long history of adaptation and change. In the 19th century, catholics, baptists, atheists and many others were only allowed to marry if they did so at an Anglican Church and in the 20th century, changes were made to recognize married man and women and equal before the law. Suggestions this bill changes something that has remained unchanged for centuries simply does not recognize the rows of marriage cobbled as an institution. I give way to the honorable gentleman. Would she bear in mind that when homosexuality was decriminalized, theres a great deal of opposition for the bill and a great deal of opposition. Bush do not agree they would be hardly a single number we wish to return to the situation, which existed prior to 1967 l. And this is not possible within a few years if this passes, will be generally accepted by the 1967 act. The right general men is ray. We must not legislate today commended the future as well, honorable gentleman. Im going to support the ministers bills because they think the principle is dry. Im not sure why i should enjoy a right or privilege and denied to others. I wonder, why she hasnt confined herself a civil marriage would be a much easier area to deal with . With the honorable gentleman will know as there are many other organizations come in many religious organizations have expressed an interest in being able to undertake samesex marriages. We believe its right to be able to do that and thats why theres provisions in the bill to be able to do that if they so choose. If honorable members can let me make a little more progress on the multics or interventions. Mr. Speaker, marriage should be, as weve heard defended and promoted in every way to those who argue Civil Partnerships exist and contain very similar to those who argue they contain very similar riots, marriage is just a word and this bill is unnecessary, thats not right. A Legal Partnership is not perceived in the same way and does not have the same promises of responsibility and commitment of marriage for couples to enter a lifelong commitment together should be able to call it marriage. I will vote for the second reading of the bill because i support the principle the minister has just enunciated. But the last intervention in important point about making sure we purchased a carefully detailed to the state can do with camacho civil marriage and not religious beliefs. Will the secretary of state made clear that shall be open to amendments to the drafting of the bill both in committee and report stage that might give us a much better balance and reassuring manner by people that are currently reassured . I right honorable friend is right to raise this issue. But i can do is reassure him weve been working very closely, particularly with the church of england, particularly with the church and whisk, both organizations feel that we have protection fair, but the church of england says they want to see change. I give my honorable friend and lady. Im grateful for giving way. In religious organizations, the secretary will note that the population is not some. What proportion of the Muslim Community responded ice for it or against it. Not a single mosque responded by the definition of marriage. My honorable friend will know this is not an issue about numbers. Its about working together and to provide those protections to make sure individuals from whatever faith group can continue to be assured they can practice according to the point of debate today. Im grateful for her getting right and i welcome this bill, but they should understand those who believe the church of england isnt being given the choice accorded to other states to marry samesex couples if they so choose. Besides from being forced, churches being forced not to marry them, even if some elements would like to do so. The honorable lady i think can get complete reassurance from me today that we are not in any way trying to treat the church of england or indeed the church in wales in any way differently. The resulting look at will be exactly the same as other institutions. The difference is the fact that the church of england and with a different duty sender, not to marry people in parishes and indeed they can unlock as part of the law of this land in the church of england. So we do have to have different measures in place to recognize differences, but i can absolutely assure the honorable lady that either organization choose to optin to equal marriage, then they would be able to do so according to provisions in the bill. If honorable ladies and gentlemen can that may make more progress than i make further interventions. Mr. Speaker, from the contributions weve just heard, theres no doubt about the fundamental importance of faith in this country today. But i dont believe is a country we have to choose between religious belief and fairness for samesex couples. It is important to remember that religious views on samesex marriage do differ, too. But there is a quaker communitarians for liberal jewish communities, others have said have said they want to conduct samesex marriages and indeed, mr. Speaker, paul parker who speaks for the quakers said the first samesex marriage and a quaker meeting will be a wonderful day for marriage and religious freedom in madison and we do have to respect and we have to take note to. Our proposals will ensure all religious organizations can act in accordance with their beliefs because, mr. Speaker, equal marriage should not come at the cost of freedom of faith, nor freedom of faith, the cost of equal marriage. We are capable of accommodating both this bill does so in a very straightforward manner. I give way to my honorable friends and the honorable gentleman. Can she assure us at anytime in the future at a church not wishing to conduct a gay ceremony, can she assure us who would defy the European Court of human rights and not try [inaudible] [shouting] my honorable friend, when i come at a later part of my speech will find that detail he is looking for to provide the assurances hes looking for. The honorable rady untranslated is right to say how i execration dont have any compulsion, and he worries about voting. What greater example could it be that jesus christ himself. The honorable gentleman makes a powerful point and shows their views on this matter differ not along party lines or lines of religious membership of a particular religious institution , but far more than not. Mr. Speaker, if i could make a tiny bit of progress and i will of course take some further interventions. Now for the provisions in the bill, the bill is honorable members will now has three parts. In part 1, samesex couples to marry in Civil Ceremonies and religious Organization Protect and those that doubt. It also protects religious ministers and allows for conversion of a Civil Partnership to a marriage. Part 2 enables an individual to change their legal gender without having to add their marriage and also provides overseas marriages and consulate or armed forces bases. Part 3 allows for the standard final provisions including secondary legislation. As honorable members have seen when they started the detail of the bill, i have been true to my word and ensure there is clear protection of religious organizations who are opposed to this measure, all religious organizations, whether jewish, muslim, christian or any other will decide for themselves if they want to conduct samesex marriage. The bill provides and promotes religious freedom to the government laws. These protections are absolutely on the face of the bill and Foundation Upon which the legislation is bill. All give way to the honorable gentleman and then my honorable friend. Im grateful to the secretary of state. Can she explain why shes bringing the government this bill now at a time when there hasnt been the subject of a green paper or white paper and are set against the government promised to do that theyre not doing searches tax allowances. Isnt the truth that this is about political calculation rather than anything to do with principle . [shouting] the honorable gentleman and i will disagree on this. We are doing this very clearly as an important part that we can make this a fair place to live. The measure was clearly side up with qualities at the time of election and what a day to say is we will continue to work with our colleagues in Northern Ireland to make sure we have the right recognition for english and welsh marriages in the Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom as well. I give way to the honorable member. Im grateful to the secretary of state talking about protections in the bill. Weve had the case of mr. Adrian smith who lost his job he spent an enormous amount of money in legal fees and had a 40 cut in a salary making a private comment. How are we going to protect people like mr. Smith working in the Public Sector in this country . My honorable friend who i know takes a deep interest in these matters is entirely right to bring this up. I actually think the case is highlighting proves that individuals can express their religious beliefs and the court found that individual favor. I think thats important and players up another country should take clear note of that. [shouting] ill give way to the honorable gentleman. I think the right honorable lady for giving way. She spoke about protections for ministers, but can she also the same two registrars in a number of mixed sex marriage should be expected to fall, will they be confident even if they declined to take on a preside the new samesex Marriage Registration they will not lose their jobs or experienced negative employment consequences . My honorable friend will know those who are civil registrars by Public Servants and the recent Court Rulings make very clear those individuals have to carefully balance their rights to a religious belief with their right to deeply make sure they provide in a way which doesnt discriminate against individuals. Its a very difficult issue and i know my honorable friend is for the right reasons Say Something again to be looked at closely in committee. Im grateful to my friend for giving way. Roman catholics legalize samesex marriage in 2005. Theres been a single case, single referral to the European Court of human rights. Not that im aware of. [shouting] im grateful for my right honorable friend giving way, but she failed to answer the point by the honorable member for belfast north. Can she tell the house and the people of this country, where to shoot issued a mandate to inflict this massive cultural change that was not in our partys manifesto. The Prime Minister has no plans to introduce this. Are many major institutions to deal with and this is an irrelevant and should not be pursued, least of all on a program notion with real debate. [shouting] my fellow mp and i know we disagree on this matter and we do so in a very fair and evenhanded manner and its that fairness and evenhandedness i want to make sure its there in all aspects of this government policy. I do think theres an extremely strong argument im making here today for this measure to go through. Thats a recently parliamentary debates to discuss these matters in more detail. I think i probably need to make a little more progress at this time to take some further interventions in a moment. I know today for many colleagues the crux of the issue does fly around these protections, for the church of england and the church in wales, which have a unique position because of the legal duty on their clergy to marry parishioners. In addition the church of england as the established church its canon law as part of the law of the land. There is no disadvantage is that setup ready to the honorable lady or favorable treatment for the church of england or the church in wales. It simply provides a pragmatic way of putting them in essentially the same position as other religious organizations. If they decide they want to marry samesex couples, they can. Weve are charred with a wide range of religious organizations , including both these churches to ensure protections in the bill work and indeed the church of england has commented on the construct a way in which weve consulted on the issue of effect give legal safeguards, ensuring their concerns are properly accommodated in the church in west has confirmed the bill provides protection for it while still enabling to make its own decision on samesex marriage. Mr. Speaker, turning to one issue thats already been raised in the debate a great deal, which is the concern around Legal Protection and also issues around the convention on human rights. There has been much discussion about the powers of the European Court of human rights. The case law from the court is clear. The question of whether and if so how to allow samesex marriage must be left to the individual state to decide for themselves. Mr. Speaker, it is simply inconceivable that court would require a faith group to conduct samesex marriages in breach of its own doctrine. And not my words, mr. Speaker, that the imminent word panic on the baroness kennedy and lord master. To be very clear, to believe the corporate greed at the u. K. Religious organizations to marry samesex couples who lives on a combination of three highly improbable conclusions. First, the court would need to go against its own clear precedent, that countries have wide discretion to the matter of samesex marriage. Secondly, the court would need to decide the interest of the couples who wanted a particular religious organization to marry than outweigh the race and belief of an entire season of competition as a whole. Thirdly, the court would need to discount the importance of article ix of its own convention, which guarantees freedom before conscience and religion and would be rewriting the post not just for one religious organization in england and wales, but all religious organizations in all 47 states of the council of europe, such an outcome, mr. Speaker is inconceivable. I give way to my honorable friend. s surely fundamental to who we are, the crux of this debate is whether or not we accord equal rights and respects to people regardless of their sexuality. [shouting] my honorable friend makes the point powerfully. We need to make sure we treat People Fairly and this really is at the heart of what were talking about today. I think by right honorable friend for giving way. Shes making a powerful case for religious freedom. Did she observe the church of england statement that its not realistic or likely that churches will be forced to conduct samesex weddings . Im glad my honorable friend underlies that for me because i dont want anyone to leave the debate today about the right information on which they can base decisions to vote and i think my honorable friend has underlined the importance of the facts in this case. If honorable ladies and gentlemen can forgive now make more progress because we have a great deal of interest in participating in this debate. Colleagues al