Just before the election in 2010 the Tories introduced their "contract for equalities" document which said they recognised civil partnerships and would recognise them in the tax system.

It also said they would consider changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called marriages and classified as such.

So putting this bill through, presumably having given due consideration to the issues, is actually keeping a promise the Tory party made as outlined in a major policy document launched by the then shadow equalities minister Theresa May.

There is no need for a referendum as it was a clear party policy before the last election and anyone voting for them can't really object to this bill on the basis of it not being party policy.

The fact their own MP's want to scupper it reflects badly on them.

First of all why did they stand for a party with such a clear policy on this in the first place if they are so against it?

Is it because they fear UKIP?

Either way its disingenuous because it was either right to have this as party policy and so they should defend it given it was, not now claim the opposite or they are showing total lack of principle if they are willing to rip up party policy in the face of a bunch of nutters in UKIP particularly when opinion polls support the bill?

Dave O has it spot on in terms of the Conservative Party's pre-election comments a it's disingenuous at best for the likes of Lord Carey and Co to go around claiming there was no commitment and it was never mentioned.

I do think this is absolutely a case of Tory Central Office and (some) in the Parliamentary party being very shaken by the rise of UKIP in the recent elections and wanting to combat that. The same goes utterly for all the pronouncements on the EU, first from the likes of Lawson and now the likes of standing ministers.

It seems like a UKIPisation of right-wing politics, and I think is the latest incarnation of the Conservatives' problems with the EU, with the added ingredient of equal marriage.

I want a referendum on Tory marriage. Of course in our fascist world today you can't express views like that because you just get branded a bigot but some of us find their disgusting practices offensive and just don't think its right that the law should endorse it through allowing marriage.

Was gay marriage included in their election manifesto though? I have not trawled through it all but did find this:

"We will recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system in the next Parliament."

Reference to "civil parntnerships" may imply not but as I say I have not through it all.

So, could it be the 150 MPs are in fact honourable keepers of manifesto pledges?

I think we should have referendums on everything.

It'd be interesting to watch politicians changing their opinions on everything.

If we had referenda on eveything there would be no need for MPs.

You're catching up, aren't you?

Unless the negotiable elements are stated before the election, any coalition agreement is likely to contain manifesto backtracks.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

These back benchers are not "honourable keepers of manifesto pledges", they are self-centred sheep who haven't the balls to face up to their crusty selection committees and are terrified of falling off the gravy train if they get deselected.

Not to mention self-righteous religious (in many instances) hypocrites, who will happily quote the parts of scripture where 'God' forbids homosexuality, but ignore all the inconvenient bits that don't back up their argument.

Be interesting to see how many are getting quite as upset about Cameron's lies on the NHS.

No a commitment to Gay marriage wasn't a manifesto commitment but then manifesto's are not and never been a [ilimit[/i on what government's do but set out what they hope to do.

Have a read of this [urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/17/tory-mps-gay-marriage_n_2315406.html[/url

It does seem strange that so many are getting so animated over a proposal that will have zero impact on anyone other than the two people who want to marry. Yet they are content to sit on their hands as the NHS becomes divorced from the state

As I said some time ago, it's a parody of priorities.

And if some of these people are getting wound up from a religious perspective, perhaps they'd do well to spend some time asking themselves the old question: 'what would Jesus do?' about a number of things this government is doing – not least it's attacks on and demonisation of the poor and disabled etc.

Jesus would have suggested "loving one another as I have loved you". A statement that many Christians seem to ignore when it comes to imposing their outdated and often bigoted views on others.

I suspect that, for some at least, their religion has little to do with an actual belief in what one might consider the teachings of that religion, and more a 'belief' in the traditions, trappings, liturgy and culture of that religion, if not quite for their own sake, then for the sake of something not connected to faith in the mystical god etc.

I will say that there was an interesting point today on the daily politics.
Surely if marriage is for all then so should civil partnerships purely when looking at equality?

Before anyone asks I know it's only being raised as a means to trash the bill by hypocrites but it's still a valid point.

It's an entirely valid point – and it's not just people wanting to trash the bill who are raising it. Peter Tatchell has been campaigning for civil partnerships to be available to heterosexual couple for some time, for instance.

Well yes and I'll happily concede the point but it has being hijacked by some for that reason.
Infact there one such individual today who sat there saying he wasn't being a hypocrite when he clearly is.

Before anyone asks his name escapes me.

It being hijacked wouldn't surprise me, but it is a legitimate point. And yes, heterosexual couples should be allowed the choice of civil partnerships.

That doesn't mean it in any way invalidates moves toward equal marriage.

And the idea that the one changes the other is nonsense (and to clarify, that's not remotely pointed at you).

I. Many ways, people making that case for hijack points, actually illustrate why equal marriage is important. In effect they admit that it a very different thing.

On a personal level, I don't want to get hitched - i see no need. My relationship has already existed far longer than many married ones and I don't see that changing in the near future. So I feel no need to change its status. But that doesn't mean that I should say that everyone else should feel the same - and stand in the way of people for whom that would be important.

I would have thought you would enjoy making an honest man of tb.

Gawd no!

that would therefore mean me being made an honest women!

Well true

With all the hooha about same-sex marriage, are we not seeing a small example of how the Conservative party cannot be dragged either out of the 19th century or into the centre-ground?

To be fair, it's not the Conservative party per se.

Anyway [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/wont-somebody-shut-that-swivelgate.htmlthoughts on swivel-eyed lunacy[/url, including the homophobic variety.

Well that is the point really isn't. A bill to legalise same sex marriage isn't one to legalise civil partnerships whether the latter is a good thing or not.

It's quite funny in a way as traditionally the Tory party has always promoted marriage as an institution so you might think with it being possible for all to marry if the bill goes through the logical next step for them would be to ban civil partnerships for anyone not introduce them for all. That is you either "live in sin" or marry and only if you marry do you get all the legal recognition that goes with it. Surely for a party that promotes marriage, civil partnerships become redundant once this bill goes through?

If they adopted this stance then the scare mongering about how much allowing hetrosexual couples to have a civil partnership would cost vanishes.

Mind you I think the financial implications are way overstated anyway because I don't believe there would be rush from hetrosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships. It's still a formalisation of a relationship which is a step some people never want to take even if it does grant certain legal privileges. It would be very little different to a registry office wedding as I assume similar formalities would be required with witnesses etc.