labour, but many are not because of hiv and aids and cancer or the sheer weight of what oppression does to a person. to honor them we must not rest. we must not slow down. we must not stop preaching, and we must never forget where we came from. and so today as a test for celebrates its 40th anniversary we must look both backward and forward. like other social justice movements before us we have been fortunate to have a dynamic determined smart and passionate leaders willing to step forward to expose our nation's disturbing and painful gaps in freedom and then call on

us to dig for our moral compass and push our country forward. leaders like del mar. in and phyllis lion who still carry on, despite the passing of del. frank kennedy, barrick lost and, if your margin. [applause] despite all their accomplishments i suspect not one of them would claim to have made the loan. in communities across the country they came together with lovers, friends carry compatriots in the struggle for human rights, they created families. chosen families. well the community suddenly did not invent the idea of a dozen

family i believe through necessity and through our struggle to survive and to love for the may have perfected. [applause] i have been in this movement along time, and we have changed everything from the words we use to describe our love for each other to changing the words we use in our marriage campaigns. we learned over time and through more than a few losses what truly touches people's emotions and what changes their votes, that a vote is a personal thing, that it is as much a thing of the harnesses of the mind. and we work, as we work to gain recognition of our relationships we have learned that talking about rights and privileges and obligations, all of those parts of marriage don't really touched people's hearts in the same way

as talking about love and commitment. and so today, today i challenge us to take to heart the words family, love, and commitment, but let's not restrict or limit them to one view of what our families are supposed to look like. [applause] let family and love and commitment expand our lives cannot restrain them. after all, from the very first moment of our modern movement we have given shape to the word family, not the other way around and we coming out of our experience have created

beautiful, expensive, at chosen families. as the saying goes, an army of lovers or in the case of our movement an army of ex lovers often makes up our family. [applause] i am, of course, not speaking for myself. this is other people, of course. our movement must be one that embraces the many, many ways we create and choose family. we want family that understand, has our back, picked this up when we needed, pushes us further would retire. a family that rocks in the door with everyone else has worked out. and that is how like to think of our movement and test for a family of four years.

sure, it can seem a bit cliche to talk up the task force is a family, but to those who might think it is a cliche, all i have to say is, you don't know the task force. for 40 years the task force has been an incubator helping to create scores of organizations across the country, through our campaigns, initiatives, and through late-night meetings we are creating change. activists just like you and in fact many of you have created groups that have picked up the fight for people with hiv and aids, anti virus programs, youth activism, the original campaigns to work against the so-called defensive marriage act and don't ask don't tell and strengthen our movements work against racism and for economic justice. [applause] it is why, as we celebrate 40

years of a task force it is really a celebration of our movement, celebration of you and your work, and there is one more group here today i want to welcome to our family. thanks to the los angeles elegy bt's center there is a group of 26 hiv aids and elegy bt activists here today from china and taiwan. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] i look forward to spend time with them. we went through a lot of pizzas, 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 lgb t movement in china and taiwan, and we welcome you. [applause] again and again we show up for each other, add new people to our family and unfortunately at times this members of our family. we have had an unusual number of deaths this year. our staff and board members lost parents, grandparents, a key task force volunteers and tragically a child. and we lost a dear friend and co-worker in san the green who, as many of you know, was an extraordinary woman who worked for the task force for a decade

and greeted people at creating change at the registration desk every year. sandy, sandy was not afraid to say there was a black straight woman and was part of a family working for civil rights for all [applause] iso wish -- i so wished she could have seen the president's speech. she would have loved it. but it does not weaken us. it does not have to weaken us. in this room of our chosen family as well as those who are mall the way to 5 miles away and could not be with us we have known for a long time that unfortunately there are those to dedicate themselves to trying to terrace apart from a separate

us, undermine the social progress and justice we have one. it is certainly something we have seen here in the south, something we still see. as a movement to we can learn from our brothers and sisters in the south about sticking together as a social justice family, about perseverance, and about resistance. the politics of division and greed, the vestiges of slavery that still shape opinion and policies and still contribute to a modern systemic disenfranchisement that is yet to be overcome, this is our struggle to. [applause] and those who seek to divide us need to take a look at this room . more than 3,000 out, proud, determined, not intimidated, not going anywhere, reaffirming our

chosen family, our bonds of love together, nothing, nothing can divide us, not after what we have been through together. i saw the true power of this commitment and this trend on election night. i was in maine of election night . a few in the room. after a late night celebration and being up until 4:00 a.m. waiting of the news of the brothers and sisters in other states, i got up, headed to the airport the next morning, proudly wearing my shockingly bright orange yes on one t-shirt i understand minnesota knows that, person after person almost all of them kept coming up and saying finally, finally, finally

there were sharing in our joy. as i was enjoying as a laboratory lobster roll at the airport for breakfast. [laughter] they have really good lobster rolls of the airport there, this woman came up to me and introduced herself as soup -- of course, drawn by my orange t-shirt. a long time meter and a captain in the u.s. coast guard. she gave me what is called a challenge : from the u.s. coast guard given for going above and beyond the call of duty, and she said this is to remind you of who you are working for, who your helping, and by implication how much we still have left to do and what we will need to do to defend our winds. i was inspired by how even

though she has privilege, she will benefit as a service member from the repeal of don't ask don't tell, and she and her partner who she has known since he was a kid will now have the choice to get married if they want to. she has challenged me to remember that every day for work remains incomplete to. those of us who do have some privileges must never mistake that for real equality for freedom for all. [applause] i carried this challenge going with me now. it is a constant weight in my pocket reminding me that as we

win in some areas, like marriage, we must always be clear that we are not of 1-issue movement. [applause] we are not a marriage-only movement. we are not an employment-only movement. we are not in the other all believe movement. we are a movement that cares broadly about the issues that affect our lives. some days i wake up astonished at the pace of progress. but i also wake up angry about the lack of basic, basic protections for lgb t people and families, and i think about how, as we are in the spotlight because of our progress on marriage it can actually be more

challenging to draw attention to the many other issues that affect our lives. we must educate our own community, and we must educate our country. we must choose, as a basic moral value, never to leave any of our movements family behind. [applause] even though we have made extraordinary progress in states that now have marriage equality, and i am thankful i am married. guess what, in a number of states where we have marriage equality we still do not have the protections for lgb t people. think about it. in the coming months thousands of couples will go to maine to maryland, washington, and the other states in d.c. where marriage is legal, friends and

family will surround them, and they will have the weddings of their dreams. they, like our straight friends, will naturally go home to a place a picture, perhaps of their wedding other desk work, and some of them will be fired . they will get fired simply because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, and it is perfectly legal to do so. in four states where marriage equality is legal, a couple can invite their transition their friends and they're wedding, but if those friends try to check into a hotel they could easily and legally be denied a room simply because they are transgendered. ..

can be left behind by our movement and by our country. [applause] and the movement as activists, and human beings, we're called in the very midst of our joy of our celebration to say it is not enough unless our entire family can experience full freedom justice, and equality. it is not enough for parents who send their children to school

each day worried, feared she would return home with a black eye and broken rib and crushed self-esteem. it's not enough. when many of us believe we are safe but only because we have the economic privilege to move to a different city or neighborhood. that is not freedom. that is not freedom. [applause] you will never be -- you will never be free until every single one of us feels safe to express others sexually, intellectually, and spirit and support our homes, places of work. >> i'm beyond hope. i know, i know that our movement can do something extraordinary. we set our intentions behind it. i know, we will not leave any

one of us behind. we must not leave any of our families or family members behind. when we win federal marriage equality, we will. we must not leave behind the 31 states that will sit need to overturn the constitutional bans on marriage equality. [applause] we must not be satisfied with some state that's have marriage and others that do not. we must not leave behind those who will choose not to get married.

[applause] we must not leave behind those in the 29 states that have no protection for lgbt people. we must not leave behind those just because they adopt live in a big city can't kiss their lover on the street. we must not leave behind the transgendered immigrations who has the true self-not honored as she is detained in the men's facility. [applause] as we win in-housing, public accommodation and housing we will we must continue to ask who in our family is hurting. who is unable to live their lives completely free of prejudice and violence and persecution.

this is our moment. this is our lgbt movement moment. but if we are to be truly transformational as movement, we must use this moment not only to benefit lgbt people, but to benefit the country as a whole. that is our leadership challenge as a movement. [applause] this year, i have seen hundreds of ways we stand with each other, hold each other as family how we expand our hearts, love and commitment and compassion for each other. i have seen activists risk deportation by being out about being gay and an immigrant dare to tell the story of their whole

identity. you'll get to meet them tomorrow. [applause] i have been with reproductive rights and justice leaders we work to make the connection between our two movements with this movement of the 0th anniversary roe v.wade. [applause] we have to overcome a hurnlgd to be who we are to survive. to survive another day. we at the task force have been inspired and have inspired for forty years. and part behalf keeps us going for four decades is that we're an organization that is obsessively focused on getting things done on making concrete and tangible and real progress. so as we step in to the

beginning of our next forty years, you can count on us to build power, take action, and create change. we will build power as we officially launch our online grassroots organizing academy. the most sophisticated online training program in the movement, and frankly, in many other movements. we will train and support over 1,000 grassroots activists each year and ensure a diverse and prepared leadership for a movement for years to come. [applause] we will take action on a range of issues that effect the lives of lgbt people including pushing the president to issue an executive order to protect lgbt people from discrimination who work for federal contractors. that will affect millions of people across the country until

congress can get its act together and pass the employment nondiscrimination act. [cheering and applause] we will be pushing -- we will be pushing to finish the work of burying don't ask don't tell by allowing transgendered people and get the same benefits as the straight peers. [cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] we will continue, we will continue to play a leadership role as we have for years in partnering with immigration rights organizations. in advocating for the many areas of comprehensive immigration reform that effect our community including security for binational same-sex couples [applause] including respectful and appropriate treatment of transgender and hiv positive

immigrants. [applause] and ensuring that families are not separate for years on end because of our immigration laws. [applause] and i will say it clearly, creating a path to citizenship is an lgbt issue. [applause] we will create change. the task force will get smarter as we partner with states on ballot measures. in the coming month, the task force along with our colleagues at the ballot initiative strategy center will be sharing with a movement post election research we conducted that takes a hard look at how voters behave

across ballot measures on a rake of issues like marriage and immigration. taxes and education. -- on exactly which voters will vote for and against us based on how they vote on other issues. we will build power, whether he take action, and we will create change. [cheering and applause] i believe, i believe that all movements need guiding principles and values. a true north. and that ours must be love, commitment, and compassion. but it must be an expansive love. a broad commitment to the ways we create family and compassion

that leads to action for those who are marginalized. today we have choices to make about the future of our movement, what will we stand for? what will we stand for? our task force, brother, poet, activist, and creator of change, william brandon -- what will we stand for? he died this year but his words can still help to guide us. he wrote a poem titled "on the occasion of a victory for president elect, senator barack obama" first calls out our nation's history of slavery and then reads; stand up at the

daven this new day. stand up and let your joy proclaim a new life, a new vision, a new way. stand up and protect what our fight has made. the battle has raged blood and pain. we shall overcome will be. we have overcome. stand up what has one can be taken away. stand up, stand up, stand up. [applause]

we must be a movement about possibility over privilege. expanding over narrowing. unity over separation. creating change over settling for what is. we are family. we won't leave any of you

house of lords. here's a 90 minute portion of the debate. >> i beg to the death of marriage to same-sex couples bill be read a second time. mr. speaker, you and i know that every marriage is different. indeed any husband or wife is a member of this house is a very distinct set of challenges to face every day. [laughter] was marriage offers us all is a lifelong partner to share our

journey, a loving, stable relationship to strength a nice and a mutual support throughout our lives. i believe this is something that should be embraced by more couples, feeling, love and commitment is no difference between same-sex couples and opposite not couples. this enables society to recognize that commitment in the same way through marriage. parliament should value people equally and a lot and enabling same-sex couples to marry removes the current differentiation and distinction. there's no single view on equal marriage from religious organization. some are deeply opposed, others tell us they see this as an opportunity to take that to a wider community. [inaudible] >> will the right honorable lady give a guarantee that if this

bill becomes law, no religious denomination, no place of worship, no clergymen or equivalent in other religions will be forced by legal action in the chorus or the community to carry out weddings without their wishes? >> the honorable judge gimenez preempted the later parts of my contribution, but i can say to him was taken seriously all the points he's raised about the need for protection and he will see in some detail on the bill heller put them into place. >> i think by right honorable fred. written to honorable members on the issue of equality between same-sex and different sex individuals. the issues of consummation and

adultery, while they will continue to be important aspects, they will not apply to marriage. they are both equal and should be a lifelong union. >> my honorable friend will know already there's no legal requirements to consummation, their provisions will mean ochiltree stays in couples will have the opportunity to decide on reasonable good behavior as many do already and issues he raises adults and not way. perhaps we can make more progress because 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 principled religious beliefs. and i entirely respect if the honorable gentleman would give me a bit more progress. i don't think it's the role of

government to tell people what to believe, but i do think parliament and the states have a responsibility to treat people fairly. i'll give weight to my honorable friend over there. >> i'm grateful for the minutes. will she take this opportunity to confirm that those opponents of this bill, many hundreds of my constituents are not amarnath tickets. [shouting] >> i think my honorable friend makes his point very well. >> i think my honorable friend. i very much support this bill. i do regret it's been programmed. there should be two days to second race of people can express views. >> my honorable friend knows that tape is not a serious seriously and id. we have to make sure there is sufficient debate. i think per the usual channels

they made sure that is the case. i hope my honorable friend will be very pleased to see the progress we've made on that. if i can perhaps nothing make a little more progress and not take mentions in a moment. some say this bill, mr. speaker, redefines marriage, but marriage is in fact an institution with a long history of adaptation and change. in the 19th century, catholics, baptists, atheists and many others were only allowed to marry if they did so at an anglican church and in the 20th century, changes were made to recognize married man and women and equal before the law. suggestions this bill changes something that has remained unchanged for centuries simply does not recognize the rows of marriage cobbled as an institution. i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> would she bear in mind that

when homosexuality was decriminalized, there's a great deal of opposition for the bill and a great deal of opposition. bush do not agree they would be hardly a single number we wish to return to the situation, which existed prior to 1967 l. and this is not possible within a few years if this passes, will be generally accepted by the 1967 act. >> the right general men is ray. we must not legislate today commended the future as well, honorable gentleman. >> i'm going to support the ministers bills because they think the principle is dry. i'm not sure why i should enjoy a right or privilege and denied to others. i wonder, why she hasn't confined herself a civil

marriage would be a much easier area to deal with? >> with the honorable gentleman will know as there are many other organizations come in many religious organizations have expressed an interest in being able to undertake same-sex marriages. we believe it's right to be able to do that and that's why there's provisions in the bill to be able to do that if they so choose. if honorable members can let me make a little more progress on the multics or interventions. mr. speaker, marriage should be, as we've heard defended and promoted in every way to those who argue civil partnerships exist and contain very similar -- to those who argue they contain very similar riots, marriage is just a word and this bill is unnecessary, 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 of marriage for couples to enter a lifelong commitment together should be able to call it marriage. >> i will vote for the second reading of the bill because i support the principle the minister has just enunciated. but the last intervention in important point about making sure we purchased a carefully detailed to the state can do with camacho civil marriage and not religious beliefs. will the secretary of state made clear that shall be open to amendments to the drafting of the bill both in committee and report stage that might give us a much better balance and reassuring manner by people that are currently reassured? >> i right honorable friend is right to raise this issue. but i can do is reassure him we've been working very closely, particularly with the church of england, particularly with the

church and whisk, both organizations feel that we have protection fair, but the church of england says they want to see change. i give my honorable friend and lady. >> i'm grateful for giving way. in religious organizations, the secretary will note that the population is not some. what proportion of the muslim community responded ice for it or against it. not a single mosque responded by the definition of marriage. >> my honorable friend will know this is not an issue about numbers. it's about working together and to provide those protections to make sure individuals from whatever faith group can continue to be assured they can practice according to the point of debate today. >> i'm grateful for her getting right and i welcome this bill, but they should understand those

who believe the church of england isn't being given the choice accorded to other states to marry same-sex couples if they so choose. besides from being forced, churches being forced not to marry them, even if some elements would like to do so. >> the honorable lady i think can get complete reassurance from me today that we are not in any way trying to treat the church of england or indeed the church in wales in any way differently. the resulting look at will be exactly the same as other institutions. the difference is the fact that the church of england and with a different duty sender, not to marry people in parishes and indeed they can unlock as part of the law of this land in the church of england. so we do have to have different measures in place to recognize differences, but i can

absolutely assure the honorable lady that either organization choose to opt-in to equal marriage, then they would be able to do so according to provisions in the bill. if honorable ladies and gentlemen can that may make more progress than i make further interventions. mr. speaker, from the contributions we've just heard, there's no doubt about the fundamental importance of faith in this country today. but i don't believe is a country we have to choose between religious belief and fairness for same-sex couples. it is important to remember that religious views on same-sex marriage do differ, too. but there is a quaker communitarians for liberal jewish communities, others have said have said they want to conduct same-sex marriages and indeed, mr. speaker, paul parker who speaks for the quakers said the first same-sex marriage and

a quaker meeting will be a wonderful day for marriage and religious freedom in madison and we do have to respect and we have to take note to. our proposals will ensure all religious organizations can act in accordance with their beliefs because, mr. speaker, equal marriage should not come at the cost of freedom of faith, nor freedom of faith, the cost of equal marriage. we are capable of accommodating both this bill does so in a very straightforward manner. i give way to my honorable friends and the honorable gentleman. >> can she assure us at anytime in the future at a church not wishing to conduct a gay ceremony, can she assure us who would defy the european court of human rights and not try --

[inaudible] [shouting] >> my honorable friend, when i come at a later part of my speech will find that detail he is looking for to provide the assurances he's looking for. >> the honorable rady untranslated is right to say how i execration don't have any compulsion, and he worries about voting. what greater example could it be that jesus christ himself. >> the honorable gentleman makes a powerful point and shows their views on this matter differ not along party lines or lines of religious membership of a particular religious institution , but far more than not. mr. speaker, if i could make a tiny bit of progress and i will of course take some further interventions. now for the provisions in the bill, the bill is honorable

members will now has three parts. in part 1, same-sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies and religious organization protect and those that doubt. it also protects religious ministers and allows for conversion of a civil partnership to a marriage. part 2 enables an individual to change their legal gender without having to add their marriage and also provides overseas marriages and consulate or armed forces bases. part 3 allows for the standard final provisions including secondary legislation. as honorable members have seen when they started the detail of the bill, i have been true to my word and ensure there is clear protection of religious organizations who are opposed to this measure, all religious organizations, whether jewish, muslim, christian or any other will decide for themselves if they want to conduct same-sex

marriage. the bill provides and promotes religious freedom to the government laws. these protections are absolutely on the face of the bill and foundation upon which the legislation is bill. all give way to the honorable gentleman and then my honorable friend. >> i'm grateful to the secretary of state. can she explain why she's bringing the government this bill now at a time when there hasn't been the subject of a green paper or white paper and are set against the government promised to do that they're not doing searches tax allowances. isn't the truth that this is about political calculation rather than anything to do with principle? [shouting] >> the honorable gentleman and i will disagree on this. we are doing this very clearly as an important part that we can make this a fair place to live.

the measure was clearly side up with qualities at the time of election and what a day to say is we will continue to work with our colleagues in northern ireland to make sure we have the right recognition for english and welsh marriages in the northern ireland part of the united kingdom as well. i give way to the honorable member. >> i'm grateful to the secretary of state talking about protections in the bill. we've had the case of mr. adrian smith who lost his job he spent an enormous amount of money in legal fees and had a 40% cut in a salary making a private comment. how are we going to protect people like mr. smith working in the public sector in this country? >> my honorable friend who i know takes a deep interest in these matters is entirely right to bring this up. i actually think the case is

highlighting proves that individuals can express their religious beliefs and the court found that individual favor. i think that's important and players up another country should take clear note of that. [shouting] i'll give way to the honorable gentleman. >> i think the right honorable lady for giving way. she spoke about protections for ministers, but can she also the same two registrars in a number of mixed sex marriage should be expected to fall, will they be confident even if they declined to take on a preside the new same-sex marriage registration they will not lose their jobs or experienced negative employment consequences? >> my honorable friend will know those who are civil registrars by public servants and the recent court rulings make very clear those individuals have to carefully balance their rights

to a religious belief with their right to deeply make sure they provide in a way which doesn't discriminate against individuals. it's a very difficult issue and i know my honorable friend is for the right reasons say something again to be looked at closely in committee. >> i'm grateful to my friend for giving way. roman catholics legalize same-sex marriage in 2005. there's been a single case, single referral to the european court of human rights. >> not that i'm aware of. [shouting] >> i'm grateful for my right honorable friend giving way, but she failed to answer the point by the honorable member for belfast north. can she tell the house and the people of this country, where to shoot issued a mandate to inflict this massive cultural change that was not in our party's manifesto. the prime minister has no plans

to introduce this. are many major institutions to deal with and this is an irrelevant and should not be pursued, least of all on a program notion with real debate. [shouting] >> my fellow mp and i know we disagree on this matter and we do so in a very fair and evenhanded manner and it's that fairness and evenhandedness i want to make sure it's there in all aspects of this government policy. i do think there's an extremely strong argument i'm making here today for this measure to go through. that's a recently parliamentary debates to discuss these matters in more detail. i think i probably need to make a little more progress at this time to take some further interventions in a moment. i know today for many colleagues the crux of the issue does fly

around these protections, for the church of england and the church in wales, which have a unique position because of the legal duty on their clergy to marry parishioners. in addition the church of england as the established church it's canon law as part of the law of the land. there is no disadvantage is that setup ready to the honorable lady or favorable treatment for the church of england or 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, they can. we've are charred with a wide range of religious organizations , including both these churches to ensure protections in the bill work and indeed the church of england has commented on the construct a way in which we've consulted on the issue of effect give legal

safeguards, ensuring their concerns are properly accommodated in the church in west has confirmed the bill provides protection for it while still enabling to make its own decision on same-sex marriage. mr. speaker, turning to one issue that's already been raised in the debate a great deal, which is the concern around legal protection and also 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 is clear. the question of whether and if so how to allow same-sex marriage must be left to the individual state to decide for themselves. mr. speaker, it is simply inconceivable that court would require a faith group to conduct

same-sex marriages in breach of its own doctrine. and not my words, mr. speaker, that the imminent word panic on the baroness kennedy and lord master. to be very clear, to believe the corporate greed at the u.k. religious organizations to marry same-sex couples who lives on a combination of three highly improbable conclusions. first, the court would need to go against its own clear precedent, that countries have wide discretion to the matter of same-sex marriage. secondly, the court would need to decide the interest of the couples who wanted a particular religious organization to marry than outweigh the race and belief of an entire season of competition as a whole.

thirdly, the court would need to discount the importance of article ix of its own convention, which guarantees freedom before conscience and religion and would be rewriting the post not just for one religious organization in england and wales, but all religious organizations in all 47 states of the council of europe, such an outcome, mr. speaker is inconceivable. i give way to my honorable friend. >> 's surely fundamental to who we are, the crux of this debate is whether or not we accord equal rights and respects to people regardless of their sexuality. [shouting] >> my honorable friend makes the point powerfully. we need to make sure we treat people fairly and this really is at the heart of what we're talking about today. >> i think by right honorable

friend for giving way. she's making a powerful case for religious freedom. did she observe the church of england statement that it's not realistic or likely that churches will be forced to conduct same-sex weddings? >> i'm glad my honorable friend underlies that for me because i don't want anyone to leave the debate today about the right information on which they can base decisions to vote and i think my honorable friend has underlined the importance of the facts in this case. if honorable ladies and gentlemen can forgive now make more progress because we have a great deal of interest in participating in this debate. colleagues also want to understand consequences of this bill were 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 either will continue to marginalize those who believe marriage can and should also be between a man and a man or woman and 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 would be deeply divisive if in writing wrong for some we created wrong for others. no teacher will be required to promote or endorse views that go against their beliefs. no hospital worker will believe in a new definition of marriage. the religious minister will conduct same-sex weddings. if the changes we talk about today will not affect anyone more than arafat is already are choosing to live in a society that values tolerance and respect amongst its citizens. i give way.

>> is there anything at all in the provisions of this bill which would harm or disadvantage any heterosexual person anyway whatsoever? >> i can say to my honorable friend, no. and strengthening marriage the way were talking will actually be a benefit to all people in our society. i give way to my honorable friend. >> she's made it clear she would introduce a bill to this house that in any way impinged on church or ministers. after in the passage of this bill there may be attempts to give a free vote to unpick the sox and i know the reason to the church in relation to the same-sex marriage, would this be a vote for the bill? >> what i would say is the church of england has made clear keeping protections we have in place as they are and i would be

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 the are how this'll be handled in the school curriculum? >> the honorable gentleman is right to bring that out in more detail and he will of course see the words from the secretary of state report widely over the weekend and the point to make clearly to the house today his teachers of course will be expected to explain as professionals about the law around marriage. but we never would expect is

but what we never would expect teachers to do is promote something that ran contrary to their own beliefs or their own religious beliefs. an important point to make and all so clear up some of the misunderstanding that has been put around this debate today is i give my hon. friend who like cannot say no to but i must line up -- >> i am most grateful to my right hon. friend who has taken a lot of intervention but on that very point could you just clarify when she says nobody will be forced to teach anything that goes against their conscience but what about faith based school let wish to promote a particular christian or other face view of marriage, will they continue to be allowed to do so and can you guarantee that no teacher who actively does so will be sued or prosecuted? >> my hon. friend will know there are clear provisions in