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 A statement that many Christians seem to ignore when it comes to imposing their outdated and often bigoted views on others.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.

Not sure about that - one of the major reasons touted when civil partnerships were introduced was the fact that it gave gay partners a definite legal status in circumstances where a partner may die and a family would in the past have stepped in and claimed an estate, possibly because they never "approved" of a gay partner or even refused to accept that their relative could be gay - examples were given at the time of the introduction of the bill.

Same-sex marriage debate bingo card

Only because marriage wasn't on the cards for gay couples. That is there was a way for hetrosexual couples to get the legal status (get married) whereas the gay couple could not. If gay couples can marry then there is no longer a need for civil partnerships to grant them the legal status.

I am not saying I agree that there isn't a case for civil partnerships for anyone gay or not but rather a party like the Tories who value the institution of marriage could logically adopt this stance to dismiss the amendment being put forward to wreck the bill.

Are we to assume the Lords will vote against it? Meaning Cameron would have to use the Parliament Act to force it through.

I think this would factor in a time-delay of about a year, if not longer.

Assuming it is several months before this gets debated and voted on in the Lords, I can see the Bill getting pushed into the next parliament, or ditched completely.

Unlikely. Only 71 out of 212 Tories would need to support the bill as that figure in addition to the Labour + Lib Dem votes outvotes all the remaining Tories plus all the cross benchers and various other odds and bobs such as Plaid Cymru.

And that would assume absolutely everybody else objected which is not very likely.

In my view in the very unlikely event of all the 212 Tories voting against the bill there would easily be enough cross-bench support to pass it.

Lab+Lib = 99 majority over the Conservatives so you would need over half the cross-bench peers (182 of em in total) to vote against it plus ALL of the 212 Conservatives.

I can't see the entire Tory contingent rebelling against the government and even though there are other Lords (total of 5icon_cool.gif including 25 "Lords Spiritual" (clergy) I can't see them all voting en-masse against the bill if they even turn up!

I can't see the point in civil partnerships once all couples can marry. What's the difference between a low key, non religious registry office wedding and a civil partnership?

If there was no difference, there'd have been no campaign for equal marriage.