>> if you have a question, can you raise your hand? will look around and get you microphone. if you can say your name and affiliation first, that would be great. over here will start. >> can we get the microphone on, please? >> will repeat the question. >> i am curious when you speak about the answer is productivity and that sounds great because that's what the u.s. needs to get out of this issue. the problem is who is going to be the buyer and how is that going to work out with the

currency wars? at some point we ask for, have a weak dollar, which active in the next country can buy the same machines and shop in barcelona, see the local market. are we looking at that end of the equation in terms of the offtake as they say in biofuels? >> well, there's a famous economist in the 1800s called jean baptiste say that man creates its own demand and that is certainly true, particularly in this case. as companies become more perfect is come at cheaper the kind cheaper. so we don't have the worry about somehow people will want things. we have about $45,000 in this country and i guarantee you the

vast majority people would rather have a median income of $200,000 for 400,000 or a million and that's just us. in terms of currency, currency is a problem. fundamentally we cannot become our project even innovative is a country, were not going to get access to these markets. why is the german philosophy as manufacturing jobs? not because productivity went down. the renovation went up understood the value chain and got access to great markets. that's really what we need to do with the country. it establishments focused on high product dignity and high innovation and all that and then we looking global markets that began to cut the trade deficit. >> okay, next squishing. anybody else have one? okay, create, over here. >> hi, i'm sure chris, former

hill staffer. we are earlier atlantic is involved in the economic issues because they're important to national security issues and we heard in this discussion how people produce valuable things for themselves at home and in the internet age we've had an instance where hundreds of millions of people have gained access to more information than we've ever had before creating tremendous value for all of them and a lot of it is missed in economic measurements in gdp. so before going to be taking some of the panelists have said, a lot of value from factories into our home, they're going to be missed by traditional economic measurements. are we going to reconcile that and how are we going to do with?

[inaudible] >> i think there's no question they're abruptly important measurement issues. if you have an economy that is still solely on material objects, it's a lot easier to count things to say, do they make more widgets than we did last year? and what the production process is centralized. so if you have someone who is not able to get access to the world's knowledge, much of which is freely available for the cost of 100 or $200 device, we are certainly not counting not in the statistics. people are caught wrestling with this, but these are just really hard questions. >> i really don't give a hard question. it's much more of a question that we have ignored individual

production. individual production is important in the sense that people cook meals, do home repairs, change their own oil. this will there solitaire bmv, people put people in the house, august the festival grow, people making more things. the census could have a sample with a sample of passing people living on a say in a rather in-depth sample, how many meals did you cook? how many things you should make with your added manufacturing and extrapolate up at the international and from accounts. >> postmarketing out tidier measure consumer surplus for this incredibly large information. >> i think it's a great thing. i'm just saying from the point of view of making intertemporal

comparisons about people's standard of living, that's a difficult thing to capture. >> i agree, but we don't even try. we simply write that part of the economy off if it's not real and that israel. >> sounds like an opportunity to innovate. >> and bob hirschi. i'm a consultant. what can be done in working through the internet to coordinate the various types were talking about, getting the funding together with the people of the various parts of the process and getting it all coordinated so everybody agrees on what they're doing. >> one piece i would observe from the trenches is a pretty systemic failure of incumbent organizations any need to invent new ones. so we brought it to make her come a hacker community had to create entirely new educational

platforms because distance-learning around a central site booster distributed learning which is illegal to a credit today, so we try to invent accreditation. they don't be speculative technical risk. business don't do networks typically and so the answer one level up from their question is pretty largely the incumbent organizations in each of these vertical columns doesn't fit this road because technology slices across them. what has been hard if inventing this whole new family of organizations to match the type elegy. >> one question here. this is our last question. >> i have a suggestion to you. very strange people, combined i.q. of a couple hundred.

anyway, the notion we have a deficit in china is wrong. we actually have a surplus. why? san francisco in july of last year estimated 55% of chinese imports have american content. in other words, offshore. if you take that figure from the chinese figure, up goes the u.s. by 220 billion. a good example of that is apple. iphone and ipod are made in china. however, 66% u.s. content and 3% chinese or which i'm sure is taiwanese. so why are these figures not been taken into account? >> i think this story with all due respect is vastly overblown. ken kramer at you see irvine has been the best research into

that. the real issue is not u.s. or china. it's japan and taiwan that they end up getting more value-added. when you look at trade numbers, they trade system when apple sells ip or experts, that's included in the trade system. when we moved apart to china to dissemble, that's an exporter. the whole thing is included as an import. so i do think those numbers are anywhere near as for this you would suggest. >> okay. i think we are going to end this panel here. [applause] >> i was just going to applaud your making chapters -- >> please stay where you are. the next discussion is moderated by mcauley, derek thompson from the atlantic who is arriving onstage now.

>> at harvard business go professor says the u.s. needs to reverse negative attitude some students have chris manufacturing jobs. part of the discussion on the future of manufacturing. this is just under an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] [inaudible] i'd like to get into it if that all right. [inaudible]

i have two questions about this book title. to your main american labor or american capital? what makes it so special that most people don't make things, they read and write and talk to people. let's help the service economy and vice manufacturing me to be better? >> first of all, great friend of the service economy. there's an enormous amount of value created there. we talk about america's, we think about the world we inhabit at the long-term hope of the country as a place to do innovation. the principal thesis in the book that comes out of our research is unlike the reputation that a lot of people associate manufacturing, we think the ability to make things as fundamental to the ability to sustain innovation over the longer-term, especially when

your products or processes and i i think it is referred to earlier when that are not really matured, there's an enormous amount of value add that have been, especially in the early stages of commercialization. when you give up making products, uses a lot of that knowledge and overtime that is going to impact your ability to do innovation. >> rate, thanks. bruce, i followed your work for a long time. when we talk about american economy, it doesn't make so much sense in africa because were not an american economy. we are a network of state economies and more specifically, city economies. similarly we talk about manufacturing as a category, that's a little overbroad because manufacturing is a million subcategories that added to this pos or ble category. so the same way you broke down

and said here's the specific cities do well and can have lessons for the american economy in the aggregate, what are some subset is right now that is a leading-edge the rest of the super sector came learn from? >> just a pretty fine point on your initial comment, top mattress in the united states said on 12% of land ask him a two of population, three quarters of gdp and on every asset that matters, 75, 80, 85% national share. so it's really hard to talk about an american economy. you really have to talk about network throughout the rest of the world. for a long time we focused a lot on the consumption economy in a wal-mart is that wal-mart is a wal-mart about whether phoenix, pittsburgh, denver, detroit. same footprint, seem designed, same price as, wages. when you start looking at advanced manufacturing, what you

see is the effective cost areas of the conglomeration of fact of manufacturing and this obviously goes back for some period of time, locating your advanced r&d institutions, locating your skilled labor, whether community college are going back to high school. so automotive, southeast michigan, tennessee, under this out. lucy seattle, hartford, wichita. computer and electronics go see in san jose come the silicon forest dr. austin. i think what is happening postrecession is every city in accra metropolis got hit hard and construction in particular in home building in retail began to look at their treated sectors and begin to look at advanced manufacturing sectors and basically say, why to these factors need to survive and

prosper? do we have a skills problem? do we have an infrastructure problem? do we have an innovation break down between r&d institutions prototyping a product. the answer from a city matcher perspective will basically follow the health of their cluster and small and medium-size firms we can come back to, what are they doing to essentially help these relatively small firm, some part of supply-chain, some not basically thriving. >> john, you said if anything in the green room. no matter how badly washington screws everything up, caltech will be contacted at m.i.t. list of the m.i.t. from that vantage point, it's impossible to not see everything through dc-10 two classes. when you're out there in the real world, there's a different

reality and he talked about the importance of partnerships for made, public and private at a local level. tell us about my partnerships are so key and maybe share a story from her time in the private sector on how you seem the partnerships. >> i don't mind referring to the real world versus the non-real-world. i spend most of my time at the larger macroeconomic level seeing what kinds of problems they're having, what they're struggling with. in the same way chess sad he's not so worried about ge. ge will be fine. i think we do have to worry about. i'm not worried look of that behind us a nation in terms of developing wonderful to allergies previous panelist talking about. that will all have been. it is taken to the next step is how to work together to bring that to bear family have jobs.

that has been my concern and continues to do so. there is a large discussion of partnerships. i think we learned about her except the community that will. the importance of being successful was so very true and something you necessarily always so good at. we have to find ways to bring that technology and combine the social technology. the large corporate level, national community level and also value creation model as well. i first got involved in this and thinking about policies 30 samaj years ago. i saviors working for toyota before they brought their system to the united states.

they hired me to be the person to help transfer the system to the u.s. i could learn what they add it and share it here with my country and i did that over the years. as we went through a process of determining skills necessary, one of the items i came up as we need education. the basic skills is so very, very important. the one criteria we had as we started working with uaw, general motors and a space-time with team-based problems skills. this isn't something that's new. i don't think the equation has changed, for bringing a lot of manufacturing back. as a matter of how we understand all the implications.

so how we can have people working together with technology is key to how well we can be successful. >> rate, thanks. also the power of teambuilding and characteristics with the current employee. there's two other things that i want to push to you now that you're his lawyer. when he said that -- [laughter] the future of manufacturing the planet looks great and they would he not only nominal growth, but also manufacturing growth had a chance of increasing as a shared of total employment as a labor force. he also said he was extremely bullish on technology e. when i look at the sink side-by-side, on the one hand there's more manufacturing work and where they were to the united states because there's more work done here. at the same time, there's new cutting-edge technology that is labor and time saving, that doesn't assert will replace jobs.

so when you're again about this impossible and also concentrate off between manufacturing productivity growth, what are the some of the best ways to think about problems they're facing quite >> there's a chance was on employment growth. be that strong and growth. in the 1990s we had productivity growth averaged 4% of the year and a plan that manufacturing was roughly stable. they last about 2% of total jobs in that decade. in the last decade, we've lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs. in fact it's been a little bit slower in the past decade. what's different in the last decade we've seen an enormous increase in the trade deficit with the rest of the world, especially countries like china and today i really support they looks at the effect of currency

manipulation, perhaps the single most important factor that explains the growth of trade deficit and matt schaub eliminated the trade deficit -- could reduce the trade deficit by roughly 190 or $400 billion create between 2.2 m. 4.7 million jobs. doing that would increase manufacturing back to 11 million jobs. that's a big down payment, so i think one of the things we need to do is create demand. as we did in 1990s and didn't do in the last decade. just went to foreign sources. we need to shift the demand to domestically produced goods and the voters vote in the hiring of the mystic workers. manufacturing jobs are amongst the best, especially those without a college degree. high wages, good tendency,

compared especially to other work in the economy. >> great, thanks. bruce, you work in washington d.c. at dupont. >> i mostly on a plane though. >> i'm just going to say -- in washington d.c., industrial policy is a dirty word, but if you go many other domestic way, while managing a city that practice is something that looks to me like industrial policy. they're picking and winners and losers in giving tax credits to specific companies and trying to build clusters. what's the best way of thinking about industrial policy in the best way? >> one shot at the capital, which is we do have industrial policy in washington d.c. it's called real estate for your mortgage interest deduction and they decided to pick winners in the parley describes the consumption we had.

but when you get to the local level on the question is, what is your choice of economic development policy? some cities over a period of time practice what i would call starbucks stadiums doing business. how quickly do we build the next convention center performing arts facility or sports stadium or do we try to throw money to bring across the border in many cases? or other alternative, can we strengthen our strength entreated sectors? a portion of our economy, 20, 25, 30% as everything else and that's what's been happening postrecession, particularly as we see if it is shell gas, the sense that an ipo to have a manufacturing moment. more importantly, business leaders, firms, universities and this goes intermediaries

together is the network, saying what do we have and what do they need. the biggest response they get for most of these firms is facing industrial worker retirement to some extent and we have neither system and arbakai with your metropolis because we got rid of it for a large extent. what were basically working on his race to the shop, where we can bring back surgery the 21st century kind of technical training customized to these very differentiated special clusters in particular places. >> about five minutes ago i said there is a tension between productivity growth in manufacturing, competitiveness and job creation here in the united states. as i was saying it, wanted to correct myself releaser on a couple caveats. pretend the kodak spent seven

and a half years suggesting maybe there isn't such a clear trade-off. maybe it is possible to everything competitiveness in the united states advice and job creation and lessons from some companies have outsourced too quickly, less competitiveness. can you tell us about the kodak story and how they kodak themselves? >> i spent 28 years in industry that the hbs for six years now. in industry you have these problems every day, especially when i went to kodak, every day was a crisis. since coming to hbs had been working through that list of problems. one of my colleagues had you been in academic. you just did a 28 year field experiment in your notes are putting data. my addition is he's a little slow, but one of the things we found as i walked in the kodak and they said we want to build

digital cameras in the united states of another labor cost differential is tied permissible study this fact we rebuilt. it's magnificent except all the proponents have to come from japan and in those days he was relatively early, there's still a lot of that tacit knowledge that you needed in reviewing history and the problem, in the 1960s, photography was in the film. somebody, probably in nba trainer at harvard said if you get rid of the camera manufacturing khmer process will go up. sure enough they have sure the manufacturing profits went up. the same time the industry ships off the tv assembly upshur. everybody make more money doing that. the problem was the technology change. all of a sudden the things that

aren't important, sensors, lenses, motors, viewfinders, those components was no longer any capability to make those in new york under repeated examples came up with the notion of the industrial commons and the health of the industrial commons is important to being able to sustain your ability to innovate and do company leaders then think about barbara at the capabilities and suppliers, educational institutions to train their workers, component manufacturers as toolmakers, all of those things. it's a classic derrick harden comments problem. >> rate. does the government have a role in helping companies like kodak, not kodak themselves? are the less we can pass right here that can match people awake from outsourcing not only jobs, but also intellectual capital

and their ability to go in the future? >> absolutely. no question about it. i talked earlier about the need to level the playing field a good exchange rates and that will cut our trade deficit about in-house. we still love to be trade deficit and that is both a problem and opportunity. we can bring many more jobs back up and make investments in supply-side policies. i can list for five and talk about the rest the rest of the time. we've been talking about this all day and technology developments. other countries invest a lot more than we do in rad. we need to invest more in manufacturing extension services to build these networks amongst regional for. i just published spending in germany and japan and on a comparative basis, they are spending anywhere between 20 and 40 times as much as we are as a

share of gross domestic product when those kinds of extension activities. we need to work on financing, in germany for example, small and medium-sized firms get financing directly from banks. but in this country, those firms that have access to bank capital, so they really constrained and access to cash. that's another area became contribute. i like to talk about creating something called a man he made. we have one for housing. why do we have some institution that provides capital to manufacturing companies that create jobs? it does not take a lot of money, but it would be very helpful. ..

and if not, i have another question for you. you mentioned earlier three terms that i thought were near seven synonyms and the want to make sure and send a difference. teaming, partnerships, and that works. other meaningful differences between these terms and how can they all help us think about competitiveness your home. >> well, i think the same thing at different levels, different from the levels. so a lot of discussion about partnership of the highest level partnership between industry and government. academia. i think that is -- i think that is important as a dimension to

have a play. the other is to might think, at the community level the networking. it's also critical. then, when you get inside companies are actually creating value, whether it is manufacturing, traditional or service, like you, service industries, is about how we can promote the most effective, efficient creation of value. it turns out the way to do that is 13. team-based problem solving innovation. that has been the key to successful organizations over decades now. one of the nice things, perhaps the only nice thing about getting older, we are older is that you can see these pendulums swing over the decades. and so now the big chain, sponsored by the lentic. a great series of articles in the december issue. in sourcing. and there has been this trend that pendulums back and forth over the decade.

first you outsource, the new offshore, and now we are reassuring. i think another turn to think about, different things will be made in different places. globalization is not a bad thing it's a wonderful thing. it made in different places, and they should be, but we can be smarter to what we're doing where which means having become integrated, holistic decision making understanding where we are now one also thinking one return. great examples of companies that have done this all along, even with the hurdles of sometimes being thrown up, one that i can think of right now, the herman miller company makes furniture, office furniture. they've introduced wonderful -- the couple furniture industry. the error on chair, revolutionizing office furniture .

the same pressures. and they remain competitors and do exactly that. killick of business and realize, research, having operations near where we're doing our design, the kind of synergies, they recognize that early on then decided they could find ways to make it work to be competitive for a year. the key was, in fact i have to network with in the company and have to have that team based approach to getting work done in the company with a combined people and technologies. >> i just want to build. at the these are excellent comments. local perspective, i would add to list infrastructure. for many of the small and medium-sized firms strategic advice. almost looking for the merchant bank essentially, and some of the issues in small and medium-sized firms are about facility remodeling. so that is about succession

planning. a lot of these are family-owned, and they're now into the third generation or so and they're really have to think about that. what is -- i think what is happening in the united states as we are pushing down responsibility for my government to perspective to the states and to the major metro's because they have become an unreliable partner. i mean, sequestration going through in the next couple of weeks, they're going to basically take a haircut to everything in non-defense discretionary, including r&d. so the basically not making any choices and telling the states, cities, metros, the firms, clusters : somehow you guys are going to have to compensate for this. in some of these areas the state's commager's command cities can compensate and they are compensating. in some cases particularly with foreign firms coming in, they're demanding frankly that the locality organize themselves in

such a way. coming into charlotte, demanding part of the deal. you guys act like we act in europe. it's very interesting. the resources of responsibilities in the public sector. probably. we're going to go through this list to figure out, the public-private finance or some new kind of intermediary are institution. we will figure this out. it very different kind of mind-set to a very different kind of perspective. >> just about every single successful recovery from a financial crisis going back the last 30 years has relied on exports to help drive growth. very difficult in a financial crisis for domestic finance. rise quickly. we have seen that every quarter, every year since 2008 here in

the states. you rely of other people to help fuel you. i have to admit, have not read your book even though i put it at the beginning of this panel. i will. we all will. and so will they. but can you talk a little bit about your attitude toward domestic manufacturing speaking about exports. in the states were not like germany cannot surrounded by all these different countries the demanding. three of the biggest consumer engine. x were driven world's that a billionaire customers come on line. >> i think that is a really interesting inopportune question because one of the things that we have been blessed with has been the world's largest market. we're still for toddlers and china, and so for many firms, especially the smaller ones, you know, do i work harder and develop export business when all

of this business is nearing an end. i think that really requires a change in mind set the you know, denmark has been mentioned a lot. the five of these small companies. here is a small company. 48 percent of their gdp is exports. and more mentality it comes from a five going to survive on this world stage what do i have to do to do that? and that think we're entering the world because if you look today the statistics are older. the mobile handset market in east asia is about three and a half times larger than america. the largest market for automobiles. prices many in china as a do in germany. b&w does as well and probably lamborghini, world largest

market for bark -- bordeaux wines. those are out of fashion this year. the does move to burgundy. so one of the things -- the new world order is as you have all of these new consumers, on, we now have to think about, and mr. mlb talked about this, this notion of large markets as well. the u.s. historically, especially if you look in the post-world war two era, there has been some mention of that before, in the post-world war two era we have this wonderful. when we dominated mass manufacturing, there was faith. the science had won the war. we made huge investments because of the cold war that led the space technology and so on to ever make -- the information technology and so there was that you need time, but now the changed because not just china but india and brazil and some of the other markets are going to be either are now or are growing

into large markets. so that makes a particular challenge for ceos in terms of what my global footprint needs to be in terms of tapping into all of those clusters recognizing the market opportunities and then also leveraging the skills, so was a complex problem that really a different world. >> right. when a lot of people think will manufacture products and one of the first things that comes to mind, i think colleges because so many people have it is a smart phone like the iphone and the tablet. and, you know, it occurs to me that we cannot just keep buying it screens. there's a limit to the number of screens that every family impossibly on. i don't know what to be possibly less. we have run completely out of ideas, but i do wonder, and this is an annoying journalist question because of asking you to do my homework for me, but if i had to write a piece directly about the next -- about the next manufactured product that

american media and families are going to get hyper about, one sector that it occurs to me might be fruitful might be to a medical device industry, some sort of medical device that everyone could use in their home but then you would have to have a manufacturing and transportation network to not only make this new thing but may bring it to different people's houses. can i write that piece, go back to my office after this panel and also if you disagree, what is maybe the next big daddy? >> well, go ahead. >> go to the microsoft campus had in seattle. i mean to redmond. go look at their smart phone. they already are beginning to play with those kind of technologies. because of a you know, what is the inevitable demographic that we have in this country? we know how the baby boomers feel about themselves. they will demand products. so the question is, in those metropolitan areas that tend to

cluster around the mayo clinic, the cleveland clinic, the houston medical campus, washington university, i mean, this is where you're going to find that sort of r&d commercializing prototyping and then the question becomes, you know, are we talking about mass production here or some kind of integrated supply chain? but so, no, i think we're going to see a burst of innovation in that field, and it is this interplay between what our housing will look like, our automotive sector, what kind of personal devices people will carry around and i think this is the kind of planning, frankly, that is going on in these clusters and these networks and city in metropolitan is there trying to figure out what we make now off of our base and

what we could make tomorrow probably in collaboration with our trading partners? because there already is a network of trading cities also emerging in the world because of the supply chains, so they're not only beginning to think about it just themselves but they're beginning to think about the necessary linkages with some of the global markets. >> so i am going to give what sounds like an incredibly pessimistic but actually an incredibly optimistic cancer because i was in the factory in southern china that makes 50 percent of the blood glucose meters and the world. i took a class last year because this factory in india that makes most of the acetaminophen and ibuprofen and pack like to listen and things that we bought were made in new. a, it's not made year. so the question is, the supply chains and the capabilities and things for the commercialization of industrialization of those products here? the answer is, lot of them

aren't. now, the optimistic side of this bill i have been thinking about this a lot lately, the optimistic side of this is, think we are also moving to a world where we're going to place a premium on systems. i mean, the reason the iphone is good is because their is a software innate, a set of complement's that is manifested by the ad store in all of these apps and that system. and a lot of what has been offshore has been components. in those as a very get components and their lousy its systems. so that is where my hope is command that is -- it was mentioned earlier today timesaver physical systems which is what we mean, software plus hardware. that is the opportunity for us. >> well, a different question. >> no, that's fine. >> i was talking to an editor at the atlantic about another sort of bigger idea, you know, a

business story that we kidney bite into at the time that it was coming into the public consciousness and not just too much, but may be especially one thing we were talking about, the possibility that industry after industry keeps getting bitten by the productivity bugged. we see familiar things where shares of employment go up and then come crashing back down. farming. 40 percent of americans were in manufacturing in the 1950's, and now both of those numbers are under ten or 5%. we're getting to see the same thing happening in retail. total retail employment has been basically stagnant since the 1990's, partly because of walmart and partly because of amazon. is there are risk? what is the risk that we are running out of work? and if there is any chance that we can tie this back into the future of manufacturing, that would be helpful to me. [laughter] >> that is certainly a left-field question.

thanks. i don't think we're going to run out of work. one of the things that we have seen in this country is that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of hours worked by the average family. america stands up for that. a think we're now working something close to 2021, at 2200 hours per year the unit states. so we take the advantage is a movement of women as a labor force to really work a lot harder. if elected people and other countries, especially in western europe and, they have chosen to opt for more leisure, said the average family workweek is going down to 17 -- 16 are 1700 hours per week per year. so that is substantially less, slender vacations, much more leisure. much shorter workweeks. so i think one of the great benefits according to productivity growth is it can lead to availability of more leisure time. but we need to be allowed to generate sustainable incomes for those families. they have to be a will to make

more than minimum-wage. and the problem with what we are currently developing a spin that it has been generating a lot of low-wage jobs which is where we seem to be headed which is i think it's important to change course. of a continued at a course where we are going now we're going to see manufacturing continue to shrink and the supply of good jobs with good wages for the 70 percent of americans who don't have a college degree is for all the going to continue to go down, but if we can rebuild manufacturing or at least stabilize manufacturing employment in the supply of good jobs to go up and we can spread them a little more widely. people will have to work as much. but to go back to your earlier question about exports, leaving your way out of recessions and this is the point to get to, we have had strong export growth. unfortunately we have also had strong import growth. in fact when our trade deficit has been growing. especially in manufacturing growth which is where most of the jobs are.

trade numbers are going to come out tomorrow for 2012. there will show the trade deficit is roughly stable for last year, but if you look into the details what you're going to find is that our imports of petroleum products going to go down, imports of manufacturing products and raw deal of, and that means we're going to have a net loss of manufacturing jobs. rising imports to my rising exports support them. so if on balance they did trade balance gets worse it means we're losing jobs related to trade him and that has been the problem of this recovery. and that is the problem we have to address. again, back to my first point, while leveling the playing field to getting rid of things like currency manipulation, other kinds of unfair trade. >> thank you for answering my completed a question. could you talk a little bit

about how the make about manufacturing jobs is changed of the lasting your stick because the same way that i wanted to sort of make a ruling the second question that we would not talk about manufacturing as though it was this one thing that millions of people were doing but rather category that describe many, many different things in many different kinds of workers making major kinds of products, has the technology revolution and the force of globalization of the last 30 years changed was sort of thing we now consider manufacturing jobs? >> yes, i think it looks a little different. i spent, again, most of my time now looking at macroeconomics data but, in fact, plant floors. the most part in which remarkably as used to. even the mention that, again, one of the things that happened is is that a lot of companies back because as they said things overseas dollar they lost certain capabilities, he could innovate arrested when they try to bring it back is said to my guess what, we don't have that ability anymore. that is one of the things that

gm must others are struggling with as they try to bring manufacturing back. natalie that, as it turns out, as they bring it back is not actually as it was before anyway because the train has moved. different skills than you did when used did to the weight. so even the term of restoring and how it relates to your question that it's the wrong term. you want to have the right story, and we bring things back, as we bring it back, it needs to be in much better processes that use to be was changes the work of each person involved in the system. but the main thing that we want people to have his skills in terms of critical thinking, problem-solving, and innovation. the other things we can provide which is true. we have been talking a lot about education in terms of community colleges, the worker. we have talked about the manager's. managers to come out of business schools. we are proud of having the best business schools in the world, engineering schools about the speaking often, and that very

glad that we went to harvard business school. twenty-eight years of real-world experience there. what happened among our business schools as they had become dominated by finest of our present financial analysis and strategic analysis with a taste of manufacturing in a little box commodity. the where is cheapest which is very wrong thinking. all wrong, and that they know a lot of managers have learned the evidence of the best way to approach it in a lot of that idea began their business schools. reinvented business schools, and it can be a wonderful thing, but i think we need to make sure that we're teaching this kind of holistic teachings, not only the critical problem solving skills in the community colleges to workers, but our managers as well. and that is what is going to lead then, too i think, a different kind of world moving forward, the kind of jobs, develop the macro number of jobs would be. at a look at that kind of thing, but as a percentage of the manufacturing jobs that do exist in the world, productivity will reduce that number, but the

percentage of companies that will have -- the base year and be based rather markets are, i think, will increase. that, again to the changes what it looks like and the factory floor. the changes with those jobs look like. >> i want to finish with both of you, actually. yes. feel free. by e-mail. can we -- you talked a little bit about the sort of community and community college response to this and how colleges and some cities are responding to this -- to a perceived at least deficit of workers with the skills that we need to be competitive and in the manufacturing that is right for those cities especially in and i want to get you to talk a little bit about how schools like h-p has have changed the conception of what it takes to be a manufacturing manager. >> look, i think there are a lot of success stories at the city metropolitan scalp. you may not have everything in one particular place, but it is right to think about it as an

ecosystem. so in the perfect ideal place your 4-year college will have some kind of advanced r&d unit oriented to your cluster. the community college, and this is particularly strong in places like ohio and places like michigan, they will have curriculum which frankly them a factures tend to write intend to sort of oversee organized around their skills, needs. the most interesting thing we are beginning to see is it pushed back into the eyes schools. so you're beginning to see manufacturing has schools, some chargers, some public to mothers in the neighborhood of chicago which still has a pretty decent manufacturing base. kids are coming in from that neighborhood, which is a classic inner-city never had. fourth and fifth grade reading and math those. by the end of the 4-year in school they have credentials to basically go into some of the

local factories. some would not say it is community colleges. i would say that it cuts across the secondary, post secondary special skills units the muscle of the large companies obviously have their own trading, but it tends to be part of a broader ecosystem which is to get aligned with the particular cluster. and then the only question is who pays for it, frankly. and so i think the president had a proposal last year. i believe it was an $8 billion investment community colleges. yet another proposal, billion dollars advanced industry innovation. my sense is more and more this is going to pay for the local level or the state level. >> can you talk a little bit about -- >> okay. i'm going to tell you a short story which i think actually has a lot of bearing. one of the things that i do is i place as many students at age ps in to manufacturing carper action type positions as i can. two weeks ago one of the students that i placed in the

manufacturing operation came back to read. it was wonderful. she was so happy, you know, having such a great time, you know, working with real stuff and producing products. she said the hardest thing was when she first went into this place explaining to people repeatedly why would somebody with an m.b.a. from harvard business school come here. okay. what that tells me is it's actually a broader probe will up the image of manufacturing as dirty work. we heard about that earlier today. i tell you, i worked in the industry for 28 years. making stuff is the most gratifying javits even have. set that aside and let me tell you about a course i am offering this semester because the administration has been suggesting to you know, we have to have people on to you know, help more of the management of these technology and science based businesses. you have to do this. okay. i will target the students. the admissions office has been looking for more engineers and scientists come again for me to

work with. that's great. i do a survey and find out all those guys who came here were actually try to change careers away from vegetarian science. so, again, that is a broader problem. in our country, so i actually completely changed course. asset to modem going to do is target the guys are going to finance a private equity. that is where i wrote it to the course description. private equity, you're going into, you know, venture-capital, these things. here's what you need to know about science and technology, take this course. you will see how this works. a real-time experiment. but i think what that reflects is, we need to work on the attitudes in this country. who are our heroes? i grew out after that sputnik -- sputnik moment in that benefited enormously because all of a sudden i wanted to go into the space program. wanted to do this technology. and it motivated a whole generation of scientists and

engineers and we're still reaping the benefits of that generation retiring now. it is more of the question i would put out there. i think it is a critical issue for this country. you know, i sat in conference rooms in china, only 7 million people. part of the industrial construction equipment industry. city officials, what do you say? meddler jeep. what did you study? metallurgy. what did you study? industrial engineering. i could not find a city in this country right to have that discussion. >> making manufacturing sexy again. >> that's right. >> the fact is it has always been sexy. >> you are our heroes? >> is also about making manufacturing begin. a number scientists and manufacturing shrank of the last decade even though a group nationwide by 250% for reasons, we lost one-third of all bodies in manufacturing. >> any of you out there who want to send your cards like assistance to you, looking to

place as many as possible. >> of business school only had to write a description and emphasize certain things. when people are given that opportunity, they love it. tremendous explosion happening now in small start businesses all around the country. you can see this in different communities were the innovation and creativity is happening. your idea about many may is not bad at all. >> they keep. >> one of the interesting technological facts is this sort of e-army for its engineers that is going on. meantime because if you go into -- okay. the making my own cluster here, but if you go into detroit there is a firm called digerati, and they basically have written this program where if you are in engineering student at ms you were michigan and you want ted summer internships, you

basically go online, you talk about more important a job you want and then if you are a small, medium-sized firm in the state of michigan you do the same. the computer matches you up, right command about 65 percent of people who did an in a particular state stay there. so this is about the lowest cost workforce development project you ever see. because you can do all of this. frankly, most of these companies are hidden in plain sight. their small. no one knows where to find them, but you can find them on the web. there is another company based of rutland called makers row. they take designers on one hand of close of apparel and they connect them up online to factories in the united states and facilities to mostly small that basically make that kind of apparel. so it is an interesting kind of technology moment here where we are canal in the second or third generation of evolution so instead of just 80 we can actually have people who find

decent jobs or designers five factories. >> i really want to keep talking about e-3 for engineers. we're going to go to questions al. if if anybody else has questions about e-army for engineers to make yourselves known. start over here. >> okay. my name is tom adelle, research phase. earlier today we talked about jack welch and his theory about being a bar in a factory and all over. what we kind of have evolving is that factories are doing local. we also heard him say, well, i am a net exporter in china. is it possible that she might become a net importer and not even an importer, is basically selling china, build and china, sell in china, and build a different locations and that is at the factory which kind of

says a few things. bonobo are familiar with that. the supply chain which is kind of going to the wayside. is that an indicator? is supply chains of the net is wreaking at this point? has that been eliminated? and the final question or comment is, is a service called amex at harvard. instead of creating a you can take any signs course taught by some of the best professors and harvard, mit, briefly, and so forth for anywhere in the world from a classroom with hundreds of thousands students all online. this is raising the playing field to a level where at some point we are going to have some really smart people in africa and elsewhere and they're just not going to need is and that can drive your point about export. at some point that in. ..

companies know the supplier, and company after company has gone back understand that to dive in and rationalize those. >> thank you all very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> next on c-span2, the british house of commons debate on legalizing same-sex marriage. then the executive director of the national gay and lesbian task force on the state of their movement. after that, a forum on technology advances in

manufacturing. >> having associated a steady improvement in the opportunities and well-being of our citizens, i can report to you that the state of this old but useful union is good. >> once again, in keeping with time honored tradition, i've come to report to you on the state of the union. and i'm pleased to report that america is much improved and there's good reason to believe that improvement will continue for the days to come. >> my duty tonight is to report on the state of the union. not the state of our government. but of our american community. and to set forthour responsibilities in the words of our founders, to form a more perfect union. the state of the union is strong. >> as we gather tonight, our nation is at war.

our the is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers, yet the state of our union has never been stronger. [applause] >> it's because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong. >> tuesday, president obama delivers this year's address live on c-span. with our preview program starting at 8:00 p.m. scene the president at 9:00. followed by the g.o.p. response and your reaction. the state of the union, tuesday night on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> on tuesday, british lawmakers and in the house of commons voted in favor of a bill to legalize same-sex marriages in the uk. the bill also includes provisions to protect religious organizations and individuals from being force to con conduct

same-sex marriages. the bill must still be approved by the house of lords. here's a 90-minute portion of the debate. >> the marriage same-sex couples bill be now read a second time. mr. speaker, you and i know that every marriage is different. indeed, any husband or wife as a member of this house has a very disdistinct set of challenge to face every day but what marriage is a life long partner to toe share our journey, a loving stable relationship to strengthen us, and a mutual support throughout our lives. i believe this is something that should be embraced by more couples, to get the feeling, love, and commitment is no different between same-sex couples than opposite-sex couples. this billion enables society to

recognize that commitment in the same way, through marriage. parliament should value people equally in the law, and enabling same-sex couples to marry runoffs current differentiation and distinction there's no single few on equal marriage from religious organizations. some are deeply opposed. others tell us they see this is an opportunity to take their faith to a wider community. of course, -- >> will the lady give a guarantee that if this bill becomes law no religious denomination, no place of worship no clergyman or equivalent in other religions, will be forced by legal action in the courts or the european community, to carry out weddings without their wishes?

>> the honorable gentleman is pre-empting some of the late part of my correct i can say to him we have taken seriously all the point he has raised about the need for protection, and he will see in some detail in the bill how we have put that into place. of course. >> i thank -- >> written to the honorable members on the issue of equality between same-sex and different-sex individuals. where he says the government has issues of consummation and adultery while these concepts will remain in importance aspect of heterosexual marriage. it does nothing to promote the ideal of marriage as far as equal and should be a life-long union. >> my friend will know of course there's already no legal requirement for consumeation, that adultery stays as it is and

couple will have the opportunity to cite enreasonable behavior as many do already, and i think issues he raise are dealt with very well in that way. perhaps mr. speaker i can make also more porch is a say there's no single view from religious organizations on this issue, and i know also that some colleagues in the house feel that they cannot agree with this bill for principles, religious beliefs, and that is a stance i entirely respect if the honorable gentleman will let me make a bit more progress. i don't think it's the role of government to tell people what to believe but i do think that parliament and the state have a responsibility to treat people fairly. >> on that point -- >> i'll give way to my honorable friend over there, and my honorable friend there. >> i'm grateful for the minutes givenway. will she take this early opportunity to confirm that those opponent office the bill, many hundreds of my constituent

are not homo folk, -- homophobic and not big gots. >> my honorable friend makes his point well. >> thanks to my honorable friend giving way. i very much support this bill. however i do regret it being practice it should be taken on the floor of the house and three she be two guys second read so it people can fully express their views on both sides. >> my honorable friend noise take here's matters seriously indeed and we have to make sure there is sufficient debate. i think through the usual channels we have made sure that's the case itch hope my honorable friend will be pleased to see the progress we have made on that. if i can perhaps the honorable gentlemen and ladies can let me make a little more progress and i'll take interventionness a moment. some say this bill, mr. speaker, redefines marriage, but marriage is in fact an institution with a long history of adapt tigs and

change in the 19th under, catholic were only allowed to marry in the ang lick chan cup, and in the to century changes were made to recognize married win and married men as equal in front of the law. the cd this bill changes things does not recognize the road that marriage has traveled as an institution. i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> i'm grateful to at the minister. bear in mind that when homosexuality was decriminalized in 1967 there was a great deal of opposition. would you not agree there would now be hardly a singlele member, literally, a single member that would -- who wish to return to the situation which existed prior to the 1967 bill?

and is it not possible that within a few years, if this is passed, it will be like then 1967 act? >> and i'm sure the honorable gentleman is right. what we have to do is not just legislate for today but for the future as well. >> i'm going to support the minister's bill tonight because i think the principle is right. i'm not sure why shy enjoy a right or privilege that i'm denying to others. i wonder what why hasn't she confined herself to single major? wouldn't that be a much easier area to deal with. >> there are many other organizations who have -- many religious organizations who have suppressed an interest in being able to undertake same-sex marriagesment we believe right for them to be able to do that and that's why there are provision necessary bill for them to do that if they show

choose. if honnable members can let me make a little more progress. mr. speaker, marriage should be, as we have heard, defended and promoted in every way to those who argue that civil partnerships exist and contain very similar -- to hose those argue that civil partnerships and contain very similar rights, that marriage is just a word, and that this bill is unnecessary, i say that's not right. a legal partnership is not perceived in the same way, and does not have the same promises of responsibility and commitment as marriage, all couples who enter a lifelong commitment together should be able to call it marriage. i giveway to my friend. >> i will vote for the second reading of the bill tonight because i support the principle that the minister just enunciated. but the last intervention made a very important point, about making sure we legislate carefully to deal with what the state can deal with, which is

civil marriage, and not trespass on religious beliefs. will the secretary make it absolutely clear she'll be open to the amendments of the drafting of the bill, noth committee and report stage, that might give us a much better balance and be able to reassure many more people that are currently reassured? >> my friend is right to raise this issue. what i can do is reassure him that we have been working very closely, particularly with the church of england, particularly with the church in wales. both organizations texas there are protections and particularly the church of england say they don't want to see changed. i give way to my honorable friends there. >> great follow the secretary giving air. in religious to religious organizations, 5% of the unite kingdom population is muslim, and what proportion of the muss

lime community responded to the -- and were for and it who are against it? my understanding is not a single mosque responded by supporting the redefinition of marriage. >> my honorable friend will not this is not an issue about numbers. it's about working together and to provide those sort office protects to make sure that individuals from whatever faith group can continue to be assured that they can practice according to their faith. that is the point of debate tonight. i giveway to the honor realm find. >> i'm very grateful giving way. does she understand the disappoint. othose who believe that the church of england isn't being given the choice accorded to other faiths to marry same-sex couples if the so desmosis far from being forced to marry same-sex couples the church of england is being forced not to marry them even if some element wood like to do so. >> and the honorable lady can

get please reassures wire not trying to treat the church of england or the church of wales in any way differently. the end result we'll get will be exactly the same as other religious institutions. the honorable lady will be aware of the fact that that church of england and church of ways have different duties to mary pool and the conon law, so we have to have difference -- i can absolutely assure the honorable latey that if either of those organizations chose to opt into equal marriage to same-sex marriage, then the would be able to do so according to the provisions of the bill. if honorable ladies and gentlemen can let me make also more progress, and then we can have some furor in interventions. mr. speaker, i think from the contribution wes have just heard, there is no doubt about the fundamental importance of

faith in this country today. but i don't believe as a country we have to choose between religious beliefs and fairness for same-sex couples. it's important to remember that religious views on same-sex marriage do -- whether it's the quaker, the unitarian or the liberal jewish communities, all of those have said that they want to conduct same-sex marriages. and indeed, mr. speaker, paul parker, who speaks for the quakers, says the first same-sex marriage in a quaker meeting will be, and i quote, wonderful day for marriage and religious freedom, and that is something we do have to respect and we have to pay note to. our proposals well ensure that all religious organizations can ask act in accordance with their belief because, mr. speaker, equal marriage should not come at the cost of freedom of faith,

nor freedom of faith come at the cost of equal marriage. we are capable of accommodating both. this bill does so in a very straightforward manner. i giveway to my friend. >> i'm grateful for the right honorable lady for giving way. can she assure us that if at any time in the future the call for human right, a church not wishing to conduct a gay wedding ceremony, would bring the discrimination act. can she assure us that not try to vacate them at we have over -- >> my honorable friend, i think when i come to a later part of my speech will find the sort of detail he is looking for to provide the assurances he is looking for. >> the honorable lady is absolutely right to say about the importance of faith, and how i as a christian don't have any worries about voting for this.

what greater example of equality of genders can be than jesus christ himself. >> the honorable gentleman makes a powerful point and shows that the views on this matter differ not along party lines, not lines of membership of a particular religious institution but far more than that. mr. speaker, if i could make a tiny bit of progress and then i will take further interventions. now for the provisions in the bill. the bill is -- honorable maybes know it has three parts. par one, enables same-sex couples to marry in civil services and allows religious organizations to opt in and protect those that doesn't. it also protects religious ministers and allows for the conversion of civil partnership to marriage part two enables an individual to change their legal gender without having to end their marriage.

and also provides the overseas marriages in consulates or an armed forces bases. part 3 -- allows for the standard final provisions including legislation. as honorable members have seen when they stewedy the detail of the bill i have been true to my word spend sure that those clear protections of all religious organizations and ministers who are opposed to this measure, all religious organizations, whether jewish, muslim, christian, or any other, will be able to decide for themselves if they want to conduct same-sex marriage. the bill provides and promotes religious freedom through the government's lock. these protections are absolutely carved on to the face of the bill and are the foundation upon which the legislation is built. give way to the honorable gentleman there and then my honorable friends. >> very grateful to the secretary. can she explain to he house why she is bringing the -- the

government are bringing forward this bill now at a time when wasn't in the queen's speech, hasn't been the subject of a green paper or white paper when there are other things the government promised to do, that they're not doing, such as a married couple's tax allowances. isn't it this is about political calculation and being -- rather than anything to do with principle? >> the honorable gentleman and i will have to disagree on this. we are doing this very clearly as an important part of the way that we can make this country a fairer place to live. the measure was clearly flagged up in our contract at the time of the election and what i'd like to say the honorable gentleman we'll continue to work with our colleagues in norway ireland -- northern ireland to make sure we have the same regs mission for -- regular --

recognition of the mission. >> we have already had mr. adrian smith who lost his job, who spent an enormous amount of money in legal fees and had a 40% cut in his salary for making a private comment on a facebook site. how are we going to protect people like mr. smith, work neglect public sector, up and down this country? >> my honorable friend who i know takes a very deep interest in these matters, is entirely right to bring this up. but i actually think the case he is highlights proves that individuals can express their religious beliefs and the court found in that individual's favor. i think that's important, and i think that employers up and down the country should take clear note of that. i'll give way to the honorable gentleman. >> she spoke about protections for religious ministers. can she offer the same

protections to registrars? and as the number of same-sex marriage shouldn't be expected to fall, will they be confident if they decline to take on and preside at the new same-sex marriage registration they'll will not lose their jobs or experience negative employment consequences? >> my honorable friend knows civil registrars are public servants, and the recent court rulings make very clear that those individuals have to carefully balance of course their rights to a religious belief with their equal -- their right to equally make sure they provide services in a way which doesn't discriminate against individuals. it is a very difficult issue and i now my honorable friend is raising it for the right reasons and i'm sure it's something that will be look at very closely in committee. >> i'm grateful for giving ware.

roman catholic spain legalized same-sex marriage in 2005. not a single case the european court of human rights. >> not that i'm aware of. >> my right honorable friend for giving way. but she fails to answer the point put by the honorable members of belfast north. can she tell the people of this country, where does she have a mandate to inflict this massive social cultural change? it was not in our party's manifest to. the prime minister had no plans to introduce this there many major issues this country needs to deal with. this is irrelevant and should not be pursued in the house, least of all we no real opportunity to debate it. >> hear, hear. >> my fellow hampshire and i know we disagree and we do so in a very fair and even-hasn't

manner. think it's that fairness and even-handedness i want to make sure is there in all aspects of this government policy. die think that there is an extremely strong argument that i am making here today for this measure to go through. that's the reason we have parliamentary debate is to discuss these matters in more detail. mr. speak are i think i probably knee to milk a little more progress this time to take some further interventions in a moment. because i know today that for many colleagues the crux of the issues are not around these protections particularly for the church of england and the church of wales which has a unique position because of the legal duty on their clergy to marry their pa rich centers because the church of inningland is the established church, it's canon law is part of the law of the land. there's no disadvantage, as i said already, or indeed favorable treatment in the bill

for the church of england of the church in wales. it simply provides a pragmatic way of putting them in essentially the same position as other religious organizations. if they decide they want to marry same-sex couples, then they can. we've worked very hard with a wide range of religious organizations, including both these churches, to ensure the protections in the bills work. and indeed the church of england has commented on the constructive way in which we've consulted with them on the issue of effective legal safeguards, ensuring their concerns or accommodated and the bill provides protection while still enabling it to make its own decision on same-sex marriage. mr. speaker, turning now to i think one issue that's already been raised in the debates a great deal, which is the concern around legal protections and also the issues around the

convention on human rights. there has been much discussion about the powers of the european court of human rights. the case law from the court, i believe, is clear. the question of whether, and if so, how to allow same-sex marriage, must be left to the individual states to decide for themselves. mr. speaker, it is simply inconceivable that the court would require a faith group to conduct same-sex marriages in breach of it own doctrine. not my words, mr. speaker, but the words of the lords. to be very clear, to believe that the court would order that the uk require religious organizations to marry same-sex couples against their religious

doctrine, relies on a combination of three highly improbable conclusions. first, that the court would need to go against its own clear precedence that countries have wide discretion in the matter of same-sex marriage. secondly, that the court would need to decide the interests of the same-sex couple who wanted a particular religious organization to marry them, and weigh the rights and beliefs of an entire faith a and its congregation as a whole. thirdly, the court would need to discuss the importance of article 9 of its own convention, which guarantees freedom of thought, con shuns, -- conscious and religious and it would be rewriting the rules for all religious organizations in all 47 states of the council of europe, such an outcome, mr. speaker, i believe, is

inconceivable. i gave way to my honorable friend. >> thanks for giving away. surely fundamental who we are. the crux of this debate is whether or not we accord equal rights and respect in steam to people regardless of sexuality. i think my honorable friend makes the point powerful my. we need to make sure we treat people fairly and this is at the heart of what we're talking about today. >> i thank my right honorable friend for giving way. she is making a powerful case for religious freedom. did she observe at the weekend church of england's statement that it is not realistic or likely that church wood be forced to conduct same-sex weddings? >> i'm glad that my friend was eight to underline that point because i don't want anybody to leave the debate today without

the right information on which they can base their decisions to vote, and i think my honorable friend underlines the importance of the facts in this case. if honorable ladies and gentlemen and gentlemen can forgive me i will make a little more progress because we have, asner speaker said, great deal of interest in participating in this debate. colleaguees want to understand the consequence office the bill more widely. the introduction of equal marriage will not marginalize those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. that is clearly a mainstream view. but neither will it continue to marginalize those who believe marriage can and should also be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. we will not allow one to exist at the expense of the other. no misguided sense of political correctness will be allowed to impinge on this. it will be deeply divisive if in writing a wrong for some, we

created a wrong for others. no teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs. no hospital chaplain or worker will have to belief in a new definition of marriage. no religious minister will have to conduct same-sex weddings. if the changes we're talking about today will not affect anyone more than they are affected already by choosing to live in a society that i would e

chewing on my honorable friend and saying any such maneuvers would be very much counterproductive. i will wind up my remarks. >> one of the key issues has been raised is how schools will handle the curriculum, particular faith skills. i'm inclined to support this legislation this evening. can the secretary of state say a bit more quakes can she save thl

she did mention -- can she say a bit more how this will be handled in the school criminal almost, particularly in high school? >> the honorable gentleman is right to bring that and he will have seen the word from the secretary of state reported over the weekend, and i think the point to really make clearly to the house today is the teachers will be expected to explain as indeed the professionals they would, about the lou around marriage, but what we never would expect the teacher to do is promote something that ran contrary to their own beliefs or their religious beliefs and i think that is an important point to make, and perhaps also clears up some of the misunderstandings and the literature that is being put around, round this debate today. if i -- my honorable friend i cannot say no to and then i must wind up my -- >> on most points, my honorable friend who has taken a lot of

interventions but on that very point could she just clarify when she says nobody will be forced to teach anything that goes against their conscience, what about those schools that wish to promote the question or other faith views of marriage? will they continue to be allowed to do so and can she guarantee that know teacher who actively does so will be sued or prosecutorred? >> i think my honorable friend knows there's clear positions in for faith schools to talk about their beliefs when it comes to issues like marriage, but also many other areas, whether it's to do with divorce or children being born outside of marriage. have to deal with these issues sensitively, and i think that of course is the point he is getting at. just to reiterate, we would expect teachers to be professionally explaining these issues to the children they teach. but absolutely in no way

requiring them to promote something which does not accord with their belief and faith and that's right. mr. speaker, if the -- if honorable ladies and gentlemen can forgive me i want to make sure i conclude to give individuals the time to contribute their own -- on their own in this debate. mr. speaker, despite all of the discussions in the debate, this bill is about fairness. it's about giving those who want to get married the opportunity to do so. while protecting the rights of those who don't agree with same-sex marriage. marriage is one of the most important institutions we have. it binds families and society together. it's a building block that promotes stability. this bill supports supports ands marriage and i comment this boil the house. >> hear, hear. >> mr. speaker, a pleasure to follow the honorable gentleman from chesterfield who i think

has articulated what vary many people of faith across our country have struggleed with but have come to the conclusion that marriage should not be an exclusive institution. mr. speaker, i have to -- if i may -- grew up in a rural part of our country in a working class background, and i grew up some 20 odd years ago in an environment that made it easy for me to be open and honest and up front with my family, with my friend and with my work mates, about the choices i wanted to take in life and the people who i wanted to see. that was unacceptable 20 odd years ago, mr. speak are. it's unacceptable today. but today many hundreds of thousands of people across our country it remains the case. so i'm standing here today to welcome this historic legislation which i think will end a discrimination that perhaps more crucially sends a signal that this house values everybody equally across our

country and that signal will equally affect these people like me that 20 years ago saw this house change the age of is -- is not -- so as we all take this historic step we should remember that thousands of gay and lesbian men and women were put to death in the concentration camps. 30 years ago we still had people subjected to -- we have come a long way in a short space of time. it is absolutely right in my view, that this house takes the next step and delivers full legal equality to lesbian, gay, and buy sexual people in our country and let me say to these honorable maybes. people would say, he would say

this because he is a gay man. but this is borne of a hatred and discrimination and hatred of all type, which it's gender or skin color or religion itch think we should be valuing and treating everybody equally. it's a community i grew up in, to represent one that values community. it's not one -- if you're d it's a community that distrusts bows of power, which is exactly why my right honorable friend the secretary of state is so right to have made sure that this house will not compel people and religious organizations to do anything they choose not to do. we have struck the right balance between assuring equality and preserving religious freedom. so as a house we must also question those who wish to afford privilege for themselves.

we know that marriage is an important institution that delivers many positive benefits, benefits in terms of stability, in terms of health in terms of happiness. if we recognize those benefits, then why would we keep them away from some of our neighbors who seek to experience if they choose to and their faith allows it. we wouldn't tolerate this level of discrimination in any other area of life and we should end it tonight. equal marriage will not be the end of the struggle for gay equality in the same way that delivering the vote to women or ending apartheid. but it will start allowing us to ask the right questions to activate other problems and will send a clear signal we value everybody equally. >> hear, hear. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i congratulate the honorable gentleman for his contribution

to this debate. such as my own -- i know that this is probably going to be much different to the vast majority and i respect that difference. for the first anytime history a government has put forth a bill that would change the very nature of marriage, and from our society and views, primarily as an institution that supports the bearing and raising of children. launched yesterday evening. >> hear, hear. >> sir, -- my friend, the honorable friend, to concur with mer speaker, i have the privilege overcharge the civil partnership bill through the house. as has been said, very clear, were given by the government and

from the opposition that this was not a financial debate. this was not a bill for same-sex marriage. this was an ending itself designed to right very considerable wrongs in law. that it did and that is what the european court of human rights has determine, and in those respects it is indistinguishable from what we know as marriage. my right honorable friend and i put this to earlier, told me that no government could -- of course she is correct. , in no government can bind -- out of every undertaking that my right honorable friends have given. it is abundantly clear that this bill, the product of this bill, will end up before the courts, will end up before the european

court of human rights and people of faith will find that faith being trampled upon. and that to us is intolerable. the cabinet paper -- i give way to my right honorable friend if the shooses to correct me. my understanding was the cabinet paper was entitled redefining marriage. is it not possible to redefine marriage. marriage is the union between a man and a woman. has been historically, remains so. it is alice in wonderland, or william in wonderland foreclosure government of any political persuasion to seek to come along and rewrite it. it will not do. there is a way forward. i been suggested but it's been ignored. i don't subscribe to it myself but if the government is sear yours about this, abolish the

civil partnerships, abolish civil marriage, and create a civil union bill that assigns to all people irrespective or their sexuality or their relationships and that means brothers and brothers and sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters as well. that would be a way forward. this is not. i urge -- i urge -- can. >> can i just suggest very gently that what he just suggested is profoundly offensive not only to a great many people in this country who perform civil partnerships but to quite a few people on both sides of this house. >> the argument is not mine. it comes from -- is that it would create -- i think he honorable gentleman -- equality. it would create level playing field, and it would leave

marriage and faith to those who understand that marriage means faith, and that marriage means a union between a man and a woman and nothing else, and the honorable gentleman may back away when i promise him that there are very many people who share this view. to conclude, i urge members of on both sides of the house not to abstain if they support this measure, vote for it. if they vote against it, vote against it, as i shall myself. >> thank you, mr. speaker. marriage is one of the most important institutions in our society. it concerns many of us. yet while many move away from marriage, one group turns towards it. gay couples are now asking for this method. so here we have a section of society saying they want to --

they value stability in the sight of the public and perhaps of god, we defenders of marriage should be gratefully opening the doors, yet the reaction of some has been to slam the door shut. it is said that gay people should accept civil partnerships. and no more. which confer most of the legal right office a marriage. thousand office people like me have cause to be grateful for the courage of honorable members who voted for that change. entering a civil part are inship was the most important thing i have done in my life. then civil partnerships were opposed by the church, opposed by significant portion of the public and opposed by many honorable members. eight years later only a small small minority of the public oppose them and men members who voted against the change now say they support it. but people choose marriage for a reason. they know that it means something special. indeed it is because marriage is different that many are posing this change. so we cannot say that civil

partnerships were the same or dismiss the debates as being about a name, and how many married couples would like to be told they were banned from matrimony and able ton take out a civil partner palestine the church of england and the catholic church object to gay marriage. i disagree with them. but their'll freedom is surely amongst the great -- i would not vote for this bill unless i believed that it protected religious freedom. no faith group should be compelled by laws to conduct a gay marriage against its will and noun will be. but'll freedom has to cut both ways. why should the law stop churches who want to conduct same-sex marriage. with regard to individuals to exercise their conscience and disagree i do not believe there is sufficient grounds to oppose the marriage that allows marriage for others. you don't have to enter a gay marriage. your church does not have to conduct a gay marriage.

you simply have to agree that someone else can enter a gay marriage. other marriages of million of straight people about to be threatened because few thousand gay people are permitted to join? what will they say? darling, our marriage is over, sir elton john just got engaged to david personnism appreciate the sincerity with which many people oppose equal marriage and the subject points made and assuring that religious freedom is protected is a concern it but we're told that the definition ofation there's a flew in the bill and loving marriages exist without consummation. are they're invalid? some is the home owes -- homosexual act itself. >> agree with me on that legal

equality is actually the critical but it is -- and only part of the battle. >> i strongly agree with my honorable friend. i believe that many who do not share this view, nevertheless have a principled concern that gay marriage would mean redefining the institution for everyone. yet parliament has repeatedly done this. if marriage hadn't been redefined in 1836 there wouldn't be any civil majors. if it hadn't hadn't been redefined in the 1969, under receive-year-olds would still be able to get married if it hadn't been redefined in 1969 we wouldn't have to today's divorce laws, and all of these changes were opposed. i'll give way. >> giving way, and the cause of equal marriage and give him a moment longer to siege. but can i agree with him that the definition of marriage is in fact what it means most to us as individuals.

i define marriage as something that is a loving, long-term relationship. that is something to be celebrated and something that should be open to all in our society. >> i agree with the honorable gentleman this is an institution should be open to all. when i was born, homosexual conduct was a crime. not so long ago it was possible to sack someone because they were gay. people did not dare to be open. so much has changed in my lifetime. this progress should be celebrated that we should not believe that the journey is complete. i think the gay children who are still bullied at schools or fearful whether they're friends and family will accept them. i the think sponsors men and women, who still don't feel able to come out, and i know that the signal we send today about whether the law fully recognizes the place of gay people in our society will really matter. above all, think of two people,

faithful and loving, who simply want their commitment to be recognized as it is for straight couples and that in the end is what this bill is about. millions will be watching us today. not just gay people. but those who want to live in a society where people are treated equally and accepted for who they are. they will hear our words and remember our voice, and hope that opposite again this house will do the right thing. >> hear, hear. >> we should indeed treat each other with tolerance, and everybody else's own sexuality with understanding but the fundamental question we're deciding today is whether english law should dedeclare for the first time that two people of the same sex can monomeric. parliament is so much and we can vote for what we want to. but we have to be careful that the law and the attitude do not conflict in 1648 the earl of'em

brooke, saking to make the point of pour of the coverage, said the pair limit can do anything except make a man a woman and a woman a man in 2004 did exactly that for the jennifer definition act. we're now making eannually stark changes with the essence of marriage, and during the civil part fership debates i was given solid i a sures on the noor of the house by the people sitting opposite to me now that the civil partnership bill would not lead to full speck smelling marriage and i'm happy to -- to same-sex marriage and i'm happy to give way to the gentleman who gave me assurances. >> assurances from me are not necessarily going to determine the future of what happens in parliament. but -- so i take the honorable gentlemen. several honorable members have already raise it this matter what i said in that debate then. its certainly true at that time

i believed that civil partner ship was the be all and end all of the story. since then i entered a civil partnership and i believe the world has moved on there are many honorable anns who voted against civil partnerships who now know that britain's mind has changed and must reflect that in the change of the law. you see the worry is that the world in the honorable gentleman's mind may move on again and many of the assurance years knee now being begin may not count for very much. >> this parliament is sovereign it matters not what anybody says in the debate because parliament can trump that with a new law. the point of the honorable gentleman -- the first time been wrong -- vote it for civil partnerships expecting that to be the end of the story. then we're con fronted with thousands of people in this country who are in these

partnerships that would really like be to married and that is what this is about. >> that is precisely now what i want to talk about. what this nature of marriage? the catechism of the roman catholic church describes the institution but anybody of any faith or no faith who supports traditional marriage could echo these words. major is a covenant where a man and woman establish themselves in a part mr.ship for the whole of life. its by nature order for the good of o the spouses and protect indication and education of offspring. what does this tell us? marriage, i believe, and many millions of our fellow citizens believe, marriage is, by its nature, heterosexual union, a bringing together of one man and one woman. it is not just a romantic attachment which can exist between any two people.

it's not just a sexual relationship. it is the act of marriage which by its very definition requires two people of opposite sexes? if you take that basic requirement away, what you are left with is not marriage. the minister claims marriage has always been evolving, but this, mr. deputy speaker, is not evolution. it is revolution. true, i am blessed with six children. i realize not every married couple is able to have the gift of children or indeed may want to yet this doesn't change the fact that that concept of major has been bestowed with a vision of procreation. it brings together biologically those needed to generate a child. the very reason major is underpinned with laws and

customs is because children usually often result from it. they need protecting from the tendency of adults to break their ties and cast off their responsibilities. marriage exists to keep the parents exclusively committed to one another, because that is the best, most stable environment for children. if marriage was solely about the relationship between two people, we would not bother to enshrine it in law. nor would every culture in society and religious for thousands of years have invested it with so much importance because it is about protecting the future. marriage is not about me, me, me, it is not about my rights. it's not about my real estateships, being legal. it is about a secure environment raising children based on life-long commitments and

exclusivity. marriage is also profoundly pro woman, since it is generally men who have the great propensity to want to wander off into other relationships. women in general are literally left holding the baby. we have to get away from the idea that every single thing in life can be forced through the merciless prism of equal. i am a conservative. i do believe we should be concerned for the quality but not at the expense of every other consideration. not at the expense of tradition. we should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage. otherwise what, ask, is the conservative party for? indeed, we are alienating people who voted for us for all their lives, leading them with no one to -- leaving them with no one to vote for. i was just asked this comment from a lady who e-mailed me. as a gay woman in a 24-year-old relationship i commend you for

your stand against the nonsense now being perpetrated by the government. we have civil partnerships to give legal protections. i contracted one in 2006. i have been a conservative voter for 50 years and see this lettestpiece of nonsense as a final kick in the tee for conserve -- in the teeth for conservatives. i will be voting to pledge my support nor the future of our children and for the essence of traditional marriage. >> thank you, mr. secretary speaker. it's an honor to follow the honorable gentleman. i feel that over the last six months, a certain distress about the way this debate has been managed and the pressure that has been put on so many of my colleagues from pressure groups and churches who, in my view, should have known better than to attach itself. i feel i've been laborerring under a false sense of security,

given the changes made legislatively over the last decade. i did become a full status security but i'm indebted to the prime minister not just for this bill but also to the changes that she has brought about within my party, which has led to my own election and that of many others and has changed the face of the parliamentary party. but i do feel that as a result of this debate, not just -- over the last six months we have gone two steps forward but it fear we have also gone one step backwards, and the modernization of the conservative party is not yet complete. i will give wear to the honorable lady. >> i thank the honorable ready for giving way. has she been like me particularly frustrated by the tactics of the campaign's director of of the the coalition

for marriage who has sent out e-mails, urging people to write their mps, say you'll remember you voting for this bill and you will be held to account. we'll tell your friends and family and we will not vote for you. this is a free vote. members to this house should be voting with their conscience as a free vote requires, not on the basis of threats to future to all electoral promises. >> the honorable lady made her point far better than i could have myself. the coalition of marriage and some of the churches have deliberately and constantly misinterpreted the government's intentions by pretending that we were forcing churches to marry same-sex couples. that is over in the intention to this government. i and other colleagues would never have supported it had it been so. and belatedly, only this weekend, the church of england has finally admitted that it is

not realistic or likely that churches would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings. i made that point earlier. but so easy to say that now, isn't it, when practically every person i meet who doesn't follow the deliberation office political detail in great detail, has said to me, oh, it's about weddings and churches for gay people, isn't it? now, that's the misapprehension that many of my constituents who are opposed to this bill have labored under, including members of my own association, and i'd like to put on record my appreciation of those individuals 0 who have treated me with courtesy and respect such is a cannot in conscience support this bill without fear of favor. but many believe we're legislating for gay wed indigents churches and we are not. i am satisfied by the advice of the attorney general that is of such a small possibility. we heard about the courts and

nobody can legislate against someone challenging something in the courts but the case law in the european court of human rights makes it unlikely any such challenge would succeed. yes, i will give way. >> making a very powerful speech. does she agree with me there are many countries within europe who are members of the council of europe who have introduced same-sex marriage while protecting religious freedom? >> i thank the honorable ladder for intervention and she is absolutely right there was a case in 2010 from austria, and the european court of human rights said there was no obligation of any country on any secular government to guarantee the right office d rights of gay people to marry each other.

other point being made is that the equality isn't all that matters and we're different and we should celebrate differences. i agree with that see. celebrate cultural and other differences. but having been different for most of my life, mr. deputy speaker, i can assure you that being treated equal is very welcome indeed and we still have some way to go, not just in the area of gay people but in other areas... e we may end up like the republican party who lost the election last indicative on for the socially conservative agenda. while i support hasn't been raised and that is a gays people have been allowed to marry as long as they choose someone of the opposite not. this is an politics for reasons

that are well known. many gay people today appreciate the civil partnership, but do want more, do what the status of marriage and i'm particularly thinking of the younger people who didn't have to grow in the environment some of us have had to grow up then and i support their right to declare their love in a state of marriage and i can assure members this will not undermine tradition. >> mr. deputy speaker, i want to set misgivings about this bill. i'm not going to vote against tonight because i don't see it being scrutinized by committee, but expect to vote against the third reading. my honorable friend in some of his interventions on this topic has been right to do so not on the basis that it must be true, but the basis of church of

england was the custodian of marriage in britain were hundreds of years and for many people still lives. ibm back >> can i point the church of england has never been a custodian of government. >> that is absolutely right. the 1562 version of the church of england for the past 251 years set out three reasons for marriage, the first of which ordained for the procreation of children to be brought up a good lord. essential problem of this bill, it seems to me, introduces a definition of marriage, which comprises numbers two and three from that list, but drops number one. ..

the church of england service applied. the children are at thell. marriage. myth honorable friend barely itntioned in the bill.he mome, the bill mentions the benefit i marriage to people excluded at the moment, but doing it at thea price of taking away significant lort of its meaning.ou a children are the recent relati marriages bensalem portends.inng it was purely about a livingporh

relationship two people that ity is secretary of state said at the beginning of the debate would be much less important. sc does that matter, mr. deputysma speaker? it does because it is right for society to recognize as marriagh does, the value to all of us at the contribution of those whoid both bring children into the world and bring them up as well. isat is the ideal the currente m definition of marriage reflectsh it will be a mistake to lose thn value which places on the be cie creation and bringing up of children. and in the end, it will be children who lose out if we do.l >> the young portends foried? children, is he suggesting perhaps children should only beo adopted by couples who are married? or does somehow,ntage have a love their right to five

lesser right to have loving parents who are married. >> i am not cite -- saying either of those. i am simply making the point remains the ideal for the two parents who have together created a child to bring that child out. legal equality, mr. deputy speaker, was delivered quite rightly by the introduction of several partnerships, and if there are weaknesses in those arrangements they should be put right. in particular, i see no problem with same-sex unions being celebrated places of worship were congregation's want to do so. same-sex couple can have the same wish to affirm and to have affirmed a lifelong exclusion of commitment as a man and woman getting married. we should value that and be willing to recognize and to celebrate it. but this bill does not a firm that same-sex unions are equal with marriage rather that they are the same as marriage when in reality they aren't.

they are different. and mr. deputy speaker, i do think if we adopt a watered-down definition of marriage based on two names from the church of england's list instead of all three. >> mr. deputy speaker, it is quite obvious from the tenor of this debate that this proposed legislation presents many problems of people both in this chamber and beyond. at the constituents and colleagues who are now they're prejudiced or homophobic the new -- genuinely believe it is impossible to change the meaning of marriage, which is what this bill seeks to do. people with deep religious beliefs see this attempt to change the law as an undermining of a fundamentalist egyptian. now i think by its very introduction this bill has no undermined the perception of civil partnerships that was so

widely celebrated only a few years ago. i understand many your people are not bothered by this, but many older people do not understand this government's imperative to change the law in this area. they're may be a case for examining any legal precedent that exists for same-sex couples and stressing in the weaknesses in the civil partnership legislation. but this legislation was not in our manifesto. it was not in the condition agreement, and it was not in the speech. it should not have been introduced before a much fuller discussion had taken place, particularly, i believe, within my own party. i give way. >> the lady shares my puzzlement as to why the prime minister specifically not refers to it just before an election. >> i think there has been many conflicting messages coming of

government, and i think that the hon. lady has just alluded to one of them. indeed, at a meeting that i attended in the house of lords only a few weeks ago with the then new archbishop of canterbury one of the bishops actually told of the church has not been fully consulted. i believe only a few weeks ago the church should have been fully involved in all discussions on this matter. if the government had, perhaps, thought to redefine single partnership or indeed if they could really ensure their religious freedom that they're promising would stick, i think more people would have been persuaded to support this legislation. >> would see except that some of us, not exactly ideal that we may find ourselves abstaining because that is the only way of making the point of why we are

debating has merit and it has not been the case. and while i would like to make clear that i am not emphatically opposed to change to my duty to be convinced that it is necessary that it be thought through. not able to deal with the basic details. i really do despair. >> i think that she has spoken for many people in this house actually on both sides. i think the secretary of state is doing the impossible in this bill, trying to change the meaning of the word marriage, and as no government is able to protect religious freedom, i am going to have a problem supporting this bill tonight. he said that our issues, well, i believe the issues with this legislation cannot be resolved. therefore it is with great sadness i'm going to vote down

this bill tonight. >> thank you, mr. deputy speaker, i thought long and hard about speaking in this debate. i genuinely feared the current debate and our colleagues would speak to oppose the bill. when they talked about the marriage making them physically sick or when a colleague suggested it was a step towards realizing polygamy -- >> give way. >> i won't. >> they need to remember that there are people involved, people's lives are involved and we sugar rather word spoken in this chamber hurt far beyond this chamber will we speak. the deputy speaker, when i was elected to this house in may may 2010 it was, perhaps, the proudest day of my life. i should point out actually it was the second brightest day of my life because the proudest day

was when i entered into my civil partnership which i did six years ago with my partner of 21 years. our civil partnership was a huge step forward for us, and yet many argue that we should be content with our civil partnership. after all, it affords all the same legal protections as marriage. but i ask my married colleagues, did you get married for legal protections it afforded? did you bell on monday and say, darling, please give me the protections marriage affords us? of course you didn't. my friends and my family, this is why love, this is 2im, this is to my waist to spend the rest of my life with. deputy speaker, i am not asking for special treatment. i am simply asking for equal treatment. now, deputy speaker, people have

talked about defense. but sometimes it's about doing what is right, not what is popular, and i congratulate the prime minister on leading on this. this issue has caused anxiety amongst colleagues and the monks constituents. some argue it's not the right time. it is the right time and we should simply get on with it. so much of our time in this house is spent on technical legislation. today we have an opportunity to do what is right, to do some good. i am a member of this parliament , and i say to my colleagues, i sit alongside you in committee in the bond and in

the tea room, cue alongside you in the petition lobby, when it comes to marriage why are you asking this to stand apart and to join a separate queue? i ask my colleagues, if i ever equal in this house, give me every opportunity to be equal. today we have a chance to set that right, and i hope colleagues will join me in voting yes deceiving. >> year. >> with that. >> deputy speaker, the campaign for marriage. done a fantastic job informing them of the members of this house but also a wider public about this issue. i oppose this legislation for five key reasons. first, i believe it is simply wrong in principle. to overturn centuries of established custom requires a proper explanation beyond the equality mantra. what shock of wisdom suddenly right upon my right hon. friend which has been denied

distinguished forbearers. how come they think they know better than the established church? the chancellor to pray and aid the arguments that marriage has evolved over time is simply disingenuous. up pointed out, nothing like this has been proposed in parliament ever before. this is a massive change. the core fabric of our society to a challenge it poses to the whole institution of marriage. similar legislation in 2005 and has fallen by 20%. since all research shows that children raised in marriage and -- merrill households with a mother and father tend to fare better than those are not the government threatens to damage the life chances of the nation's children that did the prime minister or any other party leader has a mandate.

since it was not in any party's manifesto let alone the coalition agreement. the target gross aid on the grounds that he gave a commitment in 2009 and a respectable that. he instructed that commitment, but not to the commitment to introduce tax breaks for married couples, and he has never invented a policy which he specifically ruled out that the last general election. >> believes there should be done is have a draft bill with a freak registered scrutiny. >> absolutely, and i think that to initially cautious about constitutional change, but not this administration. sweeping reform exchange and the success is allow this all to be rushed through a timetable motion subject to a three line. this is no way to treat parliament or colleagues to have

strong convictions either way on what is a very sensitive and informed tribute to all of us and our constituents. thirdly, if there is no mandate, where is the demand for this change? yesterday's daily mail, the daily mail. [laughter] i found out that -- [inaudible conversations] the daily mail. found out that only one in 14, that is 7 percent of those questioned thought this should be a priority. other probe found that only 6 percent of the ethnic communities, the very people this party is apparently out to woo. i give way to my right and honorable friend. >> i think my hon. friend. the majority of the population apparently don't care very much about what they're talking about today.

for those people that do care, in my constituency, written to be in huge numbers saying please oppose it. far greater those people who will be rejoicing, would you agree with me on that? >> i agree with my honorable and gallant friend, from my constituents, the perfect legislation. this legislation if it passed. so forcefully the civil partnerships which provide most of the benefits of marriage to those in the gay community. reservations at the time were reassured that they should not be seen as the forerunner of today's bill. in another place in 2004, i love to put our position very clearly. rights and responsibilities to

people in same-sex committed relationships. we do not see it as analogous to marriage. we do not see it as a drift towards gay marriage. clearly those beyond today's proposals feel the sense of the obligation rising from those assurances given to years ago. how can we ensure that this is now going to be the end of this business or whether there will be more? my right and honorable friend has alluded to consequences. the department granted, i quote : no teacher will be required to go against their beliefs. doing it very gallant job under difficult circumstances. there will be no requirement teachers to promote same-sex marriage, but she added ominously, obviously would not be expected to be teachers to be offensive or discriminative in any way. what kind of guidance does that give the teachers in our country who have had a profound

projection. mr. deputy speaker, i am not a modernizer. [laughter] i believe marriage can only be between a man and woman. i will leave the consultation process was a complete sham oppressed by the established church the penniless division within the conservative party. the nation's faces much more serious challenges which the government needs to address. and therefore open prate that this measure will be rejected if not in this place in the other place.

and also because i know that the overwhelming number of my constituents are also against this bill. under one fundamental misconception, and that is the man or the women are equal before the law and therefore they are the same. they're not the same. men and women are different and maybe equal before the law, what we cannot force them into a marriage when we have a marriage which is set up of the moment as between a man and woman. one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

we ignore that fact at our peril. >> my hon. friend raises a good point which is the sufficiency which many of us had. i'm curious. the actual age profile. surely, like most of the estimate is those people who tend to be much older, 60 plush -- 60 plus. if any of my children thought that i was actually going to oppose this bill, these -- the vast majority support this bill. >> we must have intervention that everyone wants to contribute. and it is important we hear everybody's voice. >> i cannot answer for my hon. friend. only constituency in the country. so i put that on the record. these proposals were not in our

manifesto. they're not in the coalition agreement, and they are expressly ruled out three days before the general election. in 2004 was a member of the standing committee of the civil partnership to build, and i led 89 divisions in that standing committee. i argued then then they argue now that we are -- we should be giving status to civil partnerships which is the same for both men and women. it's interesting that during the course of this debate, a number of hon. members of both sides have said that they think the civil partnerships should be extended to heterosexual as well as to homosexuals. i raise this, a prime minister at a meeting profile two years ago. tell me that he is against all marriage like arrangements. the view.

we should exclude sold partnerships and that the bill should be amended to delete several partnerships in the future allowing possible partnerships to commence. the alternative is to allow several partnerships. if we allow several partnerships i think that if we leave the situation were several partnerships are only available to same-sex couples at the same time as giving the same-sex couples access to marriage we would not be able to argue a case in the european court of human rights. we should be discussing this bill and committee and submitting it to a pre legislative scrutiny.

that is why i shall be voting against the motion and against the carrier over motion because what is an obscenity is that the government persuaded this house to an institute carryover motions of a standard form of the standing orders on the basis that we would then be able to the carryover bills subject to pre legislative scrutiny and then brought forward as a proper bill. what is happening now is the government not having -- having any motion is not having a draft bill, not even having any pre legislative scrutiny but trying to push this bill through very quickly because they see -- >> do you not also think that it is really quite outrageous that the committee has not been taken on an all in the house? any measure of this should be

taken on the floor of the house direct isn't my right and honorable friend agree? >> absolutely. i think also we should have taken today is for the second meeting -- meeting in debate. also with the prime minister on this issue, but there is no reason to be at odds with the prime minister and issues a procedure and process. if the prime minister is really interested in the privacy of this chamber and is not what, why will he agree to having a long discussion over this bill. this bill should be up for as a fresh bill and the time between now and then should be spent having proper scrutiny. very important advice when we were discussing the civil partnerships bill. we had not heard from either select community because it is being rushed through. the consequence of that is that when it gets to the other place,

i hope the other place would give it a pretty bloody nose. >> mr. deputy speaker, can i take a minute. i was the minister that took through the agenda recognition bill. although there would be much more, look back on this moment with great pride in her career. the measure of the civilized democracy and how we treat minorities. wear rubber those who served on the report. after you campaign for men -- many years, a gay sex and those including in my local authority in the 1980's wanted to fund paid groups come see our children understanding these complex issues and face clause 28, and that might say, had we not pass that clause we might have come to this moment a little sooner.

and so it is to them that we pay tribute as we move forward in the way we do. >> the introduction of section 28, if it had not been introduced three might have contradicted much earlier. >> my hon. friend is right, and that was the most pristine of this house where we turned on an important minority. now, i received many letters from people for whom this is all coming to send. they say that the speed of change for lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights is happening to abruptly for them to comprehend, but the country they live in, the traditions that the live by, and the people that they live next to a transforming in ways that make them feel uncomfortable and undermined. they're not racist, but they say not know, later.

and to some extent the sympathize. as much as i would want britain to always be the beating heart of a radical and progressive change, it isn't. it has always had a small beacon that runs through. an instinct of change that should always be organic, and need for change to be owned by the people not imposed from up high and that we must respect that. i will be respecting that when i vote for this bill. it does respect religious freedom and tradition by submitting rather than maintaining the organization to conduct. it is in the end of an organic journey from criminality to equality to the a community that began over a half century ago. this change is right and necessary, and the time is now. this is all unnecessary. why do we need came marriage a

we already have several partnerships, they said. they are the same, except to five separate but equal, they claim. let me speak frankly. separate but equal is a fraud. separate but equal is the language that tries to push rosa parks to the back of the bus. separate but equal is the motive that determines that black and white people could not possibly drink from the same water fountain to meet at the same table, or use the same toilet. separate but equal is the words that justifies spending -- sending children to different schools that would bail them ann them to a life of poverty. is an excerpt from the segregationist and the racist. it is this same statement, the same ideas, and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote, but only if they were married and only when they were over 30. it is the same meditate that

gave wait for my dad being a citizen when he arrived here in 1956 but refused by landlords and proclaimed no rights, no irish, though -- entrance to we were, who our friends could be and what our lives to become. this is not separate but equal. it is separate and discriminated , separate and repressed, separate and browbeaten, separate and subjugated. separate is not equal. so let's be rid of it. as long as there is one for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to exist and the acceptance goes unchallenged. as long as our statute suggests that up between two men and two women is unworthy of being recognized her marriage we allowed a run of homophobia to affect us. we entrench in society where 20,000 homophobic crimes take place to -- take place each year. work a thousand people have witnessed, formidable being at work in the last five years.

i am a christian. i don't -- i go to mass. >> it is a privilege to hear this extraordinary impassioned. the lives of those around him. >> that's totally except the manner in which my hon. friend has put this to mark. people who share the same values of christian ideas that i do on a sunday morning, and i know to be caring, loving, and understanding people. another resent this. the extremes. poisoned an important debate with polygamy and bestiality.

when i married my wife i understood our marriage to have to important dimensions committee expression of love, fidelity, and the jollity and, of course, a commitment to raise children. is the case that they men and women can raise children. this house made that decision. that is -- did jesus is no was born illegitimate with the death or about his name in a barn among animals. he would stand up for minorities.

>> what i've discovered to have gotten older and more mature is the absolute worst strategy to achieve happiness in life is to make prayer primary goal. if you make happiness which are striving for, you will not achieve it. you will end up to be narcissistic, self-involved, carrying about your own pleasures and satisfactions in life is your paramount goal. what i found this happiness is a best-of-five product of other things. of meaningful work, family and friends and good house and love and care. we get happiness not by aiming directly for it, that turned

ourselves into life products and trained to have integrity and be a good person. >> the old north church is boston's most visited historic site. over half a million people come to this church every year because of our amazing boxed views are incredible or again. they come here because the events that have been of the night of april 1919th 1775. what most folks don't realize is what actually did happen here is still a genuine historical mystery. we have very few records about what actually occurred on the

night the plane that carried out in this church. we know from mr. revere himself that there is a plan set up ahead of time across the way. he set it up on sunday. but what we don't know is who actually helped mr. revere carry out that plan. >> rea carey, head of the train gay and transfer task force discusses the fight for equal rights for people in the military. this is about 45 minutes. [cheers and applause]

>> to have lipstick on my face from kate? if not, you've got to come back and do it again. wow. i just have to say this, thank you for that introduction, mr. president. i've always wanted to say that. hello, atlanta. if you are from the south, give a shout out. make some nice if you are from the south. [cheers and applause] it's great to be harassed him a southerner to this. if you're psyched to be in atlanta, make some noise. [cheers and applause] this is going to be a good few days, definitely is. and you know, there are many, many years when we come together here at creating change what we could still feel the sting of

the ballot box that we were worried about the habit that an anti-lgbt president might cause for our lives, our country and our world. we've come together in years when our renewed hopes that some state referendum would confirm a swing in the national minds that were dashed. there have been years when we would come near to lift each other up, to assure each other that change would have been, that change was happening despite our losses and despite our fear, that's something that never changed the national sentiment. but this is not that year. [cheers and applause] this is not one of those years.

this year we come together to celebrate. this year was the year when enough people stick together, join together and said enough, enough. enough with being marginalized. enough with being ignored. enough with being treated like we and our families and votes don't count. [cheers and applause] women, latinos, african-americans and progressive people of faith came together across the country in the deciding difference at the ballot box. last year, for those of you here recall that both been jealous, president of the naacp and i made an urgent call to fight the birder suppression efforts underway and we did.

[cheers and applause] in 2012, those who sought to deny our voices went too far and as people of color and people in poor communities and to the polls, determined to have their voice, tasted layer and stood there and stood there until they could cast their votes and be heard. that my friend -- that my friend is the worry over oppression and it to recover systemic racism. [cheers and applause] and is also a victory for human dignity. yes, we have got to do so much more. but think of that, we have a record number seven members of congress. we were afraid of keeping the ones we had. a number first.

including the first woman senator from the great gate of 10, senator tammy baldwin. [applause] and in an historic first, our first out the essential member of congress, kiersten cinema from arizona. [cheers and applause] and our first out japanese-american congressman, mark takano of california. [cheers and applause] i saw all of them early this month and i got sworn in at night telling you, they are ready to go. the tables are turning. this year, a broad coalition of voters showed up for young immigrants in maryland and impervious gateway dream that, showing our country with true

opportunity looks like. [applause] and this year, and sterling noted, voters returned, barack hussein obama to the white house has not only tenants treated with his actions and he is the most lgbt support a president in the history of her country, but with inclusion of the 1969 stonewall rebellion in his deny girls beach, he squarely placed lgbt air-quality in a long lineage of movement that abed watershed moments from seneca falls to sell not. [applause] and we will work to get him to stay more than just gay. [cheers and applause] as i sat at the foot of the

capitol, honor to attend inauguration, holding my daughter's hand, listening to the president, watching that fierce latina justice sonia sotomayor swearing in the vice president, hearing a more inclusive and addiction, being transported by the poetry of richard ronco come a gay cuban immigrant and of course the implication by civil rights leader. lushes say i thought yes, yes, this is the country i know. this is the country want my daughter to grow up in. what happened on the steps of the capitol this week was in so many ways remarkable. real change. but it was also made inevitable because of the work you in this room and many across the country

has done for decades. [cheers and applause] you make that happen. you make those words come out of our presidents mouth. and this year, after losing 31 times at the ballot box cut 31 times, but who's counting commit this year we won big on marriage. we beat opponents in america and one marriage equality maine, maryland and washington state. if you're from minnesota, and name, maryland or washington state come to stand up so we can applaud you. [cheers and applause] ap posted on facebook or twitter

or otherwise encourage people to vote the right way, stand or raise your hand if you contributed in any way to the swing, if he gave up time or money, stand or raise your hand and let us applaud you. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. the task force is proud to dedicate our grassroots training, leadership development support, social media machine and expertise in all four of the states to contribute to a history making election. in fact, that by the task force organizers foodstuff, i'd like to thank our staff who are unmarried, marilyn [cheers and applause] and against the death penalty in california. thank you, task force staff.

[applause] as always, task force did what they do best. working at the grassroots level, organizing and engaging voters in this year we expanded the focus by mobilizing progressive people of faith. and guess what? it worked. why not categories, such congregations, walk neighborhood and had thousands of one-on-one conversations they changed the osiris and changed people's posts. [applause] , they extended that success this last year it even more powerful, more meaningful and more lasting is that it wasn't just the lgbt community. it wasn't just lgbt people who worked and celebrated these when. in fact, some of the very first

calls and e-mails i got in the president came out for a marriage last spring, marriage equality one in state after state after state after state, those were from leaders of civil rights, labor, and other non- lgbt communications. one message we can take away from election night 2012, it is that we are not allowed. [applause] we are not alone as a movement. we are not alone as a people and we need to now make sure that no one else is allowed either. [applause] they can about so many people here in the south than elsewhere they still face isolation. yet it is fighting and living

under church's reprehensible immigration law. [applause] and speaking about the young women fighting over project the right and just as in unwelcoming areas and those still living in debilitating poverty, the kind of poverty we don't even want to acknowledge still exists in our country because the very fact it still does say rob reminder that our economy and our public policy still play favorites. [applause] for 40 years, task force has been at the forefront of our movements work for freedom,

justice, liberation and equality. and for 25 years, we've been creating change teachers strategy kind of skills and plan the future. 40 years doesn't seem so long today not that there's a better back. the momentum of change growing at a little spring in our step, but we can never forget what it took us to get to this day. his struggles, sacrifices, loss and pain we enter as a movement. those strong shoulders and brave hearts that held us up and moved us forward, some are here today to enjoy the fruits are a laborer, but are not because of hava name and cancer for the sheer weight of what a person does to a person.

to honor them, they must not rest. we must not slow down. they must not stop preaching that we must never forget where we came from. and so today, as the task force celebrates its 40th anniversary come we must let backward and forward. like other movements before us, we been fortunate to have dynamic determines smart and passionate leaders willing to step forward to expose her nations disturbing gaps in freedom and cause mass to date for moral compress and push our country forward. leaders like del martin and phyllis lyon who still carries on despite dell's passing. [applause]

harvey milk, frank jiminy, vera martin and alexis rivera. [applause] and despite all their accomplishments, i suspect not one of them would claim to have made them alone. in communities across the country, taken together with lovers, friends, compatriots of the struggle for human rights. they created family, chosen family. and while the lgbt community didn't invite adventures and family family, through necessity and struggle to survive and live we may have perfect today. [applause] i've been in this movement a lot

time and we have changed everything for the words were used to describe her as each other to change in the words are used our marriage campaign. we learned over time and through more than a few losses were truly touches people's emotions and what changes their votes, that a vote is a personal thing, that it's as much a thing of the heart as it is a mind. as it worked to gain recognition of our relationships, we learned about rights, privileges and obligations. all of those pricey marriages to touch people's hearts in the same way as talking about love and commitment. so today i challenge is to take to heart the word family, love

and commit, but let's not restrict or limit them to one view of what our families are supposed to look like. [applause] but family and love and commitment expand our lives, not restrain them. after all, from the very first moments of her modern lgbt movement, we have given shape to the word family, not the other way around. and we out of our experience has created beautiful, expansive chosen families. as the saying goes, an army of lovers on the case of our movement, an army of ex-lovers often mix up our families.

[applause] i am of course not speaking for myself, just other people of course. [laughter] our movement must be one that embraces the many, many ways we create and she's family. we want family that understands, that has their back, texas at what up when we need it, that pushes us further when we tire, a family that walks in the door when everyone else has walked out. that's how i like to think of our movement and task for stealing 40 years. it can seem a bit cliché chautauqua at the task force's families, but to those who might think it's a cliché, all i have to say is you all the task force. for 40 years, task versus been

an incubator helping to create scores of work and his stations country dirt campaign initiatives and late-night meetings that creating change, activists just like you and many of you have created groups that are picked up the fight for people with hiv and a come antivirus programs, youth activism, campaigns to work against the defense of marriage act and "don't ask, don't tell" and strengthen our movements work against racism and for economic justice. [applause] is why as we celebrate 40 years of a task worse is really a celebration of our move and family, you and your work and there's one marker. today i want to welcome to our family. thanks to the los angeles lgbt center, there's a group of 26

hiv/aids and lgbt activists today from china and taiwan. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] i was fortunate to spend time at them yesterday. we went through a lot of pizza and i have to tell you i am so inspired by your vision and your creativity and your drive. they are the founders of the train of movement in china and taiwan and we welcome you. [cheers and applause]

again and again, we show up for each other, add new people to her family and unfortunately at times these members of our family. we've had an unusual number of deaths this year. our staff and board members lost parents, grandparents, key task force volunteers and tragically a child every lassie dear friend and coworker in seeing the green who has many of you know was an extraordinary woman who worked for the task force for a decade and greeted people creating change at the registration desk every year. sandy was not afraid to say that if a black, straight woman, she was part of the family working

for civil rights for all. [cheers and applause] i so wish he could've seen the president's speech. she would've loved it. but lost is that we can ask. it doesn't have to weaken us. and this room of our chosen family as well as those who are miles away and could not be with us, but who are family, to, we must choose to be strengthened. we have known for a long time but unfortunately, there are those who dedicate themselves to trying to tear us apart, to separate us, to undermine the justice we have one. it's certainly something we've seen in the south, some day we still see. as they move back, we can learn from brothers and sisters in the

south about sticking together as a social justice family, perseverance and resistance. the politics of division and greed, vestiges of slavery but till shape opinion and policies and still contribute to a modern, systemic disenfranchisement yet to be overcome, this is our struggle, too. [applause] and those who seek to divide us need to take a look at this room. more than 3000 out, proud, determined, not intimidated, not going anywhere coming here in atlanta, our bonds of love together. [cheers and applause] nothing can divide us. not after what we've all been through together.

i saw the true power of this commitment and strength on election night. i was in maine on election night. [cheers and applause] a few mainers in the room. after a late night of celebration and being up until 4:00 a.m. with nominees of our brothers and sisters in other states, i got up, headed to the airport the next morning, proudly wearing my shockingly bright orange, yes i am one t-shirt. i understand minnesota knows that orange, too. person after person, almost all straight kept saying finally, finally, finally. they were sharing in our joy. as i was enjoying a celebratory lobster roll at the airport for practiced -- they have really good lobster rolls and the airport there.