We vote tomorrow to give the Bill on same sex marriage a Second Reading. Like all 2nd readings it is a vote on the principle, not the detail, of the Bill. There are several further stages to scrutinise the detail and debate and vote on amendments in the House of Commons before the Bill passes to the House of Lords for further scrutiny and possible change.

It is therefore important to recognise that Tuesday’s business is the start of the legislative process.

The proposal to extend marriage to same sex couples has aroused a great deal of genuine concern among largely, but not exclusively, Christian constituents – some of whom have been badly misinformed about aspects of the proposed legislation.

There are a number of myths surrounding this proposal that I would like to address, but I must stress none of them have influenced where I am coming from as I will explain later.

The most commonly quoted myth is that there is no mandate or manifesto commitment for doing this. This is untrue. The Conservative Party published a specific equalities manifesto that received a great deal of coverage in the ‘Pink Press’ and won the party new support from voters at the last election as a consequence. You can read it here:http://tinyurl.com/clbwf74

There is no support for the idea – over 600,000 people petitioned against the idea. It is certainly true that a majority of Christians are opposed, but there are also many Christians who support same sex marriage. In national opinion polls there is a clear majority in favour of the idea.

Gay couples already have Civil Partnerships that are legally the same. There are actually some small legal differences between civil partnerships and marriage. But for many people it is the differences in the perception of and responsibilities associated with these separate institutions. It is the status of marriage and being treated as equal that gay constituents have raised with me.

The European Court of Human Rights will force religious organisations to conduct same-sex marriages. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights makes it clear that same-sex marriage is a matter for individual Nation States to decide and some have permitted same sex marriage for over a decade with no cases being brought. Besides, any case before the Court would be brought against the UK Government, not a religious organisation. The Court would be bound to give priority to the rights of a religious organisation under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion.

Which brings me to where I am coming from in all this. I’m approaching this from the perspective of ensuring religious freedom is maintained.

Religious freedom and its expression free of state interference is an absolute principle in how I approach this issue. If you are a subscriber to my quarterly One World newsletter you would know of the many cases I have helped highlight over the years where foreign Governments have suppressed and persecuted Christians. I am always thankful that our Governments uphold the rights of individuals to practice the beliefs of their choice.

In this case there is a clear disagreement over what the definition of marriage should be. Firstly, I don’t think the Government should be involved in deciding between various religious views; while the Catholic Church is obviously opposed to allowing same sex marriages, the Quakers are very keen to be able to perform them. I hope we can come to an arrangement whereby both such conceptions can peacefully coexist.

The Bill already makes specific provision for religious groups to refuse to acknowledge or offer same sex marriage and indeed prevents the Church of England from even considering doing so. For those religious groups, such as Unitarians and Liberal Jews who wish to offer same sex marriage, there will now be the opportunity to do so. In this sense, the Bill is actually increasing religious freedom as the Government retreats from telling religious groups how to conduct marriage.

There are, of course, many people in the UK who do not ascribe to any religion and the Government must bestow their views and wishes with equal respect; in essence just as the Government should not force people of faith to participate in an institution they do not believe in, it should also not attempt to extend the preferences of any religious group to restrict the freedoms of those from outside that group.

Freedom, even religious freedom, is not a one way street.

Having taken on board constituents’ views and pressed the Government to reflect them in the legislation I am pleased that the published Bill contains a ‘quadruple lock’:

It makes clear that a religious marriage ceremony of a same-sex couple will only be possible if:

(i) the governing body of the religious organisation has opted in by giving explicit consent to same-sex marriages

(ii) the individual minister is willing to conduct the marriage; and

(iii) if it takes place in a place of worship, those premises have been registered for marriages of same-sex couples.

It explicitly states that no religious organisation can be compelled to opt in to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises; and no religious organisation or minister can be compelled to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies;

It amends the Equality Act 2010 to make clear that it is not unlawful discrimination for a religious organisation or individual minister to refuse to marry a same-sex couple.

It ensures that the common law legal duty on the clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry parishioners will not extend to same-sex couples. It also protects the Church of England’s Canon law which says that marriage is the union of one man with one woman, so that it does not conflict with civil law.

My assurance to Christian and other faith friends and sincere folk concerned about these changes is that if any of these robust safeguards written into the Bill are taken out during its progress, I will withdraw my support.

From Adrian Sanders’ Facebook page here.