The idea that marriage is a religious institution is quite laughable and rather a good illustration of how out of touch with reality you people are. We have had civil marriage in GB since 1837.

And the idea that the non-religious (the majority of marriages as you seem top ignore are non-religious) who have a civil marriage are not married or less married is not only offensive but more to the point contrary to the civil rights of those who are exercising the right not to hold a faith.

The idea that the tories are doing away with ‘Traditional Marriage’ is frankly laughable. Gay marriage is just the end game for an institution that ‘no-fault’ divorce and feminist family courts have long since completely corrupted. It’s funny how most ”social conservatives” in America and Britain continue to miss this obvious point. Gays aren’t interested in ‘traditional marriage’ only the heavily adulterated version we have today. Aside from that, why on earth would Mr Leigh be ‘astonished’ that his left-liberal party is pursuing left-liberal legislation?

Congratulations. A vociferous minority gets their own way… again.

I feel I ought to reply on the idea that it is one’s “personal whims” that cause one to marry. My husband and I are a rather conservative middle aged professional couple. we married (entered into a civil partnership, if you insist, but no-one uses the term) not because we wished to rub the Christians’ noses into anything or particularly have a go at the traditionalists, but in order (first) to ensure that each us had rights if anything happened to us; and secondly, for mutual help and society one ought to have of the other (I quote the BCP from memory and that doesn’t by the way make it a religious institution); and thirdly as a public statement of our lifelong commitment to each other. “Marriage” is the name we have for monogamous pair bonding, and it is not (like all legal relationships) to be reserved in a discriminatory way for heterosexuals.

I suspect that Mr Leigh knows he is fighting in the last ditch on this issue, just as he was one of the small minority that fought against the Civil Partnership legislation in 2004. I will bet any poster on this thread that he is in an even smaller minority when this legislation passes later int he lifetime of this Parliament.

You may think that religious marriage has some sort of spiritual or even sacramental significance. That is your right. You can get married in a church.

As I said, however, by a majority of over 2:1 the British people prefer non-religious ceremonies regulated purely by the state. They are interested in marriage as a civil institution – and many of them are, for example, divorcees and ineligible for a religious marriage. Are you seriously suggesting that such people are not “married”?

In other words, marriage is a secular institution in the UK and the UK state (ie the Queen in Parliament) can define it as the UK state chooses.

If you don’t believe in God then there’s little point in getting marriage: it’s a substantiation and averment of duty in the face of God. The idea that marriage is a secular institution just doesn’t add up in the face of history.

It’s so petty and tawdry that a minority in this country – and a vociferous minority at that – feel the need to assail institution after institution so that their personal whims are adequately satisfied. The sanctity of institutions – especially marriage – as they are bequeathed by history are thrown asunder for personal gratification without any acknowledgement of wider recourse. It’s this wishy-washy latitudinarianism that’s undermining the social fabric of this country.