I notice that Emma Reynolds, Jonathan Reynolds and Ben Bradshaw all speak about “equal marriage” without any attempt at all (at least in the sections quoted) to explain how the present situation is one of inequality, and since this equality argument seems to be their major point the lack of explanation is strange, to say the least. I know that 1 + 4 and 2 + 3 are equal, whereas 1 + 4 and 2 + 5 are unequal, and I know why. But these 3 MPs seem to make no attempt to describe or explain this supposed lack of equality.

On the other hand, David Lammy does seek to describe the inequality that he perceives, and does so by drawing a parallel with past racial injustice in the US and with apartheid. He speaks of “discriminated against…..oppressed…..browbeaten…..subjugated”, which are of course quite fair in describing the past US and South Africa situations, but to use them as a parallel for the situation here regarding civil partnership is utterly extraordinary and quite disturbing. Is he seriously suggesting that this is the inequality produced by the present situation of civil partnership, not marriage, for gay people? Talk about extreme language!

So I am left totally unconvinced by the unexplained inequality of the first three of these speakers, and repelled by the OTT explanation from David Lammy. (I also note that none of them comment on the new “inequality” that I understand this bill will produce of gay people being able to choose either partnership or marriage, but straight people only having marriage).

On the other hand, Simon Hughes hits the nail on the head when he says, “I think the Church was wrong to oppose them [civil partnerships] at the time.” If only the Church of England had been able to come to an arrangement for its clergy similar to the one we have for marriage after divorce – offering discretion, so that those clergy who were happy to do a public blessing following civil partnership could do so, while not in any way forcing others who were unwilling, to do so. This might then have opened the way for a real celebration of partnerships, in civil life and in the Church, and might have taken away some of the pressure to rush into a hastily conceived push for gay marriage. As it is, I fear that we shall have something that polarises opinion, (just when it looked as though there was an increasing agreement among many, inside the Church and outside, that civil partnership was an enormously helpful thing). And something that because politicians seem woefully prone to producing hasty measures that then turn out to have all sorts of unforeseen complications will bring considerable difficulties in the future in a number of ways.