If I’m honest, I considered not even writing this post in case it offended any of my readers, but then I realised that if I didn’t, I would be no better than those Tory MP’s who have resigned, or are planning from abstaining from voting on Tuesday - unwilling to put my money where my mouth is, and shying away from saying what I think is important in order to protect myself from criticism.

This is a bit of sensitive one for me as I have a number of close friends who are gay and for whom the historic vote on Tuesday is set to provide unprecedented equality, and the ability to have their relationship’s fully recognised in the eyes of the law, and (for many) in accordance to their personal faith’s.

I’m pleased to report that this bill will be passed on Tuesday. Although this issue has been factitious for the Tories (with up to 180 Tory MP’s and Government Minister’s expected to vote against or abstain), there will be enough Lib Dem and Tory opposition votes to pass this law and Civil Marriage will become a reality.

So why do I believe in Gay Marriage?

In short, I do not feel that Civil Partnership’s go far enough in validating same-sex relationships (both in a legal and religious context). Although couples have been allowed to recite their own vows of fidelity within these unions, they are not presided over nor recognised in a legal way. That is to say that Civil Partnership’s can be dissolved quickly, are not seen as the ultimate monogamous union between two people before the law, and before God.

I believe that the institution of marriage is a truly beautiful thing - a celebration of two peoples love for one another. The sanctity of marriage adds to a relationship. In short, it means you are forsaking all others and are making a promise to one person that you will support them forever. I don’t believe you should enter into it lightly and you must both respect the vows you are taking, or you shouldn’t do it. My eventual marriage to Craig will be for life.

This committment to one another, celebration of your love for one another, and promise to be true to one another - should be unrestricted and available to all.

Still there is stanch opposition to this bill. Here are some of the main arguments against, and my reaction to them:

• Marriage is about a man and a woman coming together before God; becoming a legitimate partnership that can grow by way of children (with the inference being that same-sex couples can not reproduce and do therefore not adhere to the religious ideology of marriage)

I’m reminded of the ludicrous statement on The Big Questions this afternoon in which one man stated “A marriage between man and woman should be seen as the gold standard in which to raise children”… (I’ll let that one hang there for a moment…)

Of course I don’t believe in this. My own son has been born out-of-wedlock into a family with two parents that love one another and have made a commitment to be together. As an atheist, I don’t personally feel that I need my relationship to be formally consummated before God before we are able to make a family. I do however want to be with Craig forever and believe we owe this to Dexter in order to provide him with a stable environment in which to grow up. We have to put our own egos and differences aside to do this - and it will take every ounce of our determination and strength (just as it would within a marriage). As long as we recognise this, there is no reason to believe Dexter is missing out because we are not married.

Put in its crudest sense, this statement also infers that same-sex couples are not able to provide the ‘optimal environment’ for raising children. I personally see this as an incredibly homophobic view, and one that is completely untrue. There are more and more same-sex parents in today’s world, and there are simply no grounds to state that these children have it worse than children born to heterosexual parents. In fact, there are many heterosexual married parents that do not provide a safe and loving environment for their children. I assert that the quality of parenting is in no way intrinsically linked to the sexual preferences of the parents.

And what about hetreosexual marriages in which both partners do not wish to have children, or older people entering into marriage, or where one or both person’s have a disability or is unable to have children..? Are we to decry these marriages as non-conformist before God as they are (sometimes with great sadness) incomplete? Of course not.

• If we let the vote pass, we are violating the civil liberties of those who disagree with same-sex marriage on religious grounds
  

This is the main argument in opposition of same-sex marriage and I can appreciate the enormity of the dilemma. I don’t feel it would be fair of me to diminish the views of those who object to same-sex marriages on religious grounds - they shouldn’t be bashed for upholding their faith.

I don’t however, see this as an obstacle to marriage equality. No prayer leader would be forced to marry same-sex couples if they can’t reconcile this with their faith. Certainly, no gay person is asking for anyone to marry them against their conscience - they are only asking that those who do believe in same-sex equality before God, are able to perform these marriages legally.

The only problem I can foresee, and this shouldn’t be casually overlooked, is adverse reaction to both non-consenting and consenting prayer leader’s. As views are so polarised and divisive, there will be many protestations. We should anticipate a slightly bumpy start when this bill is introduced, and it might require considerable legal safeguards to protect the interests of everyone, whatever their personal view.

• Letting the vote pass could result in other permutations of marriage being legalised e.g. polygamous marriages

I’m so shocked that is even an argument - I couldn’t even begin to state how ludicrous it is.

 

So there you have it… I am delighted this bill will pass and feel it’s a huge leap forwards in respect to social progress.

The only real disappointing thing to come of this dramatic course of events, is the realisation that some Tories aren’t in tune with modern Britain, or are too scared of losing face to stand-up for what they believe in. With up to 180 Tory MP’s and Government Minister’s expected to vote against or abstain (not to mention all the big resignations we’ve seen and that are anticipated early next week) - there has been a considerable shadow cast over the Conservative Party.

In fact, many Tory MP’s have argued this was not ever in their manifesto, and insist they should never have been put in this position. This is not strictly true as the Conservative’s “contract for equalities” (produced before the last General Election) included the prospect of changing the law to rename Civil Partnerships as Marriages.

In truth, David Cameron could have delayed this bill citing more pressing domestic and international concerns (the recession, or even Europe) and largely the public would have been placated (although somewhat grudgingly). Even if the manifesto did hint at an eventual reform - the public have long ago worked out that so often these are not worth the paper they are written on.

So why has David Cameron seen this through when his party seem so dead set against it?

The cynical me suspects it is a strategic move to attract Conservative votes from the gay and lesbian community (and the centre-voters) rather than a real committment to progressive politics. It speaks volumes of David Cameron’s personal ambitions to be seen as the Prime Minister of the People. A noble ambition, but perhaps one at odds with his party, and politically precaurious considering the fragile economic climate he’s serving within.

So what are your thoughts?