I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for civil registration of a relationship between two people who are cohabiting, and for such registration to afford certain legal rights; and for connected purposes.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):-

Those voting Aye in this division were in favour of bringing a bill before parliament that gave additional rights to unmarried, cohabiting couples.

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 59.

4.-(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.

(2) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.-<[i>Mr. Sutcliffe.]

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 70.

This amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill allowed unmarried couples (both heterosexual and homosexual) to adopt children. Those voting aye were for the amendment.

Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 28, line 41, leave out "married".-[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 133.

This amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill would have allowed unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt children. (Homosexual couples were specifically excluded.) The no-voters defeated this amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 301.

Whilst in the commons for the first time, the Adoption and Children bill was amended to allow unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to adopt children. However, when the bill went to the Lords, they rejected the amendment and reinstated the original "married couples only" rule. Back in the commons, the aye voters in this division sought to reject the modification in the Lords and allow umarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to adopt.

The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 145.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring reports on the impact of repealing a ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools.

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Repeal of Section 2A of Local Government Act 1986 and stated:

• 'The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament within 24 months of the coming into force of section 119 and at intervals of 24 months thereafter a report containing information on the effect of the operation of that section on—
• (a) the adherence to guidance issued under section 403(1A) of the Education Act 1996 (c. 96);
• (b) the operation of the provisions of section 404 of that Act; and
• (c) the numbers of parents withdrawing their children from sex education pursuant to section 405 of that Act.'.

Clause 119 of the Bill became clause 122 in the Act^[1] and stated:

• Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10) (local authorities prohibited from promoting homosexuality) ceases to have effect.

==

• [1] Clause 122 of the Local Government Act 2003
• Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10) (local authorities prohibited from promoting homosexuality) ceases to have effect.

The majority of MPs voted to repeal a ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools.

The Majority of MPs voted to keep a clause in the Local Government Bill^[1] designed to repeal the section in the Local Government Act 1986 that says:^[2]

A local authority shall not

• intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
• promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

The insertion of this section into the law had been as a result of the controversial Section 28 which was part of the Local Government Act 1988.^[3]

The amendment which was rejected by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• Amendment: No. 8, in page 70, line 41, leave out Clause 119.

Clause 119 of the Bill became clause 122 in the Act^[4] and stated:

• Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10) (local authorities prohibited from promoting homosexuality) ceases to have effect.

==

• [1] Local Government Bill, Clause 119, 13 February 2003
• [2] Local Government Act 1986, Clause 2A, Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material
• [3] Local Government Act 1988, Section 28
• [4] Clause 122 of the Local Government Act 2003

The majority of MPs voted against allowing mixed sex marriages which become a same sex marriage to remain valid as long as neither party objected.

MPs were considering the Gender Recognition Bill.

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Successful applications: married couples and stated:

• 'If an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person under section 4(3) an application may be made to the Secretary of State to award a full gender recognition certificate without the provisions of Schedule 2 or section 5 having effect if—
• (a) neither party to the marriage wish the marriage to be dissolved or annulled,
• (b) both parties to the marriage can show they intend to continue living together, and
• (c) the marriage took place before the date of Royal Assent of this Act.

Clause 4 of the Bill was titled Successful applications and began:

• (1) If a Gender Recognition Panel grants an application under section 1(1) it must issue a gender recognition certificate to the applicant.
• (2) Unless the applicant is married, the certificate is to be a full gender recognition certificate.
• (3) If the applicant is married, the certificate is to be an interim gender recognition certificate.

Schedule 2 of the Bill allowed for a marriage to be voided on the grounds of an interim gender recognition certificate being issued to either party (with similar provisions allowing for divorce in Scotland).

Section 5 provided for the subsequent issue of full gender recognition certificate after a marriage involving a party with a interim gender recognition certificate is voided or ended by divorce or the death of a party to the marriage.

Had the rejected new clause become part of the Bill it would have enabled two people legally recognised to be of the same sex to remain married, if they had been previously married as a mixed sex couple.

At the time of the vote same sex marriage was not legal in the United Kingdom

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill represents a historic step on what has been a long journey to respect and dignity for lesbians and gay men in Britain. It is a natural progression in our vision to build an inclusive society. As such, it builds on reforms that began back in 1967 with Leo Abse's private Member's Bill, backed by the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins. The Government's commitment to equality has been strong and unequivocal. We have equalised the age of consent, outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation, secured protection from homophobic hate crimes and supported the abolition of section 28.

In creating a new legal relationship for same-sex couples, this Bill is a sign of the Government's commitment to social justice and equality. It is also a recognition of the realities of modern Britain. Across this country today thousands of same-sex couples have made the decision to share their lives, their home, their finances and the care of their children or of older relatives. They may have loved and cared for each other for many years, yet their relationship is invisible in the eyes of the law. The Bill sends a clear message about the importance of stable and committed same-sex relationships.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:-

Those voting Aye in this division voted to move to Bill for recognising same-sex partnerships to the next stage.

The House divided: Ayes 426, Noes 49.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause in question is as follows.

'(1) Two siblings, both of whom are aged over thirty years, shall be eligible to register as civil partners provided that they have lived together for a continuous period of twelve years immediately prior to the date of registration.

(2) In this section "sibling" means a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister.

(3) Chapter 2 of Part 2, Chapter 5 of Part 3 and Chapter 2 of Part 4 shall not apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.

(4) Section [Termination of civil partnerships other than same sex couples] shall apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The Civil Partnership Bill sought to give homosexual couples the equivalent rights to those of married couples. This clause sought to additionally give those rights to brothers and sisters who were living together. Those voting Aye in this division were voting for the clause.

The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 381.

The majority voted to pass the Civil Partnerships Bill, completing its stages in the Commons.

The majority of MPs voted to approve a set of regulations^[1] that were made under the Equality Act 2006.^[2]

This Act allows the Secretary of State to make regulations defining discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation, create criminal offences, and provide for exceptions.^[2]

The Regulations define discrimination by a person A against a person B, on grounds of the sexual orientation of B or any other person except A, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others (in cases where there is no material difference in the relevant circumstances).

According to the Regulations it is unlawful for a person A concerned with the provision of goods and services to the public to discriminate against a person B who seeks to obtain goods and services by refusing to provide B with goods and services of a quality which is similar to the quality of goods, facilities or services that A normally provides to the public.

The exceptions include matters concerning a person's home and family relations,^[3] insurance,^[4] blood donation,^[5] Parliament and anything to do with GCHQ.^[6]

As stipulated in the Act, the House of Lords also had to debate and pass the Regulations before they could come into force.^[7]

• [1] Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, 17 April 2007
• [2] Equality Act 2006, Clause 81
• [3] Exceptions to regulations 4 and 5, Clause 6
• [4] Insurance, Clause 27
• [5] Blood donation, Clause 28
• [6] Bodies to which regulation 8 does not apply, Schedule 1, Part 1
• [7] Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, House of Lords, 21 March 2007

The majority of MPs voted against requiring the need for both a father and a mother to be considered when taking account of the welfare of a child who may be born as a result of fertility treatment. Instead, the law will stipulate the need for "supportive parenting".

The current text in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 says:^[1]

• A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.

The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill under discussion will substitute "a father" for "supportive parenting".^[2]

The vote, which was lost, would have instead changed "a father" to "a father and a mother" as it was written in the 1990 law.^[3]

• [1] Conditions of licences for treatment, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Clause 13(5)
• [2] Conditions of licences for treatment, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, Clause 14(2)(b), 6 February 2008
• [3] Iain Duncan Smith MP, House of Commons, 20 May 2008

The majority of MPs voted against requiring a father or male role model to be part of what the law interprets as "supporting parenting" for a child who is born as a result of fertility treatment.

The current text in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 says:^[1]

• A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.

The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill under discussion will substitute "a father" for "supportive parenting".^[2]

The vote, which was lost, would have instead changed "a father" to "supportive parenting and a father or male role model".^[3]

A previous vote to change "a father" to "a father and a mother" instead of "supportive parenting" was also lost.^[4]

• [1] Conditions of licences for treatment, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Clause 13(5)
• [2] Conditions of licences for treatment, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, Clause 14(2)(b), 6 February 2008
• [3] Mark Simmonds MP, House of Commons, 20 May 2008
• [4] Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - Fertility treatment requires father and mother - rejected, Division 197, House of Commons, 20 May 2008

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

Under the law as it was at the time of this vote marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Same sex couples (and only same sex couples) could register a civil partnership under the Civil Partnership Act 2004^[1]

MPs were voting on if the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill^[2] ought be given its second reading; i.e.. if they approved the core principle of the Bill and wished to see it proceed towards becoming law.

Key elements of the Bill (from the explanatory notes^[1]):

• provide that same sex couples can get married in England and Wales;·
• provide that such marriages are to be treated the same as marriages between a man and a woman in England and Wales;
• permit marriage of same sex couples by way of a civil ceremony;
• permit marriage of same sex couples according to religious rites and usages and on religious premises where a religious organisation has opted in to that process (with the exception of the Church of England and the Church in Wales);
• provide a process by which the Church in Wales can request legislative change to allow marriages of same sex couples in their churches if they wish to do so;
• provide that there will be no obligation or compulsion to carry out or participate in a religious marriage ceremony of a same sex couple;·provide protection under equality law for organisations and individual ministers of religion who do not wish to marry same sex couples.

Religious organisations and their representatives who do not wish to marry same sex couples are protected from being compelled to do so through a series of religious protections.

• [1] Explanatory notes to the Bill as introduced on 24 January 2013
• [2] Parliament's webpage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (now the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013)

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

MPs were technically voting to approve spending arising as a result of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill^[1].

The text of the approved motion was:

• That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
• (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
• (a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a person holding office under Her Majesty or by a government department, and
• (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided, and
• (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of that Fund

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (now the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013)

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

MPs were voting on if the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill ought continue in the next Session of Parliament if its consideration was not concluded.

The text of the motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

• That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (now the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013)

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

Under the law as it was at the time of this vote marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Same sex couples (and only same sex couples) could register a civil partnership under the Civil Partnership Act 2004^[1]

MPs were voting on if the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill^[2] ought be given its third reading; i.e.. to approve the Bill as it stood and support it becoming law.

Key elements of the Bill (from the explanatory notes^[1]):

• provide that same sex couples can get married in England and Wales;·
• provide that such marriages are to be treated the same as marriages between a man and a woman in England and Wales;
• permit marriage of same sex couples by way of a civil ceremony;
• permit marriage of same sex couples according to religious rites and usages and on religious premises where a religious organisation has opted in to that process (with the exception of the Church of England and the Church in Wales);
• provide a process by which the Church in Wales can request legislative change to allow marriages of same sex couples in their churches if they wish to do so;
• provide that there will be no obligation or compulsion to carry out or participate in a religious marriage ceremony of a same sex couple;
• provide protection under equality law for organisations and individual ministers of religion who do not wish to marry same sex couples.

Religious organisations and their representatives who do not wish to marry same sex couples are protected from being compelled to do so through a series of religious protections.

• [1] Explanatory notes to the Bill - 9 May 2013
• [2] Parliament's webpage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (now the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013)

The majority of MPs voted to enable the courts to deal with proceedings for the divorce of, or annulment of the marriage of, a same sex couple. The majority of MPs also voted to allow the courts to make decisions in relation to the recognition of judgements in respect of a marriage made in other European Union states.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

• That the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of various amendments to acts of Parliament in light of the introduction of same sex marriage.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

• That the draft Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

Key elements include:

• Requiring those in a same sex marriage be treated under the law of Scotland for the time being as if they were in a civil partnership (as same sex marriage is not lawful in Scotland, though there is legislation to bring it in going through the Scottish Parliament.)
• Consequential amendments to many acts of Parliament following the introduction of same sex marriages.
• Many exceptions to the principle in Section 11 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 which states: "In the law of England and Wales, marriage has the same effect in relation to same sex couples as it has in relation to opposite sex couples" are made, including some relating to royal titles, rights to peerages and associated titles, EU laws, some pensions regulations, and the defence of marital coercion.

The majority of MPs voted to make same sex marriage available to armed forces personnel outside the UK.

The motion approved in the vote was:

• That the draft Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.

Key elements of the proposed law^[1]:

• The law enables members of the UK armed forces serving overseas, and relevant civilians, to marry in the presence of an authorised person. This includes marriage of both opposite and same sex couples.
• The law applies to armed services personnel, civilians who are subject to service discipline, as well as dependents of those people.
• The law limits same sex marriages to taking place in those countries or territories which have notified the Secretary of State in writing that there is no objection to such marriages.
• The regulations replace existing provisions so apply to the marriage of both opposite and same sex couples.
• There is a requirement to nominate a part of the UK in which the marriage is to be registered (Marriage of same sex couples is not lawful in Scotland, though there are proposals to introduce it going through the Scottish Parliament, and there are no plans to introduce it in Northern Ireland.)

==

• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the draft Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.