 Hold on to motion 8.3.27 by Alex Neil on the Marriage in Civil Partnership Scotland Bill. Members who wish to speak in a debate should press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on Alex Neil to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary you've got 16 minutes. Thank you very much indeed. I move the motion in my name for the chamber to accept stage 1 of the Marriage in Civil Partnership Scotland Bill. The bill makes a number of changes to the law on marriage and civil partnership, but the centrepiece is obviously the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and I believe that that will allow all people having the same opportunity as each other in Scotland who love each other to have their marriage recognised in the eyes of the law. That will create a more tolerant society in Scotland and will mean that in respect of marriage there is genuinely equal rights right across the entire community. The bill also makes provision so that married transgender people can obtain gender recognition and stay married removing the need to divorce. That provision will make a huge beneficial difference to the lives of transgender people and their spouses. I will turn later to the detail of the bill and, in particular, to the points made by the Equal Opportunities Committee's report. Before doing so, I want to give a brief overview of the provisions of the bill generally. The bill contains a number of changes to marriage law that have been planned for some time, and some other changes to ensure that marriage ceremonies in Scotland continue to be carried out with due solemnity and dignity. The bill provides greater flexibility on where civil marriage ceremonies can take place. It permits civil marriage ceremonies to take place at any location, agreed between the couple and the registration authority, so long as the place is not religious premises. The bill also clarifies the position of belief celebrants and puts them on the same footing as religious celebrants. That is a welcome change recognising the role in which, for example, humanists play in solemnising marriage in Scotland. The bill increases flexibility in relation to civil partnerships and allows the religious or belief registration of civil partnership where the religious or belief body is happy to take part. While providing greater freedom and flexibility for couples generally, the bill also ensures that marriage procedures in Scotland remain rigorous. For example, the bill clarifies the offence of bigamy, and a number of provisions in the bill show that we will not tolerate sham or forced marriage in Scotland. Sham and forced marriages are real problems in Scotland today, and I pay tribute to registrars and others across Scotland who are vigilant in tackling those issues. The bill extends the normal notice of period for marriage and for civil partnership from 14 days to 28 dates. That reflects the reality of the length of time it can take to check that a person is eligible to marry or enter into a civil partnership. It is also a deterrent to sham marriages. The bill allows the district registrar to require specified nationality evidence when a couple is seeking to enter into a marriage or a civil partnership. Such information may be needed for a variety of reasons, e.g. statistical. Again, though this evidence could combat sham and forced marriage. The bill also empowers ministers to make regulations on qualifying requirements for religious and belief bodies to meet before its celebrants could be authorised to solemnise marriage or register civil partnerships. Scotland has a rich diversity of religious and belief bodies that can solemnise marriage, and that is very welcome. It also means that we need to make certain that the dignity and solemnity of the ceremonies is upheld. The qualifying requirements could cover such issues as not carrying out ceremonies for profit or gain and awareness of forced and sham marriage. We will consult widely with religious and belief bodies and others before making any regulations. I know that religious and belief bodies share our determination to ensure that marriage ceremonies remain dignified. Equally though the state must not interfere with the internal workings of religious and belief bodies and we need to ensure that a reasonable balance is struck. I hope that provisions are in the bill to avoid situations in extremists that may occur where one party challenges the other and this possibly forces action contrary to article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I will discuss the recommendations from the Equal Opportunities Committee coming to same-sex marriage, which I have already referred to. Respect for religious beliefs and views have also been at the heart of our work on same-sex marriage and we have consulted twice. We have not consulted any more in any other bill in this Parliament than we have consulted on that measure. There has also been a detailed examination of the bill at stage 1 by the Equal Opportunities Committee, led by Magnate McCulloch and Latterley by Mary Fee. Could I ask the minister if he can clarify at this point exactly how he intends to deal with the issue of the 4,100 consultation submissions, which were apparently lost through no fault of his own? We have found them and we will put them on the website. As the member says, it was not through any fault of the Scottish Government that there was a technical hitch by those who submitted the 4,100. I know that the detailed examination that I referred to earlier by the committee has been challenging. I want to pay tribute to the committee and, in particular, to the two conveners who have been convening the committee during that period, Magnate McCulloch and Mary Fee and all their other colleagues on the committee. Throughout the consultations and the stage 1 process, the Government has acknowledged the diversity and strength of religious beliefs. In the forward to the first consultation, my predecessor, Nicola Sturgeon, emphasised the quote that this Government believes in religious tolerance and the freedom to worship. We recognise, although we disagree, that some people of faith sincerely believe that marriage should be between and only between one man and one woman. Of course, there is a vigorous and respectful debate on same-sex marriage in many religious bodies as there is across society and this Parliament. Some religious and belief bodies wish to solemnise same-sex marriage, so the bill provides a balanced and fair package. Richard Lyle? As the Cabinet Secretary knows, my wife and I adopted our daughter some 30 years ago. Would he agree with me that, since my wife and I do not support same-sex marriage, we would not be allowed to adopt today or questions would be asked of our suitability to adopt or even foster? Where is people like us equal rights? Believing or opposing same-sex marriage is no barrier of itself to adoption. I am happy to write to the member to clarify the law on adoption in relation to same-sex marriage. He will know that our Roman Catholic adoption agency is having its charitable status threatened because it does not recognise same-sex couples. What guarantees can he give us that this bill passes? Those faith groups and service providers who do not recognise same-sex marriage will not similarly have their charitable status in any way question. That matter is currently under legal appeal and therefore it has been appropriate for me to comment on that particular instance. However, I am happy to clarify those matters more generally either in this debate tonight or by writing to the member. The bill that we are discussing tonight establishes an opt-in system for religious and belief bodies in relation to same-sex marriage and civil partnerships. The bill makes it clear that there is no duty to opt-in and the bill imposes no duty on any person who is an approved celebrant to solemnise same-sex marriages or to register civil partnerships. In addition, the UK Equality Act 2010 will be amended. This amendment will protect individual celebrants who refuse to solemnise same-sex marriage from court actions claiming discrimination. Same-sex marriage will not be introduced in Scotland until this amendment to the Equality Act has been secured, which I believe it will be. We have reached agreement with the UK Government about the Equality Act amendment and have published a detailed statement on what is planned. As we have indicated, the amendments will also cover other persons who play an integral part in the religious or belief aspects of the marriage or civil partnership ceremony. They will protect a person controlling the use of religious or belief premises who refuse to allow the premises to be used for a same-sex marriage or civil partnership. We have carefully considered, of course. At present, the state that takes what the position of each religious denomination should be on this matter explicitly does not allow them to marry those of same-sex who want to enter into a marriage. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the approach that the Government has taken is actually empowering religions to make decisions? In that sense, it is about the freedom of religion. Absolutely. There are a number of religious organisations and churches who are very much in favour of the legislation. The Quakers are being a very good example, because up until now they have not been allowed to carry out same-sex marriages and they want to be allowed to carry out same-sex marriages. We have carefully considered the need for wider protections across society as a whole. Those are challenging issues and we have to respect religious beliefs, while at the same time making sure that there is no discrimination against the LGBT community or individuals. We also need to avoid interfering with the employer-employee relationship and we need to balance parental rights in areas such as education with the rights of the child to receive a full and comprehensive education. Therefore, the protections that we are introducing more generally are a mixture of legislation and guidance. The bill has provisioned at section 14, making it clear that the introduction of same-sex marriage will have no impact on existing rights to freedom of speech, thought, conscience and religion. In addition, the Lord Advocate has issued prosecution guidance. That makes it clear that criticism of same-sex marriage or homosexuality is not in itself an offence. The guidance adds that, quote, views expressed or comments made in relation to same-sex marriage in ways that do not incite hatred or violence towards a particular personal group and which do not cause or intend to cause public disorder will not be the subject of criminal prosecution. I would add that the vigorous debate on same-sex marriage during her consultations and, while the bill has been in Parliament, shows that freedom of speech is very much alive and well. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would agree with the QC at the committee who said that that guidance had no binding effect legally. Cabinet Secretary? No, not at all. That is guidance to, by the chief prosecutor, to every prosecutor in Scotland to say that it has no impact, is absolute nonsense in my view. Of course, it has impact. It decides what will be prosecuted and what will not be prosecuted in Scotland. I think that this is the right approach, Presiding Officer. Those detailed issues come to education as well. We have sought views on updating the guidance on the conduct of relationships, sexual health and parenthood education, and we have received around 60 responses. We are currently considering the points made by those who commented on the draft guidance. Where teachers have concerns about educational material that they might have been asked to use, we have said that they should raise their concerns within the school or the local authority, and we believe that that is the right local approach. Such detailed issues are best discussed and resolved at a local level rather than trying to dictate from the centre. There is also existing guidance that reflects the professional standards that teachers have to meet when giving classes. Similarly, we have indicated that we are opposed to a legislative opt-out from same-sex marriage for civil registrars and that any issues or concerns should be dealt with at a local level by employers. In terms of the committee report, the committee has asked us to take account of views expressed by stakeholders on matters such as the protection of celebrants. We will of course do that. We have kept an open mind throughout this bill process and I believe that that is shown by the balance package that we have put forward. The committee also makes a number of other recommendations. We will consider the point raised on the distinctions between religious marriage and belief marriage. As the committee noted, we consider points here following the second consultation. It is not a straightforward matter to come up with designations that would please everybody. The committee has suggested that couples in a non-scorish civil partnership should be able to change their relationship to a marriage in Scotland. We need to respect non-scorish jurisdictions and ensure that we do not cause confusion on the civil status of the couple. However, we will consider in detail the point raised by the committee. On gender-neutral marriage ceremonies, we have written to a number of religious bodies to seek their views on a change in this area. We do have concerns about the committee's recommendation on spousal consent. It is spousal consent to stay in the marriage and it takes two to stay in a marriage. As the committee notes, the spouses of people seeking gender recognition may find themselves in circumstances that are very difficult to face. We will consider the point further, aiming to balance the rights of everybody. On long-term transition people, we will seek to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to introduce provisions similar to what was added to the UK act in the House of Lords. Finally, we will respond in detail on lowering the age at which applications can be made to the gender recognition panel. We need to obtain more medical and psychological evidence of the potential effect of any possible change. However, I recognise the points made in evidence provided to the committee and acknowledge the need for the Government to think further about the issue. In conclusion, I strongly urge my fellow MSPs to vote for the bill. The bill makes sensible improvements to marriage and civil partnership law. It provides greater flexibility for couples seeking to get married or enter into a civil partnership. It introduces same-sex marriage, which will further promote equality and diversity in our society. While respecting the views of those who do not wish to take part, I believe that the provisions of the bill will improve our society that we live in here in Scotland and make it a much more civilised society in how we treat LGBT people. I look forward to the debate and I ask my colleagues to support the general principles of the bill at the vote at 8 pm tonight. I remind people in the gallery not to applaud. I now call Margaret McCullough to speak on behalf of the Equal Opportunity Committee. Ms McCullough, you have got 11 minutes. I welcome this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee, following our stage 1 report on the marriage and civil partnership bill. Before I introduce the report and speak about our conclusions, I extend my thanks to the clerks, all my committee colleagues and members of other committees who have considered the bill, namely the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I also want to thank everyone who responded to our call for written evidence and everyone who took part in oral evidence sessions in September and October. All of us in the committee recognise the validity, strength and sincerity of the views that we have received and what is clearly an emotive issue. I am personally grateful for the sensitive and respectful way in which those views have been presented by witnesses and then considered by committee members. I hope that the wider debate about same-sex marriage can proceed in that same dignified way. The committee noted the different views expressing evidence on the meaning and purpose of marriage. We considered evidence from faith groups and from LGBT people on their perceptions and understanding of marriage. We heard from a range of witnesses about rights-based arguments and social attitudes. Some emphasise the concept of complementarity between men and women, the Catholic Parliamentary Office on behalf of the Bishops Conference of Scotland wrote, The complementarity of male and female and their unique role in the transmission of life underscores the reality of marriage as a natural social environment for the birth and growth of every person. John Deegan from the Catholic Parliamentary Office described complementarity as inherent essence and rational basis for marriage. However, John Phillips representing the Religious Society of Friends or the Quakers gave a different perspective. For us, the crucial thing is the complementarity between two individuals who are making a committed relationship with each other. Tim Hopkins from the Equality Network says, Our view is that Belle is about love and marriage is about love. I think that if you ask most married couples what their marriage is about, they will say that it is about love. A commitment to each other and if they have children, their family. All those things apply to same-sex couples as well. Collin McFallon from Stonewall Scotland says that Belle is about much more than the complementarity issue. It is about how gay people are viewed in society, about being equal in the eyes of the law. Indeed, we gave a great deal of consideration to equal recognition, human rights and public attitudes. Dr Kelly Coleman highlighted to us the transformative power of right-based arguments in this debate. I am aware that many of the responses to the Scottish Government's consultation were not favourable to this bill. That point was made to the committee in written evidence and in oral evidence from John Deegan. Ross Wright from the Humanist Society of Scotland, however, commented that a consultation is not a referendum. Professor John Curtis from Strathclyde University advised that we should not look to consultations as a way of understanding the balance of public opinion, but instead the structure of public opinion and technical issues with bills and proposals. There was clearly a huge amount of diversity as well as depth in the views that we received. I hope that the whole range of opinions is adequately reflected in the report. The committee also noted varying views among stakeholders on the approach that is taken in the bill towards protecting the celebrants of faith, as well as the freedom of religious organisations to conduct legal marriages and keeping with their own doctrines. We heard different views in the opt-in approach for religious and belief celebrants, protections for service providers and concerns about attrition. In our report, we asked the Scottish Government to consider that range of views in the mending stages of the bill. Under the Marriage Scotland Act of 1977, there are two types of marriage ceremony, civil and religious. Since 2005, humanist celebrants have been authorised under a provision of the 1977 act, designed for the temporary authorisation of religious celebrants. The bill would attain two categories, but would redefine non-civil marriage ceremonies as religious and belief ceremonies, to capture a wider range of beliefs and put religious and belief celebrants on the same legal footing. Ephraim Boroski from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities considered that there was a distinction between religious and belief ceremonies, and so belief ceremonies should actually form a third category. The committee notes the Scottish Government's explanation as to why the bill retains two categories of ceremony. However, we have sought the Scottish Government's views on a potential amendment to the bill. Presiding Officer, the committee took a range of evidence on civil partnerships, including the difference between marriage and civil partnerships, the treatment in the bill of civil partnerships register abroad, and the future of civil partnerships in Scotland. We note that the Scottish Government plans to consider issues relating to reform of civil partnerships, including civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples in its forthcoming review. Should same-sex marriage be introduced, there would be a procedure for converting civil partnership into marriage. We believe that couples who enter into a civil partnership abroad, who would have to dissolve their partnership before marrying here, should have similar rights to that procedure as couples whose civil partnership has been conducted in Scotland. The committee noted the Scottish Government's position that it has struck the right balance regarding gender and neutral ceremonies, and that allowing such ceremonies could cause problems for denominations that might not want to use gender and neutral marriage declaration. However, we believe that it should be possible to allow gender and neutral marriage, and that is why we call on the Scottish Government to reconsider its position. We note evidence calling for the requirement for spousal consent to be removed from the gender recognition process. The spouses of people seeking gender recognition may find themselves in circumstances that are difficult to face, and we have not received specific evidence from their perspective. However, we believe that the non-transition spouse's personal choice is sufficiently protected by the automatic grounds for divorce, triggered by his or her partner seeking gender recognition. We therefore believe that the requirement for spousal consent for gender recognition, also known as a spousal veto, is unnecessary and should be removed. We have also drawn to further conclusions regarding gender recognition issues raised in evidence. Firstly, we have welcomed the Scottish Government's willingness to consult on difficulties facing long-term transition people, particularly around evidence requirements, with a view to amending the bill at stage 2. Secondly, we have noted representation made by the Scottish Transgender Alliance about lowering the age at which a person can secure gender recognition. We accept that it may not be possible to deal with those issues effectively within the scope of the bill, but, nonetheless, I feel that it is important to highlight those points to the chamber. The committee took evidence on how the bill could impact other areas of life, including the education system and chaplaincy within public services. We heard from John Brown from the Catholic Education Commission and Michael Calwell from the Family Education Trust, who spoke about the conflict between different views of marriage and the implications that they fear that it could have for teaching in schools. However, when asked whether the bill would have an impact on how teachers taught in the classroom, Stephen McCrossan from the EIS said, I do not think that the bill will have a significant impact on the way in which teachers teach in the classrooms. We simply see the bill as another strand in equality and diversity, promoting equal opportunities and challenging discrimination. On behalf of the committee, I would draw the Parliament's attention to the views expressed regarding the relationship between the bill and public services. I would also draw attention to the recommendations put forward by the Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee, which we note and support. To paraphrase Robert Louis Stevenson, we agreed to differ, for agreeing to differ is a form of agreement rather than a form of difference. The majority of the committee supports the general principles of the bill and recommends that Parliament approves the bill as stage 1. A minority of the committee does not support the bill because they disagree in principle or because they are not convinced that adequate protections are in place. However, we are unanimous in supporting the rights of individual members to decide on the bill as a matter of conscience. On a personal note, let me say that I know what my conscience is telling me. I associate myself with the majority views expressed in the report. I back the general principles of the bill and I hope that there is a majority for equal marriage when we vote tonight. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to participate in this stage 1 debate on the marriage and civil partnership Scotland bill. I at the outset commend the Scottish Government, not something that I do terribly often, but let me commend unreservedly the Scottish Government for their work on the bill and commend the Equal Opportunities Committee, both members and clarks for their diligence in scrutinising the bill at stage 1 and associate myself with the cabinet secretary's remarks about Mary Fee as the former convener and Margaret McCulloch as the current convener of the committee. There has undoubtedly been a volume of evidence, both in favour and against the bill, and their stage 1 report is a comprehensive record of that evidence and the process of the committee's consideration of the bill. Although the report notes that the majority of the committee support the general principles of the bill, it was right for the convener to remind us that it is the case that it will be a matter for individual MSPs, as I believe that all parties have agreed that there will be a free vote, so ultimately it is a matter for each one of us in this chamber. I therefore recommend that all members read the stage 1 report. I know that it is long, but it does helpfully set out the arguments and whether there are concerns, the scope for amendments, and I will come on to consider some of those concerns later. For me, the bill is about equality, fairness and social justice. It is about values instilled in me by my parents, community and society. For many of us, that is also about how we see ourselves as a nation and how others see us, about the values that we hold and whether Scotland is indeed a confident progressive nation where equality is truly valued. Most of us will have received a considerable volume of correspondence about equal marriage, both for and against. Many of the arguments are very detailed and the views are passionately held. Some of us were even receiving emails as we were walking into this chamber, never mind receiving emails late last night. I thank people for their time and their energy in informing the debate, but it is true to say that attitudes in Scotland are changing. In the Scottish social attitudes survey in 2002, 41 per cent of people were in favour of same-sex marriage, and 19 per cent were against. In the same social attitudes survey, but this time in 2010, the number of people in favour of same-sex marriage had risen to 61 per cent. Now, a 20 per cent shift in opinion on any issue in such a short space of time is frankly astonishing. If you begin to unpack the detail of that, the support for equal marriage can be found in those who are religious, from people across all income groups and from all geographical areas of Scotland. That cuts right across our country and right across our society. Of those surveyed, 55 per cent of those identified themselves as Catholic supported same-sex marriage. 21 per cent were opposed. For Scottish Presbyterians, 50 per cent supported same-sex marriage, 25 per cent were against. For those living in the most deprived areas, 67 per cent support same-sex marriage, and for those living in the most affluent areas of our country, 63 per cent support same-sex marriage. Frankly, it makes no difference whether you live in urban or rural Scotland. Support for same-sex marriage is roughly the same and consistently above 60 per cent. There is no doubt about where public attitudes currently stand. I read with much interest Professor John Curtis's evidence to the committee. Many of us here know him better for inhabiting television studios in the wee small hours of the morning, sharing his wisdom on elections and voting behaviour. However, he described to the committee a cultural shift in Britain over the past 30 years. According to Professor Curtis, in 1983, 62 per cent of the population believed that same-sex relationships were mostly or always wrong. That figure has dropped to 28 per cent. That is quite extraordinary. His explanation for that shift is that increasingly it is young people that support same-sex marriage. The equality network backs that up and tells us that support for same-sex marriage is highest among those who are under 55. I, like many in this chamber, will take that as a compliment that being under 55 is still considered to be young. Joking apart, there is robust and credible evidence of changing views in our society and support for equal marriage. It is also useful to consider what has actually happened in other countries that have legislated for same-sex marriage in Europe since 2001. We have seen the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, France and, most recently, England and Wales all provide equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. In Canada, South Africa, Argentina, New Zealand, Uruguay, Brazil and 17 states in America, equal marriage is the norm. I know Portugal quite well, as like Christian Allard, one of my parents was Portuguese. 81 per cent of the population of Portugal described themselves as castlets. That is quite a huge proportion of any country. That is, without doubt in my mind, a significant number. Portugal passed their law to allow same-sex marriage in 2009. It was hotly contested, there is no doubt about that. It was passed to the constitutional courts for review, but those same courts in 2010 said that it was perfectly legal, and the then-president, Cavaco Silver, signed it off, and there have been same-sex marriages ever since. One Portuguese friend, interestingly, who was also quite religious, told me when I asked him about the legislation, that he said, you know, it's about love. There should be no difference whether it's a man or a woman or if it's the same sex, it's whether they love each other that really matters. When this Parliament passed the law on civil partnerships, I think we took a huge step forward. Same-sex couples had the legal rights associated with marriage, but I recognise that, for some, that falls far short of marriage where their love and commitment is fully recognised. The equality network talks about a gold standard, for me it is a matter of equality and fairness. For a host of different reasons, I believe that equal marriage is an idea whose time has come, and I will be supporting the general principles of the bill later this evening. That said, very few in this chamber are deaf to the concerns that have been raised. The principal area of concern appears to relate to the protections that are put in place by the Scottish Government. It is the case that no religious or belief body can be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. It is also the case that celebrants will not be forced to perform a same-sex marriage if it is against their beliefs. I agree with that. Those are matters of doctrine and belief that are properly matters for the church and not the state. Religions can and do already refuse to marry people, but that is a matter for them currently, and it is not proposed that this change. The member has just made the point that I was going to make, which is that the church is already able to choose who they marry. Jackie Baillie? I am always not keen to give up time to the member, but I am glad on this point that we are in agreement. I welcome that point because it is important, but I acknowledge that there are some people who are concerned that even those protections might be challenged in the court. I welcome very much the arrangement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government to amend the UK Equality Act of 2010. The 2010 act already contains provisions about not discriminating when providing a service, and there are exemptions for religious and belief bodies, but those apply in certain circumstances. The Scottish Government, rightly in my view, has sought to make the protection more comprehensive by asking for a further amendment that would indeed help to allay fears about challenges being brought on grounds of discrimination. It is helpful that an agreement has already been reached with the UK Government on this point. Concerns have also been expressed about whether that would affect someone's employment if they held views that were opposed to same-sex marriage. The example that is most often cited is that teachers would be forced out of their job if they refused to teach about same-sex marriage because they were fundamentally opposed to it. We would all acknowledge that teachers deal with difficult situations each and every day in school. They do so in the main, sensitively balancing their own beliefs with the needs of the child or the children before them. It would be wrong to put something on the face of the bill when education circulars and guidance have served us extremely well in the past. There is existing legislative provision that allows parents to withdraw their children from religious education. There is existing guidance that allows parents to withdraw their children from sexual health education. I welcome the Scottish Government's proposal to update its guidance to reflect the introduction of same-sex marriage. It is also the case that faith aspects of the curriculum in Catholic schools will continue to be a matter for the Scottish Catholic education service. However, it is important that the Scottish Government review any suggested impact on education to make doubly sure of the position. I, like many other members, have received very thoughtful letters from teachers, both supporting the proposal and those concerned about how they should deal with same-sex marriage, so updated guidance will undoubtedly be helpful. Equally, I have no doubt that amendments will come forward that seek to respect the right of those that, as a result of their religious beliefs, consider the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Concerns to have been highlighted about freedom of speech. I note that the Lord Advocate has published guidance on the matter and noted the provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter for Fundamental Rights on the Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, along with freedom of expression. However, despite that, concerns remain. I suspect that the Parliament, quite rightly, should explore that again to ensure that it is robust. The committee has asked the Scottish Government to look again at the gender recognition provisions in the bill, policy areas such as gender-neutral language, spousal consent for gender recognition and so on. Presiding Officer, I have not had time to explore in detail all of the areas that have been raised by the committee, but you have the fortune or misfortune, depending on your viewpoint and hearing from me again in the closing speeches of the debate. However, in conclusion, I hope that members will support the general principles of the bill at decision time tonight. We, in the Scottish Government, have worked to do to improve the bill to make it more robust. We need to ensure that there are adequate protections that genuinely address people's concerns, but it is time for change. It is time to support equal merit. I never call Miss Davidson. Miss Davidson, you have got seven minutes. Presiding Officer, this debate is not easy, and I do not think that it was ever going to be, where areas of love meet the law, where belief, commitment and faith collide with legislation, the waters will always be difficult to navigate. I therefore commend all of the contributors to this debate over the past few months and years who have sought to make thoughtful contributions to elevate the ideas and to temper the language, displaying a respect for beliefs which differ for their own, but recognising that those beliefs are just as sincerely held. I hope that that temperance will continue this evening, demonstrating that, although it may be a fledgling Parliament, it has a maturity too. It is precisely because of the nature of this debate that I believe that this bill is a matter of conscience, and that is why, similar to other parties, Scottish Conservative members have been given a free vote. Today, I speak on behalf only of myself. In fact, I have no doubt that this will possibly be the most personal speech that I have ever made in this chamber, and I hope to explain why I support the broadest principle of this bill, and that is the principle of extending marriage. I believe in that principle because I believe in marriage. I believe that marriage is a good thing. I saw the evidence of that every day growing up in a house that was full of love. While my own family had all the stresses and strains that were common to all, there was never any doubt or question or fear in my mind that our togetherness was in any way insecure, and the bedrock of that stability and security was my parents' marriage. That stability helped me and my sister to flourish and have confidence that we could be whoever we wanted to be. More than 40 years married, and my parents still love each other. I look at what they have, and I want that to, and I want it to be recognised in the same way. That recognition matters. Presiding Officer, from childhood, you have known without even thinking that if you found someone that you loved and who loved you in return, you had the right to marry them. That same unthinking right to marry is extended to the cabinet secretary. The leader of the Labour Party has that right also, so too does the leader of the Liberal Democrats. I want that right to extend not just to me but also to the thousands of people across Scotland who are told that the law says no. They cannot marry the love of their life. They are not allowed, and unless we change that law, they will never be allowed. It matters that a whole section of our society is told that they can have the facsimile of civil partnership, but they cannot have the real thing. It is not for them. Their love is something different, it is something less. Their commitment is denied. I do not want the next generation of young gay people growing up, as I did, believing that marriage is something that they can never have. We have the opportunity with this bill to change that, and to change the attitudes and even the stigma that being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender can still evoke and which can cause so much harm. Jamie Hepburn? I thank Ruth Davidson for giving me a very eloquent contribution that I am enjoying very much. She spoke about the next generation. I am the father of two very young children. I do not know what their sexual orientation will be, but in the circumstances that they grow up and have a same-sex attraction, what would the member say if this Parliament failed to legislate for the provision that is before us today? What would she suggest? I would say to them in futures, if they wanted to be married. How would she think that I could look them in the face and say that this Parliament missed the opportunity to give them that right? I would hope that their father had helped to vote them the opportunity to have that going forward. I think that talking about the next generation is important because it is them for whom we must think of. Last year, the University of Cambridge conducted a huge body of research called the school report. It spoke to hundreds of LGBT pupils right across the UK who were open about their sexuality. A majority said that they were the victims of homophobic bullying and that it happened to them in their school. More than half deliberately self-harmed, nearly a quarter had attempted to take their own life on at least one occasion. Those are our children and they are made to feel so much guilt and shame and despair and we have an opportunity today to make it better for them because at the moment we tell these young people, we tell them that they are good enough to serve in our armed forces, they are good enough to care in our hospitals, they are good enough to teach in our schools but they are not good enough to marry the person you love and who loves you in return. We tell them that they are something different, something less, something other and that marriage, that dream, that gold standard, that does not apply to you. You do not get to have that and that apartheid message, that same but different, that alien quality, that otherness, that is what is reflected in every hurtful comment, every slander, every exclusion and every abuse, whether it takes place in the school playground, in the factory floor or in the local pub. That is why the bill matters. It matters yes to those people who will directly benefit from it. Those couples today who are eager to commit their relationship and marriage and who I believe should be allowed to do so. More than that, it matters to the future nature of our country because we have an opportunity today to tell our nation's children that no matter where they live and no matter who it is that they love, there is nothing that they cannot do, that we will wipe away the last legal barrier, which says that they are something lesser than their peers. We can help them to walk taller into the playground tomorrow and to face their accuser down, knowing that the Parliament of their country has stood up for them and said that they are every bit as good as every one of their classmates, a Parliament that has said that they deserve the same rights as everybody else. Presiding Officer, I believe in marriage. I believe that it is a good thing and to be celebrated and I want everybody in Scotland to know that marriage is open to them. I support the principles of this bill. We now move to the open debate. I say to members that I have got 20 members who wish to take part in the debate. I am absolutely determined that those who have indicated already that they wish to take part are heard. It is a unique debate in that it is a free vote and I want as many voices heard as possible to allow everybody to get in who has already indicated that they wish to speak. The first number of speakers I can allow is six minutes and afterwards it will be five minutes. The Presiding Officer will tell you when that change occurs. I apologise for not noticing earlier that we were running slightly ahead of schedule. This evening, as it is becoming clear to everyone, it is different to the bills where we debate policy or the intricacies of law. Speaking personally like Ruth Davidson, I can only feel that this is much more immediate, more fundamental and a question very much of my own personal civil rights. After consideration, I concluded that my remarks too must really reflect that. It is not going to come as a surprise to anyone that when I was young and my classmates were starting to notice girls, I started to notice boys. I was afraid. I looked at our society and I did not see myself looking back, not in our institutions like marriage or in what was publicly at the time debated as good and moral or even in how our society portrayed itself in fiction where any representation of same-sex attraction made the subject matter adult ranked alongside pornography and violence. When all I saw or knew of gay people was Julian Clary or Kenneth Williams or Graham Norton, I, a boy from a chip shop in Dumbartonshire, did not see myself. I could only conclude that what I was was different from normal and that what I was was less deserving as a result. Today, this chamber can add a new tile to a great interlocking mosaic of our society that has been steadily built up one piece at a time since the Wolfenden report of 1957. Same-sex marriage will not be the last piece to add to this mosaic and today's bill is not the finished article, not least for the transgendered, but today we can further build a picture of our society that generations of young people to come can look at and see themselves in. People of faith, whether gay or straight, must see themselves in that image too because it would be perverse to expand the freedom to express sexuality only at the cost of freedom to practice faith. Both are fundamental cornerstones of a humane society and the dichotomy between them is a false one. Amending UK equality laws puts beyond doubt any concern that churches could be forced to hold same-sex marriages by domestic law. Anyone can speculate about hypothetical European challenges, but ECHR also includes specific protection for freedom of religious practice. There would be quite a hurdle and a strong protection under article 9 if churches can prove that they are not part of the state. The Church of Scotland is not and has never been a department of the state. Not my words, but those of Aden O'Neill QC, legal adviser to the campaign against the bill when he gave evidence to the Equal Opportunities Committee. If the Kirk doesn't class as a department of state then which faith would? Together with the ECHRC and Karen Monaghan, a human rights law specialist, there was consensus that the protections were strong, that the freedom of religion was genuine, but we don't have to speculate. Nine countries in Europe have already legalised same-sex marriage. Not one has seen churches forced to hold them. A fact confirmed to the Equal Opportunities Committee not once, not twice, but three times over by different witnesses. Above all, we must not be drawn so much by this remote and hypothetical challenge to religious freedom that we overlook the very tangible, very real and very much on-going violation of personal freedom that is the exclusion of people of same-sex attraction from expressing their love through marriage. The institution in our society considers the paragon of commitment. Several partnerships were a welcome step, but they remind me of the ladies' degrees that were offered before women were admitted to Scotland's universities on an equal footing for the first time in 1892. Those ladies' degrees were progressive for their time. They opened the door, but who today would argue that a women-only degree was a substitute for allowing women to study on the same terms as men? Civil partnerships are separate but equal, which is always separate and never equal. They are not enough. Who are we if we were to surprise everyone and vote down this bill today to continue to infringe the freedom of those progressive faiths, such as Scotland's Quakers and Scotland's Unitarians, who sincerely consider same-sex ceremonies part of their understanding of what marriage is and should be? Members are aware that last month marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of a book called Towards a Quaker View of Sex. I want to quote from it. Surely it is in the nature and quality of a real relationship that matters. One must not judge by its outward appearance, by its inner worth. Homosexual affection can be as selfless as heterosexual affection, and therefore we cannot see that it is in some way morally worse. Does the member agree with me that that conclusion, which was unprecedented in its time 50 years ago, is still significantly more advanced and progressive than some people have managed during this debate? I very much agree with the sentiment that was expressed, although I would speak up for Unitarians who have also been performing same-sex blessings since the 1950s. There is plenty of progress all round. Who are we to say, if we were to vote down this bill, that other faiths who do not share that have an understanding of the sacrament of marriage that should be allowed and those views forbidden? Unless we somehow believe that same-sex relationships are intrinsically different, wrong and worthy of legal prescription. I cannot bring myself to believe that any of us in the chamber subscribes to that view, but let me tell you a secret I did once. The shame of those days has given way now to a shame that I did fight those feelings for such a long time, and sadly I know too many who still fight them. People young and old whose lives are a daily denial, I do not have to imagine how it feels to live like that because I remember it. When I came out, it was the time that I stopped looking at those around me and wishing I was the same as them and instead started to wish I had the same rights as them—the same right to love, to marry, the same right to dream of what might be. Today's bill grants to people across Scotland that right, the freedom to be true to their faith and their love, and I implore all members to join together and endorse it this evening so that, for all those people young and old, what a sign that would be. I just remind members that the debate is going to be really, really tight if I want to get everybody in, so I urge you, in fact, to keep to your time limit. I now call Mary Fee to be followed by John Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today's debate is truly historic, long overdue and one that I am delighted to take part in as a supporter of LGBT rights. I also believe that it will come as no surprise that today I will be saying I do. Before I go any further, I must pay compliments to the equality network, the transgender alliance, Stonewall Scotland and all the equality groups that played their part in the campaign that now results in this chamber making its first vote on the bill that will make marriage equal in Scotland. The debate has often been contentious, particularly when played out in the media, and I am sure that all in this chamber will be sincere and courteous in their deliberations tonight. The Scottish Parliament was established to promote the values of social justice and tackle inequality. Since its inception, it has acted against social and moral inequality by repealing section 28, levelling the age of consent, allowing same-sex couples to adopt and foster, and introduced legislation to ensure that LGBT people are protected under hate crime laws. It is only right that we extend the rights and freedoms to LGBT citizens that many of us take for granted each and every day. To the opponents of the bill who comment that civil partnerships were introduced for LGBT people, let me say just this. Were the suffragettes happy in 1918 when the representation of the People's Act was introduced, allowing women over 30 to vote? No, they were not, and they fought for a further decade to enfranchise all women and equalise the voting age of men and women. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender couples that wish to marry should be able to do so. They should not be told that they must accept the current two-tier discriminatory system that we have in place, and adapting our marriage laws will end this discrimination with no impact to any other marriage. Our society has become increasingly liberal since 1999 and attitudes towards the LGBT community are changing, even if it does sometimes feel at a snail's pace. Support for equal marriage is at an all-time high, and my vote tonight also represents the majority of correspondence that I have received from constituents in the west of Scotland. While it is highly recognised and documented that attitudes are changing, the levels of stigma and discrimination towards LGBT people remain unacceptably high, and, like many, I believe that same-sex marriage will help to tackle and reduce prejudice. On the specifics of the bill and the Equal Opportunities Committee stage 1 report, there are still changes that need to be made, and it is likely that amendments will be put forward that improve the opportunity to increase equalities. However, I welcome the considerations made by the Scottish Government and the Equal Opportunities Committee to report in issues such as gender recognition difficulties that are faced by long-term transition people and civil partnerships performed in another country. The committee report also raises questions about the meaning and purpose of marriage. Those against the bill use the complementarity of a man and a woman as the basis of marriage. That suggests that the basis of the marriage was really about procreating. However, as we know all too well, the ability of creating a child does not automatically create a perfect parent or, indeed, an ideal family unit. It seems that some are living in a different society to the rest of us and outdated values serve no justice to the children of today. As I said earlier, we have become more liberal and single parent families are increasing as well as becoming more accepted as the norm. In suggesting that marriage is the basis for a stable environment for raising a family, it adds to the stigma that many single parents feel and does no service to the tremendous work and support that many single parent families do every week. Marriage is a commitment between two loving and consenting adults, whether to have children after that point, or indeed before or never, is a decision solely for that couple, no matter how that family was created. The legislation that came into force in 2009, allowing same-sex couples to adopt, was also long overdue, giving the right to offer a child a safe, stable and loving home. Presiding Officer, having been married for 36 years and raised two children, I strive to understand how introducing this legislation takes anything away from my marriage. I agree with the First Minister for probably the first and maybe the last time when he stated at the Scottish Government Cabinet meeting in Renfrew last year that I personally struggle to see whose freedoms are being infringed by the move towards this legislation. That being said, it is right that freedom of thought, freedom of religion and freedom of speech is protected. However, at what point does one freedom overtake the equality of others? As many supporters have said, there are enough safeguards for people in expressing their view as long as it is not seen to be hateful or discriminatory. In summing up, Presiding Officer, this legislation is a step, if not a leap, in ensuring equal rights for all Scots and will hopefully add to the important and crucial work carried out to tackle inequality and discrimination, and I look forward to casting my vote and support. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to take part in the debate today. Clearly we are dealing with a very sensitive subject and there has been a certain amount of strident language in the media from people at both ends of the spectrum. However, I think that it was encouraging at committee that there was a generally reasonable tone both from committee members and witnesses. That tone was important because whether Scotland is devolved or is independent, we must be able to disagree amongst ourselves in a civilised way. I believe that that is what this Parliament is for. We do not all need to be the same as each other, we do not all need to agree on one point of view. However, I want, and I hope that we all want, a pluralistic and an inclusive Scotland that is made up of a wide variety of people and groups and where people have different backgrounds, orientations, people with traditional faiths or none can all belong and feel at home. I think that we have to note as well that Parliament is not reflecting public opinion on this issue. It can be argued whether those supporting or opposing the bill have the greater numbers on their side, but there is certainly not the overwhelming support outside this place that there seems to be inside, so Parliament needs to tread wisely if it is to keep all the people of Scotland on board, if it is brief. I am grateful. Would he accept that, as well as strong feelings among certain people on both sides of this argument, there is an awful lot of people out there who are just puzzled that we have not got over this already? Those people puzzled why we are looking at it when they think that there are other things that are more important. We need to deal with this subject sensitively, as Ruth Davidson gave us a tremendous example of, as we are talking here about personal relationships. We have people who have a relationship with a partner that they love and want the right to marry them. We have people in their loving marriage relationship who feel that these changes could devalue that relationship. We have people like myself who have a relationship with Jesus and who want to show our love for him. Let us all accept that and try to at least tolerate a range of views. I think that there are two main arguments against this bill, one on the principle that marriages between a man and a woman, and secondly whether there are adequate safeguards in place for those who disagree. The latter is a concern that comes on top of the feeling of some religious people that they are being increasingly marginalised in society. On the principle that the argument is that the word is about marriage, the word marriage has had a recognised meaning for a very long time, and some people would argue that Parliament cannot or should not change that meaning by widening the meaning. No, I am sorry, I am not going to have to go on. It dilutes the value. From personal perspective, I have a lot of sympathy for that argument, however, this raises the question of how much our faith or my faith as a personal position should decide how I vote on an issue like that. Coming from a Baptist perspective, I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, and while state is responsibility for restricting some actions and behaviour, it cannot ultimately impose values on people. Therefore, for me, the crucial arguments are around the protections of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, be they denominations, celebrants, public sector or other workers. We do have assurances from both the Scottish and Westminster Governments that all is safe and full protection is in place, however, there remain a number of concerns. The Equality Act 2010 does not say that all protected characteristics are equal, nor does it say how conflicts between different characteristics are to be decided. As a result, the courts have to decide which rights are most important, and the perception amongst many religious people is that religion and belief often comes at the bottom of the pile. Secondly, the European Court of Human Rights can trump the UK and Scottish Governments. We heard at committee that ECHR will not get involved if there is no such thing as same-sex marriage. However, once same-sex marriage is permitted, will it then switch to being compulsory for churches and others to take part? If the churches are considered to be providing a public service, then the courts could act against them for only providing that service to some and not to others. Effectively, that is what happened with adoption agencies. At the time when adoption by same-sex couples was permitted, there were well-meaning assurances given that no agency would be forced to take part. However, we now have the situation where Oscar is stating that an agency cannot be a charity if it refuses to take part. Will permission turn to compulsion in a few years' time? That is the concern of many of us. We looked at the issue in committee and got different legal views as to what might happen in future. You might have seen in the equality networks briefing that Karen Monahan QC said that it was inconceivable that the European Court would overturn the protections, but that was only one half of the story. The other half is what Aidan O'Neill said. He said, however, if marriage is extended to same-sex couples, it will become a human rights requirement that there be equality of treatment and regard. In a sense, that is what is important about the marriage and civil partnership Scotland bill. It shifts the position in that regard. He goes on to say later, therefore I think that the Equality Act 2010 leaves open the possibility of conflict. Not for the first time, we get a variety of legal opinion from a variety of legal experts. There is doubt whether the protections in place are robust and there certainly are no guarantees. In a similarly controversial area, namely abortion, there is specific provision for NHS workers to be able to choose whether to take part or not. That seems to me like a reasonable compromise. The NHS as a whole provides the service, but individuals are given reasonable accommodation. If the bill is to go forward, I would like to see similar increased protection for individual conscience and belief of public sector and, in fact, other workers. In conclusion, I do not seek to impose Christian values on what is an increasingly secular society. Neither do I seek to restrict the rights of anyone in society. I do seek equality for each person in society, but I remain unconvinced by the assurances given, and therefore I will vote against the bill. Many thanks. A week past on Saturday, as the constituency member for Coatbridge and Christon hosted the Conforty Institute's intercultural dialogue conference here, which included delegates from home and abroad, gay, straight, Catholics, humanists, Protestants and Pagans, and they all recognised that we have to share this planet for the short time we are here. Although we may not all agree on issues like same-sex marriage, we can surely disagree in a respectful fashion. Indeed, Alex Neil also asked that the debate be conducted in a good spirit and civilised manner with respect on all sides. However, since indicating that I did not intend to support the redefinition of marriage, my religion has been disparaged, I have been branded homophobic and bigoted, I have been likened to the Ku Klux Klan and it was suggested that I be burnt at the stake as a witch. The irony, Presiding Officer, is that I spent 12 years serving on the Equal Opportunities Committee when we were removing section 2A, permitting same-sex adoption and introducing civil partnerships, and no-one accused me of homophobia then, quite the opposite. Most of the people who have engaged with me on this issue are not homophobic. They have sincerely held beliefs that marriage means one man, one woman as the social construct forming the basis of family life. By altering this reality, the state will fundamentally affect our society with as yet unknown consequences. Catholics and other Christians who believe that marriage is a sacrament cannot support the redefinition. Of the 77,000 respondents to the Government's consultation, the biggest response ever, 67 per cent, were against redefining marriage, and those people need a voice in here tonight. As we have heard, amendments to the equality act will be sought to try to protect the clergy from legal action, which clearly recognises that quote cases are likely, but those protections should be for everyone. Freedom of worship and freedom of religion are two different things, and both need to be protected. Section 14 of the bill could be amended to give wider protection, but I am not convinced that that would be unassailable. In evidence, Alex Neil himself said that sometimes it depends on the judge. Previously, we were given promises by ministers that they did not foresee unintended consequences of same-sex adoption, and that Catholic adoption agencies specifically would be able to continue their work. I was in this chamber and I voted for it on that basis. We know that that is not the case, and closure now means that many children will suffer as a consequence. The problem with the threat of legal challenges is that the churches cannot afford to fight them, even if they ultimately win. The Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland have stated that they may be forced to separate religious ceremonies from state ceremonies. The consequence of that would be that thousands of heterosexual couples would need to get married in a registry office, then seek a religious blessing, so that a few same-sex couples would have the full ceremony in a church. Those who support the bill and think that it will have no impact on them, or most of us who just want to live and let live, need to understand that they themselves—I have not time—may be directly affected. There are also wider implications and consequences, both intended and unintended. Aidan O'Neill-QC's legal opinion says that parents with children in faith schools could be affected and teachers, chaplans, registrars and other public sector workers may be subject to disciplinary action. Despite Government promises, no additional measures have as yet been included to safeguard freedom of speech and religion. The Lord Advocate's guidance to prosecutors for those who oppose same-sex marriage also gives cause for concern and suggests the expectation of legal challenges. As a constituency MSP for Coatbridge and Chrystian, I have been approached by hundreds of constituents who have asked me to vote against the bill either individually or as part of numerous local religious organisations. There do not seem to be many members tonight who will speak against. MSPs have a responsibility to ensure to the best of their ability that they are not introducing legislation with consequences, albeit perhaps unintended, that will negatively impact on society. Some might believe that, by signing a pledge, they must support the bill. Indeed, the equality network director worryingly claimed in Holyrood magazine a few weeks ago that more than two thirds of MSPs have now signed the equality networks equal marriage pledge, committing them to voting in favour of same-sex marriage. It is important to clarify that signing a pledge and voting for legislation are two very different things. Members signed that pledge before they set eyes on the legislation or before they scrutinised the proposal. The bill may well have detrimental consequences for many people and its representatives need to know to be clear about that when voting. Turning briefly to the committee report, it deals with oral evidence, but it seems very silent on the vast amounts of written evidence, including my own. In my submission, I cited Professor Tom Gallagher, a gay man living with his partner of 31 years and author of Divided Scotland. He talked to Givoral Evidence, but he was not called, and he would like his remarks put on the record. The arrival of gay marriage only benefits a small group of activists who have the ear of part of the media, the civil service and of politicians who naively think that there are a few votes in it for them. Some gays and lesbians feel that they have been hijacked by those campaigners. Many more are bound to be upset by the hurt caused to unbigoted fellow citizens as they see one of mankind's most important social structures, marriage, become a battleground in schools and almost certainly the courts. That is no liberation for gay Scots. Instead, it creates unnecessary distrust between them and a large swath of the population. In conclusion, my considered view is that whilst attempting to tackle a perceived inequality, we will create the conditions for discrimination and legal action against many of our citizens. Perhaps striving for an enlightened position that makes everything for the best and the best of all possible worlds, the bill will bring with it consequences that will have a detrimental impact on our fragile society. I hope that MSPs have not been bounced into voting because of the fear of being branded homophobic, because they signed a pledge or because they have not reflected on all of the arguments presented to the Government and the committee. I have no doubt that the majority of MSPs who vote for this legislation will do so with good intentions, but, unfortunately, as Karl March pointed out in capital, with regard to unforeseen consequences, the way to help is paved with good intentions. I will be voting no this evening. Many thanks. Now, Colin, Kevin Stewart, do we follow by Jim Fueham up to six minutes, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to thank all those folks who took the time to write to me and let me know their views on this issue. My constituents, by an overwhelming majority, the ones who have corresponded with me, have said that I should vote yes to this bill today. Presiding Officer, I would like to read part of an email that I received. It says, as a gay teenager, I cannot state strongly enough the impact that marriage equality would have on me personally and on the wider community. The majority of the political spectrum in Scotland stand by the principle of equality. I ask only that you adhere to it now. I have to say, Presiding Officer, that email made me think of my own teenage years. I became a teenager the year after homosexuality was decriminalised in Scotland. I was a teenager at the time of section 28, and I was a teenager at the time that some horrendous things were said about HIV, the gay plague. I have to say that society seemed to me to be hostile towards gay people. At that point, I decided to play it straight or at least tried to. I have to say that I denied my own sexual orientation throughout my teens and through most of my twenties and only told some of my close friends at the tail end of my twenties that I was gay. I did not tell my parents that until I was 39, which is something that I regret and feel a bit guilty about because I kind of slighted them, because their reaction was the same as it had always been in life, unequivocal love. I believe that traditional marriage has served me well in terms of the parents that I have, in terms of the grandparents that I have and had, and in terms of my brother and sister. It has served people so well that I believe that it should be extended to all people. I think that that is only right. I have to say that, in terms of religious tolerance, I have great respect for all views. I can understand why some folk have taken the stance that they have done. However, Mr Mason talked about religious folk feeling marginalised. I think that we have got to take account of folk who have felt marginalised for so many years and actually get this right here today. I have absolutely no malice, Presiding Officer, for those who intend to vote no or to abstain today. However, I urge you to think of your children, of your grandchildren who may well turn out to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Give them the right to share the happiness and the love and the trials and the tribulations of marriage. I urge you to support the bill today. Now, Colin Jim Hume, to be followed by Joan McAlpine, up to six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is one of those historic days, not just for this Parliament, but I believe for Scotland as a whole. The past years have seen a massive change in the perception of same-sex couples. It has been legal for some years now to be openly gay, whereas in previous generations you are at risk of persecution and conviction. You can now serve openly in the armed forces, and of course we are proud of all who are brave enough to do so to keep us safe at home. Of course, same-sex couples can now adopt and have the joy and the responsibilities that that does bring. This is not just another bill today, it is a reform within our society, a demonstration that our Scottish society values everyone, no matter their sexuality and, of course, no matter their relationships. I will not argue that all of Scotland or even all of this Parliament believes that we should allow same-sex marriages, but I believe that Scotland is changing. In 2002, 41 per cent of the Scottish people agreed that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Just eight years later, that had risen to 61 per cent. Of course, when the Equal Ops Committee called for evidence, 1,300 respondents, 75 per cent of them were positive to equal marriage. A clear majority and a clear growing support for equal marriage, and if my own bulging inbox is anything to go by, the majority by far are in favour of equal marriage. Not unanimously, of course, but quite clearly. It may not be much of a surprise that, as Liberal Democrats, we shall be supporting the progress of this bill through Parliament. It is our party policy and even our constitution states that we, and I quote, exist to build a safeguard, a fair, free and open society in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We made our equal marriage, our party policy in 2010, and we are, I believe, a first major party to do so. We have also inputted a positive response to the consultation, which clearly states that we believe that Scotland can prove to the world that it is one of the fairest and equal places to live. I believe that the progress that we have made regarding legalised being gay, serving in the forces, etc. makes it more difficult now for us to have the situation that, where there is a willing religious body and two people with religious beliefs that feel strong enough that they want their relationship bonded with the sanctity of marriage, there should be no barrier for that to happen. I emphasise willing religious body and I mean willing, and I know that there are concerns that religious bodies of whichever denomination may be forced through human rights issues to marry people that they do not want to, but I simply do not buy that. I am aware of churches that, in the past, would not marry couples unless there were regular attenders or, through whatever reason, chose not to marry that opposite-sex couple. I do not know if any case resulting in that couple taking a church to court simply went to a church that would be happy enough to sanctify their relationship in marriage. I cannot envisage a same-sex couple also having any joy in taking religious bodies to court on human rights issues, and it may be worth noting that the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Human Rights Commission are actual supporters of this bill. The bill is clear that no religious body would be required to solemnise same-sex marriage and individual celebrants, even if the religious body have opted in, would have no obligation to marry a same-sex couple. We believe in a freedom of expression, and that freedom of expression extends to those religious bodies who either want to opt in or out of equal marriage. I have mentioned the Liberal Democrats' support for liberty, fairness and equality, and that we shall support the progress of this bill. It may be worth noting that some of the work happening elsewhere in the UK where the protections of freedom act of 2012 has meant the deletion of a so-called homosexual act as a previous conviction, a change to allow gay men to give blood, an anti-deporting gay asylum seekers to countries that will torture them for the way they are, and even through the UK Government's sports charter a call to sporting organisations to sign up to a charter to end homophobia and transphobia, not to mention the progress of their equal marriage bill. I am sure that the members in this Parliament will applaud Lib Dem's, at least some of them anyway, in the coalition making a positive difference to equal rights for all. I am proud to be a member of the Scottish Parliament at this time of the progress of this bill, albeit that we are not the first in Europe to legislate for equal marriage, as Westminster is ahead of us. Belgium, France, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain and Iceland have already legislated, not to mention, 16 of the United States of America. However, I believe that it is once again proof that, if the bill progresses to today, Scotland is a fairer and more equal country and one that we can all be proud to live in. I will be voting for the bill because I believe that it is underpinned by tolerance, recognition and respect. It is about the right to love, the fundamental human right to love and to express that love publicly in a declaration of commitment that cannot be dismissed as second class or second best. The bill is a mark of how far we have come in a relatively short period of time on the issue of equality. It is only a few decades ago, within my own lifetime, that homosexuality was self-criminalised, where people lived double lives, lived in fear of exposure, blackmail and sometimes even imprisonment. We should never forget that such hazards remain very real in other countries where human rights are denied on the basis of sexuality and often gender too. The language used by a small number of people outside this chamber in the wider debate on equal marriage has occasionally become polarised. We have heard the preposterous allegation that gay unions are, quote, tainted. Similarly, we have seen those who have asked for reassurances on religious beliefs that are dismissed as homophobic. I do not think that that language is helpful and I do not think that it reflects where the majority of the population stand on the issue. I support equal marriage in principle, but one of my reasons for speaking in this debate is personal. Like many people of my generation, when I was growing up in a very religious family, a Roman Catholic family in a small Scottish town, I did not know anyone who was gay. My first encounter with homosexuality was in 1975, the Thames television broadcast The Naked Civil Servant, in which John Hart portrays Quintain Cripp. While it was a breakthrough in the sense of being a sympathetic film, it also gave a very stereotyped almost caricaturish portrayal of homosexuality as outrageous and eccentric, something outside the mainstream. Within a few years of that film, everything had changed. Suddenly, we all knew someone in our own family, our wider circle of friends who was openly gay. In my own case, my cousin and close childhood friend Cal came out at the age of 18, and through him I formed many firm friendships with gay men in particular that lasted a lifetime. It is perhaps not surprising giving my age and liberal outlook that I was happy to accept my friend's sexuality. What is more significant is that the older people in our family, who had very strong religious beliefs, who grew up in a far more socially conservative age in the 50s and 60s, they also accepted my friend's sexuality. I am not saying that it happened overnight or that there was no awkwardness or that there were anties whispering in private—I just wish you'd meet a nice girl—but there was public acceptance. There were joint invitations and Christmas cards and family gatherings, and over time, as in many, many families, having a gay couple was utterly unremarkable. It was mainstream. When my cousin Cal died of cancer at the age of 53 years ago, we grieved as a family, and his male partner was treated with the same consideration and sympathy as any heterosexual partner who had suffered such a loss. He saw the devoted nursing care that he gave to Cal in his last weeks. At the funeral, he was the chief mourner. That is not to say that the older members of the family in their 70s, 80s and 90s had completely abandoned in any way their strong religious beliefs. Just as they said a silent prayer at the humanist funeral, they had reached an accommodation with the partnership, based on love, loyalty and basic human decency. That is why I believe that those harsh voices that are speaking out against the legislation are not typical of lay members of the Christian church-going population. The vast majority of religiously observant people, even those in churches that are officially against equal marriage, will accept this change in practice just as they have accepted their gay friends and family members. They judge people on the basis of their character, not their sexuality. They ask, are they kind, are they loyal, are they generous, are they fair, are they a good son or daughter? That is what matters to most of us. I welcome the fact that the Equality Act of 2010 will be amended to further protect individual celebrants who do not wish to carry out same-sex marriage but who belong to a religious body who has opted to do so. That is about tolerance. Just as I do not believe that those with religious views opposing equal marriage should dictate the law, neither do I believe that the law should impose my values on religious denominations. I just wanted to conclude by reflecting on something that Margaret McCulloch said when she was speaking for the committee. She said that the committee had agreed to differ. Going forward, I think that society as a whole will agree to differ. In doing so, they are agreeing to respect difference in sexuality. That is a mark of our tolerance. What this piece of legislation is about is about the journey that we have made as a society, and although we have heard a lot today about marginalisation, alienation and people feeling bullied and excluded, my personal experience is that the bill will bring the law into line with real life and real families. We are a much more tolerant society than sometimes this debate has given the impression that we are. Thank you very much. There are many of my colleagues here today whom I have heard ask the question why they got involved in politics. The most common answer is that they got involved in politics because they wanted to change the world. My most usual answer is that I got involved in politics because I thought that the world was changing too fast and I wanted to slow it down a bit. Perhaps, with a small c, that is the definition of conservative. When I look at the proposals contained in this bill, I see some specific issues, which I hope to have time to address later, but I see a general principle. That general principle is to change the way that we look at marriage and to extend that to a greater range, a more complete range of people within our society. That is a principle that, at heart, I believe is sound. However, my problem is with the effect that it has on the overall balance of our views on marriage and why we have chosen to act in this way at this time to the exclusion of other possibilities. I see marriage as an important cornerstone of our families and of our society as a whole. During my lifetime, I have seen society begin to fall apart. I have seen families in instability and I have seen individual children raised in difficult circumstances as a result. That is why I would argue that one of the priorities of this Parliament should be to strengthen families, to find ways to reinforce marriage and to make sure that we reverse the trends of half a century and more in order to gain that stability. That is why I worry that we are making this our wrong priority at the wrong time. I have to say that during the conduct of the inquiry, the committee, its members and all of those who came before it have treated this whole issue with a very high degree of mutual respect and maturity. I believe that evidence that was given in the debate that took place was of the highest standard and I commend the report that the committee produced. However, during its preparation and while we were taking evidence, there were one or two issues that I found that I had to dispute. We had Professor Curtis before us talking about the level of public support and, two enough, it is the case that opinion polls indicate that support for this change is growing rapidly in society. However, I also believe that similar polls indicate that this is largely because people no longer have the care to commit to a particular policy and it may not be that people care more, it may be that people actually care less. We have spoken about the redefinition of marriage and other speakers have mentioned traditional marriage as a key element of what we have discussed. I do believe that traditional marriage can be undermined by this change. As a result, I will ask that the minister might say something either during this debate or before stage 2 on the other proposals that he has brought forward, such as the forthcoming review of same-sex civil partnerships and ask him if there is any way that, during that process, he can consider how we might lend a hand to those within families who require support to enjoy greater stability. Elaine Smith raised the issue of tolerance. She was concerned that, once she had made her public opinion public, she suffered as a result. I have found that there is an extent within this broader argument where that can happen. I have had some interesting emails, but I think that that is just a measure of the passion that people hold within this debate. I think that we need to promote tolerance through this debate and ensure that it does not become a one-way street. I think that it is important that that tolerance continues. There is a requirement to ensure that we protect the freedom of those who disagree with the change in legislation, whether they are religious bodies or whether they are staff within our public bodies and particularly teachers in our schools. I have a worry that we may, if we get this wrong, create a situation that can have certain parallels to the section 28 debate, which resulted in some very difficult circumstances for teachers, parents and pupils in the past. We must make sure that that does not— Members, in his last minute, I am afraid. Once again, I am coming to a conclusion. There are also a number of proposed amendments to the bill, which, while I will not support the bill as a whole, I am prepared to support. However, I am concerned at the proposals to lower the age at which the gender recognition process can begin. We will look for further information, and I am most likely to oppose any change in the Government's policy on that. I understand the arguments for equality and diversity that are contained in and around the bill. I seek to ensure that we also achieve stability and security within our families and within our society. By broadening the perspective of the bill, there is so much more that the Government could achieve. No call on Nigel Don to be followed by Drew Smith. Up to six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to the Equal Opportunities Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and the report that it has brought before us, because, of course, for those of us who are not on the committee, it is only when we get the stage 1 report that we actually get a sense of the issues that have generated discussion and the areas of detail that need to be addressed. Of course, the committee heard a great deal of evidence that those who are same-sex couples feel that they are discriminated against. I think that we have had that very well and very movingly articulated by members this evening, and I think that that has to be respected and I do. Let me take a slightly different tack if members will bear with me than has come before and see where it takes us. What is being proposed, it seems to me, is not very different from a civil partnership. Present differences between civil partnerships and marriages are helpfully outlined at paragraph 214, and they are essentially about pension rights and international recognition. But revising the law on marriage is not the only way of dealing with these. Pension rights are, of course, reserved and can only be worked through in co-operation with the Westminster Government. It is clear that a significant amount of work needs to be done to resolve this. The interview of international recognition is important, but I simply point out that a couple in a civil partnership who wish to move abroad ought to be in a position to marry there where that marry there were that desirable. I am not convinced that it is our duty to accommodate every nuance of other jurisdictions' law in our own. Forgive me if I may make some progress, I can come back if I can. A traditional view of marriage has been around for millennia and has worked rather well as the basis of family relationships within societies around the world. Within the Christian faith it is not just a practical policy but also hugely symbolic, and I want members to understand this. Jesus' death and resurrection are central for the Almighty's redemptive purpose for his people. The church, that is his people, is described as the bride of Christ many times in the Bible. The differences between the two parties could hardly be clearer. Equally, their complementarity is evident from the fact that it is those very people of the Christian church who demonstrate the out-working of Christ's love to each generation. That is why the so-called traditional view of marriage does matter to the Christian church. Some will say that it is only a word, and yes, they will be right, but words have a meaning. I am not in a hurry to change the meaning of a word in our law when it is so much attached to it in literature and liturgy. Much of the evidence relates to protections for those who do not want to have to celebrate same-sex marriages. I hope that members will understand that what I have said that such views can be held without any feelings of homophobia. Concern has also of course been expressed about the position of teachers. I note firstly that there is a general belief among witnesses that the proposed protections are strong, but secondly that doubts remain about the robustness of those, particularly in the context of European law and the way in which that may develop over time. What is clear is that if this bill is enacted substantially as drafted, then a meaning of marriage will have been radically altered. Cabinet Secretary says that he will not regard his marriage as having been diminished by what is proposed. I understand his view and have a similar view about my relationship with my wife, but I remind members that a set is not defined by its present population, but by its boundaries. Let me get to the end, please. What is being proposed to change marriage as an institution, and that alters the context for everyone in the future, as Mr Spock would have put it, is marriage, Jim, but not marriage as we know it. I absolutely respect the rights of everyone of religion to hold their views. I wonder if the member could acknowledge that the current legislation, the law right now, discriminates against me and other LGBT people in Scotland. I would prefer to acknowledge that it distinguishes simply because a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship are dealt with differently. As I would hope that the member would have picked up, it seems to me that those differences are the ones that we should address. Those pension rights should be dealt with. That international recognition should be dealt with. My concern is that we have this one word, and I hope that, from what I have said previously, I will encourage people to go back and read it on the record. There are reasons for being concerned simply about that word. I am grateful to the member. It is interesting that he seems to place great emphasis on the importance of the value of that word in relation to his own marriage, but, in discussing the merits of civil partnership, it is not an essential difference that he talks about, but a technical one. Why should those of us who place value in that word and have a cultural meaning relevant to our own lives not also enjoy the freedom to express it? Nigel Dawn, one minute. I am absolutely clear—I am going to be running out of time on all the rest, aren't I? I am absolutely clear that they can, and I think that they will. What I am asking members to understand is that there are reasons why, within a biblical theology, people within the Christian Church feel that that word has another meaning. That is all. That is historically where it is, but— The member says last minute. Finally, Presiding Officer, this is going to have to be shortened. I note that the future of civil partnerships are already under review. I am just wondering why we are in such a hurry to change the meaning of marriage at the moment when many of the issues that we picked up in a Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee could be much more easily dealt with had we rationalised civil partnerships across same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. I think that I would encourage the Minister to consider whether it might be better to get that first before we actually implement it, because I think that it might have reduced some of the problems. Sadly, we now have to move to five-minute speeches, and I call on Drew Smith to be followed by Christian Alar. In coming here, members bring with us a range of experiences, ideas and beliefs, but I think that it is always worth reminding ourselves that our debates and judgments, although they might not always seem to, affect real people how they live their lives, the opportunities that they have and their sense of the value that society places upon them. Equal marriage rights were raised with me during the 2011 campaign, and I strongly supported the references that were included in my own party's manifesto, but I had perhaps not thought through the reasons why I felt the way I did about it and perhaps thought that my response was instinctual. After the election, I was first asked my views a few days later and over time I was asked about it more and more often. I tried to think about that and listened to others expressing their view. I came to understand their thoughts and feelings about it a little bit more clearly. In the course of that wider debate, we have had up to the introduction of the bill. I also remembered someone who I had not forgotten, but I perhaps did not realise the extent to which they had influenced the view that I thought was instinctual. Like the majority of the Scottish population, I strongly support the provisions of the bill. I have at various times pressed the cabinet secretary and his predecessor to hurry along, so I am very pleased that we have got to this point. I hope that we will now follow England and Wales and some of the many other countries that have been identified in creating equal marriage. I believe that marriage rights are an issue of equality. I feel strongly that the current position of civil partnerships, which I supported at the time when I was proud of my party's lead in introducing them, is not quite enough. I have heard it said that there is little distinction between civil partnerships and marriage in terms of legal rights, but in one aspect of it, civil partnerships preclude the right of gay people of faith to commit themselves to each other in a religious service. That is discriminatory and that is one of the major achievements that I hope that legislation will remove. Equality to me does not mean that everything must be the same, but equally difference should not be imposed upon identical things. Same-sex relationships may be different from opposite-sex relationships, but they are not all relationships different and unique. I do not think that I will also share the same basic principle. Love for another human being and a desire to commit to spending your life with that person. I do not believe that it is the right for the state to draw a distinction between human partnerships that human beings do not draw themselves. To me, that is fundamentally what the bill is about and why I support it. In 2000, the Parliament repealed section 28 clause 2A, which it did in advance to the rest of the UK. Looking back, repeal of section 28 was a victory for equality, but it did not come without a cost. Just as the years of various discriminatory laws did not come without cost and just as that cost exists in many parts of the world, it is still very rightly highlighted. There are members in the chamber who would have celebrated that victory then, and they might recall some of the pain of that debate. The things that were said which can never be unsaid, the people who pushed ahead and in my view have never been properly recognised for their efforts. When section 28 was debated by this Parliament, I was still at school and it was a religious school. I recall what was said. I recall talking to classmates about the leaflets that were going through our parents' doors, the newspaper headlines and the things that were said on the school bus. I mentioned that I thought of someone in the context of this debate. I remember an individual, a girl a year at school, a young woman, who one evening appeared on the TV news, which was rather unexpected. She spoke out and to many of us she became the first person we knew to come out. She did it by asking a very simple and powerful question. What right do other people have to make a judgment about who I am, my life, to make a distinction about who and what I am? That was in the context of that section 28 debate. There are many things that can be said about this bill and other people are rightly saying them, but I celebrate the fact that this might be the last major legal change required to remove discrimination from our law for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. I am very privileged to be in this place at this time to support it. I will follow the amendments at stage 2 and I will also support the efforts to further improve this bill, because, for transgender people, it probably is not the last major piece of legislation, but it is a very significant step on the way. I would also say, Presiding Officer, that I would seek to oppose any change to the bill, which, if I believe that it could threaten a new section 28, I would have a well-intentioned all of the people around that issue. I do not want to have a situation where there is another campaign to come back to this piece of legislation because of a clause that is inserted at stage 2. I do not know, Presiding Officer, if that woman that I mentioned has sent an email asking us to support this legislation or not if she has put her activism behind her. For her as much as for many of the other good reasons, and I thank Ruth Davidson for giving a voice to that view today, it is thanks to her and many people that I have met on the coast of this campaign that a generation of people can grow up, fall in love and get married, not without the world caring who you get married to, but with the world recognising the partnership that you make, rather than differentiating your relationship. I am very grateful to support the general principles of this bill. Again, my apologies, but we have to cut the debate back to five-minute speeches. Christian Alard, followed by Patrick Harvie, up to five minutes, please. Presiding Officer, I thank First of all Mary Faes, the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee. You welcome me to the committee when we first consider the bill. Of course, I, a few months later, welcome Margaret McRock as our new convener. Presiding Officer, before I come to the details of the recommendation we made in this report, I would like to thank all the members of the Equal Opportunities Committee for their warm welcome and for the way our group worked together on this bill echoing Alex Johnstone and John Mason words early on that we agreed to disagree and we move forward. On registration of celebrants, we made a couple of accommodations. The first one came from the evidence of I am friend Borowsky of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities. He addressed the definition of non-civil marriages, particularly in the context of humanist marriages. We feel it is important to reflect the distinction between religious ceremonies and belief ceremonies. This is why we ask the Scottish Government views on a suggested amendment to the definition of non-civil marriages. Next, Ross Wright of the Humanist Society Scotland gave evidence and commented on the Church of Scotland preferential status in law. We are asking the Government to clarify his view on the claim that the Church of Scotland has a privileged status in marriage law. On the future of civil partnerships, a lot of what's said about the Government's forthcoming review, and we heard the Cabinet Secretary today reassuring us that this review will come through. We particularly know the Scottish Government plans to consider issues relating to reform of civil partnerships, including opposite sex civil partnerships. To understand better the reason behind the bills, we did a fair bit of travelling when taking evidence. Believe me, the international perspective was always there. With this bill, same sex couples who have entered into a civil partnership in another country will have to dissolve their partnership before being permitted to marry here in Scotland. We feel as a committee that these couples should be able to convert their civil partnership to a marriage, just like couples whose civil partnerships were conducted in Scotland. Another view from the Scottish Government is that allowing gender neutral ceremonies could cause problems for denominations that might not want to use a gender neutral marriage declaration when marrying an opposite sex couple. We kind of disagree. We would like the Government to reconsider. It should be possible to allow a choice of gender neutral and gender specific language for marriage declarations. Professor John Curtis told us how much public opinion changed regarding attitudes towards same sex relationships. I'm pleased that a lot of our work was to recognise the change of gender for married persons or civil partners. As I feel attitudes towards transgender communities have not changed as yet as much as I would like. James Morton of the Scottish Transgender Alliance told us about his proposal for an amendment to the bill to make sure that a spouse cannot stop easily her partner's gender recognitions. James said that for someone to have a gender identity legally recognised and respected by the Government is a human right, something that no one should be able to stop. We considered how spouses of people seeking gender recognition may find the process very difficult. An important point is that we have not received any evidence from their perspective. After our own considerations, we came to the conclusion that the non-transition spouse's personal choice is sufficiently protected by the automatic grounds for divorce triggered by his or her partner seeking gender recognition. We are asking in the report for the requirement for spouse consent for gender recognition to be removed. We received evidence about lowering the age requirement to change gender. James Morton again said that transgender people aged 16 or 17 will remain discriminated against under the bill as drafted. We really don't think we have enough evidence again on lowering the age requirement is the reason we ask the Government to provide in advance of stage to a detailed response on the issue. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I would like to share a thought about how the world has moved on. As you must know by now, I was raised on a chicken farm in Burgundy in France. I truly remember the day my father told me about one of his regular customers. A farmer who lived in a remote village with his partner, I was really struck the way my father spoke about this couple with great respect and in a friendly tone. And I might disagree with Valence Smith this afternoon. She talked about small group of activists and I will not consider this couple a deep in rural Scotland a small group of activists. I wonder what happened to them, but I wonder today how much those two farmers, those two men, would have liked to get married like every other farming couple in rural France many decades ago. No, Colin. Patrick Harvie to be followed by Jim Eadie. Up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the privilege of taking part in this debate. I would also like to thank several of the speakers who have given a very personal take on the issue. Kevin Stewart, Marko Beagie and Ruth Davidson in particular, in 10 years as a member of this Parliament, I have never so enthusiastically applauded a Conservative speech. Always open to a new experience, of course. Members might be a little surprised, I think, that my own personal circumstances placed me in what I regard as impeccably neutral territory on this issue. I am single. I am bisexual. I have no idea whether I will have a long-term relationship with a man or a woman in the future, and I have no idea whether I would want to get married. I certainly do not personally regard it as a gold standard, but as one of the many choices about family status that people will make a choice between on their own values, not on the values that we would impose upon them. Some of the arguments that I have heard against this legislation have been, well, they have been many and varied. There have been some which are frankly spurious and silly, such as the, well, you know, you can get married already just to somebody of the opposite sex. I cannot believe how frequently I have heard this nonsensical and demeaning argument. Some have been mischievous. There have been, I think, deliberate attempts to whip up ungrounded fears about ministers at the Church of Scotland being dragged off by the police and taken to the courts and prosecuted for refusing to marry same-sex couples. Some of the arguments against the legislation have simply been curious, such as the view that, from the starting point of religious freedom, the law ought to tell churches who they may not be allowed to marry. It seems to me that the argument from religious freedom has to be in favour of what the Government is trying to achieve with this bill, which is to permit but not compel. However, there are some arguments against this legislation which are serious and which we should not ignore. Quite the contrary, there has been serious opposition to pretty much every step in the equality story that has been taken over many, many generations. And there are certain voices who have opposed every step towards LGBT equality from decriminalisation onwards. Those serious arguments absolutely should not be ignored. They should be confronted and defeated because they assert whether they do so in religious terms or any other. They assert, basically, the lesser worth, the lesser dignity, the lesser status or the lesser value of LGBT people and our relationships. Those arguments are serious and should be defeated. They deserve to be defeated. In over 20 years of volunteering, working or campaigning on many of the issues in this area, I have honestly never had a coherent moral argument in favour of this view of the lesser worth, lesser status, so that in some way same-sex relationships are simply morally wrong. I have had many such arguments which are rooted in homophobia, none which are rooted in a coherent moral case that I have heard. Some of the arguments that I have heard fall under the heading that I am not homophobic but, such as those that amount to saying that I am not homophobic, I am just concerned that one day I might need to treat LGBT people as though they were my equals. On the basis of that argument, we have had demands for so-called protections to be built into this legislation, protections from the indignity of having to treat other people as equals. If we look at the evidence that we heard on the call for these protections, what the amount to, if we were to give into these demands, would be a rolling back of 10 or 15 years of legislative and cultural progress toward equality. We should hold the line against those demands absolutely, not as an MSP but as a citizen. I was proud of Scotland's Parliament when it repealed section 28 but also when it held the line against demands for concessions to the forces of conservatism and homophobia—social conservatism, I should have said, and homophobia. It held the line and it did not give those concessions. We should be equally proud today and, over the months to come, not only passing the legislation but holding the line against those demands for amendments that would weaken the principle of equality. We should also listen seriously to the calls for amendments on issues that members have mentioned such as the spousal veto, overseas civil partnerships, gender-neutral language and gender recognition for younger people. I believe that, if we do that, it deserves the pride of many, many Scottish citizens when we passed the bill at stage 3. Presiding Officer, the bill before us concerns an issue that is deeply close to my own heart, as it is for other members and to our fellow citizens who have joined us in the gallery this evening. Ruth Davidson was right to say that this debate is a sign of the growing maturity of this Parliament. The bill is about marriage, but its passage into law will also represent the culmination of decades of struggle for equality, for lesbians and gay men, as well as for bisexual and transgender people. Let us not forget that, recently, in our history as 1980, homosexual relations between two men remained illegal, while the very concept of relations between two women did not exist in law. In truth, Presiding Officer, to be lesbian or gay in Scotland—and here I can only speak from my own experience—was to inhabit a cold and inhospitable place. To come out at that time was to face rejection from friends, from family and from work colleagues. It was also to risk aprobarium and, in some cases, violence. There were precious few positive role models in the media or in our communities, and it seemed that the further you travelled from metropolitan Glasgow or cosmopolitan Edinburgh, the harsher and the colder that climate became. Many people felt left Scotland rather than stay and face the discrimination and prejudice, which was sadly a hallmark in so much of Scottish society at that time. Thankfully, the culture and temperature has changed. To have had this debate even 10 years ago would have been unthinkable, and yet the passage of this bill will in time, I believe, enjoy widespread acceptance within our society. The challenge for those of us who make our laws is not to do what is popular, to stick our finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, but to represent our constituents, to listen to the voice of our own conscience and to do what is right. I believe that this measure is right and that it commands the support of the public. In the years since 1980, there has been much progress towards equality, employment legislation, the armed forces ban lifted, an equal age of consent, adoption rights and the introduction by this Parliament of a law to outlaw hate crime. However, the struggle for equality has not yet been won. That is why this bill and this debate is so important to so many of us. The most significant change in the context of this debate is, of course, the introduction of civil partnerships, undoubtedly enhancing the lives of many same-sex couples across the country by conferring on them many of the rights enjoyed by married couples. But civil partnership is a legal contract—it is not marriage. My constituents have written in their hundreds to urge me to support this bill and I have been moved and humbled by their testimony. One woman wrote to me to say, I am a practicing Catholic who is a strong supporter of same-sex marriage and would very much want my voice to be heard. One man urged me to support the bill to end what he called government-supported prejudice against gay people as second class Scots. Another constituent contacted me to say, I simply cannot understand what harm it does to anyone if two other people decide to get married. What possible grounds can there be to object to the legislation? It cannot be freedom of religion because the bill enshrines protection for those denominations who are opposed on grounds of theology. When asked by me at the Equal Opportunities Committee, has your denomination been compelled to perform same-sex marriage in any of the countries that have introduced same-sex marriage, the representative of the Catholic Church stated in evidence that the Catholic Church has not. Let us be clear, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple and no church, whether of the Catholic or Reformed traditions, will be forced to conduct same-sex marriage. The bill does not undermine freedom of religion. We enhance freedom of religion by allowing those faiths who recognise same-sex marriage as part of their understanding of God's love for all people to conduct those ceremonies. The objection to the bill cannot be the need to protect traditional marriage as marriage has evolved over time. Who today would defend the subjugation of women within marriage as expressed by Lord Justice Clark Braxfield in the 18th century when he said in law, a wife has no person? Traditional marriage has evolved to recognise the rights of women, to allow divorce and has always evolved to reflect social morse. The objection to the bill cannot be because it represents an attack on marriage on the contrary. How can it, when it will meet the desire by thousands of loving couples to be brought within its ambit? Contrary to what Alex Johnson said in his contribution, this bill will strengthen marriage. Scotland is no longer that cold and inhospitable place. Tonight, we have the opportunity to take a further significant step as a society to recognise that love is love, whether it be a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The bill offers a state and social affirmation of the right of two people who love one another to proclaim that love before the world. This is a wonderful opportunity for this Parliament to signal to the world the type of country we want Scotland to be, one that is open, tolerant and generous to all. The time for equality in Scotland has arrived. The time for marriage equality is now. Now, Colin. Dr Elaine Murray, to be followed by Linda Fabiani up to five minutes, please. I am pleased to take the opportunity to speak in the stage 1 debate on the marriage and civil partnerships bill. I am not a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I have been opposed to discrimination towards people on the basis of sexual orientation since I was a student, and that was about 40 years ago. Indeed, that was in that bleak and inhospitable place that Dame Edy just spoke about, where sex between men was still illegal, where lesbianism was not recognised because, apparently, Queen Victoria did not think that it could happen, where same-sex partners were rarely there to express their affection publicly. Coming out to the family was a major difficulty for many gay people. The popular terminology used to describe gay people was derogatory and offensive, and I found all of that totally apparent as I did a party and racial segregation, which also existed at the same time. I have had many representations from constituents on the bill—many supportive and many opposed. To those constituents who have asked me to vote against the bill, as it redefines marriage, I apologise, but I do not agree with their arguments, and I will explain more. To those who have told me that they will not vote for me, well, I am afraid that that is their prerogative. The view that marriage is solely the union of a man and a woman for the procreation is, I believe, outdated and simplistic. There has always been a lot more to marriage than that, from honours and powerful families, marriage created and cemented alliances, for others it represented respectability and the division of labour and responsibilities between men and women. Until recently, women, as Dame Edy referred to, were the possessions of their husbands. Marriage signified that a woman belonged to that man, so that nobody else could have a sexual relationship with her. Therefore, the man could be sure that the children that were created were his. However, marriage in these more egalitarian times is a public declaration of love and the intention that that relationship will be permanent. It may or may not involve children. If it does, those children may or may not be the biological children of both or either of the parents. Many of us, including myself, have been married more than once. Indeed, my eldest lad was at my second marriage. Many of others have stable long-term relationships, bringing up their families, but without feeling the need to be married. Many families consist of one parent bringing up children with the support of relatives and friends. The bill enables people of the same gender who want to make that public declaration of love and permanence in a religious ceremony, reflecting their faith to be able to do so. I also support the Government in proposing an opt-in process. I welcome the insurances that have been given, but some of the representations that I have had from constituents have been very concerned about certain aspects of discrimination against people of faith. I know that the cabinet secretary mentioned circulating letters to members. I wonder if he could circulate that around all MSPs so that we could maybe offer that reassurance to those constituents who have been in touch with us. Others have reflected how far we have come in the past 40 years. I would have not. If somebody had told me 40 years ago that a Conservative Prime Minister in the UK Parliament would be promoting equal marriage, I simply would not have believed them. I am proud of Scotland's journey. I am proud that over 60 per cent of Scots now agree with equal marriage, and three quarters of those who responded to the committee's consultation did so. The books that I read as a young woman describing the experience of gay people, whether Radcliffe halls well of loneliness or Gore of Redals, the city and the pillar, were stories of tragedy. The story of being gay or being LGBT should no longer be a story of tragedy. To those who say that civil partner ships should be enough, I would remind them, if they are old enough, of the 1976 hit by Tom Robertson's band, Sing If You Are Glad to Be Gay, which despite its cheerful title spoke of police harassment, meetings and insults, and ended with, and I will not say the word, that bees are legal now. What more do they want well equality, like most people, equality? I will support this bill tonight at stage one, and I hope that it makes its way through Parliament into legislation. It will not be the end of discrimination against LGBT people, but it is an expression, and by this Parliament, of the will to treat people equally and not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity, that someone was born with. When I was young, people used to think that being LGBT was something—maybe it was a choice or maybe it was something their mum did or their school did or so on. Actually, people are born that way. Somebody who is LGBT and does not make the choice to be that any more than I made the choice to grow only to five foot one. It is the best part. Ms Murray, can I ask you to bring your remarks to a close? Exactly, of the glorious diversity of human beings. Legislation should treat people equally, it should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, any more than on gendered race or faith. I believe that the Government is getting it balanced right. I am pleased to support the bill, and I am so proud of the progress that we have made in Scotland during my own lifetime. Linda Fabiani, followed by Margaret Mitchell. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The glorious diversity of human beings from Elaine just sums it up. That was absolutely great. I am really pleased to be in this debate today, because I feel as if it has been a long time coming. That is perhaps just a mark of my own frustration about things. I looked back at the debate during the 2004 legislation for civil partnerships. I said at that time how can anyone sit here and say that it is equality if same-sex couples are not allowed to manifest their faith in the same way that mixed-sex couples can, even if the Minister of Religion is happy to carry out the ceremony. I still feel that way. I just cannot get my head round the idea that some people should be treated differently from others. It is just very, very wrong. However, it may well be that, although I saw civil partnerships as a temporary solution, that it should have been very quickly overtaken, it may well be that it was right at the time that that step was taken, and then we moved on. The figures that Jackie Baillie quoted about how social attitudes have changed, perhaps say that that was correct. I have been really struck today by the amount of personal testimony that has been given, and people have been very, very brave. Do not anybody get their notebook out? I am not about to say anything terribly, terribly stunning, but what I would say is that time moves on, attitudes change, and perhaps 30 years ago my standing up and saying, you know what, I am not married, I live and sin, might have been as stunning as what we are hearing people say in the chamber today. Now nobody cares about that. It might have been stunning to hear an 11-year-old say in the 60s, I was that 11-year-old, you know what, my mum's just ran off with another man, and they're going to get divorced, my mum and dad. I had that for a couple of years from people in school and neighbours. People I met because I was ashamed of it, because social moors at that time said that it was something that was very, very shocking. So what we've done today, I think, is very, very important. It's a natural step forward, and I hope that we do get to the point where there's somebody standing up somewhere in the Parliament when I'm no longer here and explaining something that has been taboo for so many years and saying, you never guess what, it's not all that long ago that same-sex marriages were something that people found it really difficult to talk about. People felt it very, very hard to say that I'm actually in the same sex relationship, and that is what's right for me. So to me it's just about equality, straight, simple equality. Except people the way that they are, why can't everyone just accept people the way they are if they're not hurting anybody else? Really, really simple. That brings me on to the spousal vitae. I was going to talk about it more, but I'm aware there's other people want to get in, and I was pleased to hear the minister say in his opening remarks that he was going to look at the spousal vitae on legal gender recognition, where people have been through that whole process, but their spouse can still stop them by being legally recognised. That has to be looked at, minister. I'm glad you'd say you do. I'd like to end by saying, by paying recognition to everyone who's worked for this so hard. There's a great wee book, The Equality Network book, Reasons to Support Equal Marriage, and what struck me when I looked through this was how happy everybody looked. It's such a happy, happy document. It also struck me today when we were out standing in the wet mud getting our photographs taken. How happy everyone was that this was happening, so let's not lose that. I think we should be very, very happy that we're moving forward in such a way. Yeah, we still have a way to go, but hey, you. Today's really, really good, really good for this Parliament, for every one of us in it, I believe, in the longer term, even though some may not feel it now, but it's very, very good for Scotland, and we should celebrate that. I now call Margaret Mitchell to be followed by James Dornan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In this important debate about same sex, more often referred to as equal marriage, it is worth taking a moment to set the debate in context. The Equal Opportunities Committee is the lead committee for this bill and has a formal remit to consider and report on matters relating to equal opportunities, which includes the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on the grounds of, among others, gender, marital status, race, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion. The proposition before us today is that the belief, traditionally, if not exclusively, held by members of the Christian faith and other religions that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, discriminates against same sex couples and therefore the law must be changed to allow equal marriage. This is a dangerous distortion of equality in an equal opportunities context, which celebrates diversity. Here equality is not about seeking to make everyone the same, but rather it is essentially about the elimination of discrimination and concentrating on fairness and diversity. Equal marriage sets two equality strands, sexual orientation and religious belief in competition with one another. If you do not mind, my view this evening is in the minority and I want to use the time available to me to develop it in a coherent manner. The decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1980 was an important milestone in tackling the historic discrimination against LGBT people, but same sex couples in stable and loving relationships for many years still had no legal rights vis-a-vis their partners. If one partner was hospitalised, the other had no legal right to be given any information about their illness or care because they were not deemed a relative. The 2004 civil partnership act, together with the inclusion of same sex cohabities in the family law Scotland bill, ended this terrible injustice. In doing so, provision was made for legal rights to, for example, inheritance, property ownership and so on, to be recognised for same sex couples. Discrimination has been addressed as described above. In seeking to go further and redefine marriage, the Government is blurring the distinction between state civil provision, where it has a role to play and the religious belief in teaching, where it does not. Furthermore, people who believe passionately in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman felt empathy with the LGBT community and supported and campaigned to eliminate and discriminate against them. They did so despite warnings and fears voiced about marriage being undermined because it was the fair and right thing to do. The same people now find that there is little reciprocal empathy and sometimes tolerance for their views. In seeking to redefine marriage, the pendulum has swung too far. Passing this legislation will do nothing to address the totally unacceptable abuse of LGBT individuals, which still exists and includes, for example, instances of homosexuals within the Asian community being forced into heterosexual marriages. However, if the legislation is passed, regardless of the well-intentioned proposals for safeguards, ultimately people who oppose same sex marriage and who already feel inhibited in expressing those views will be more apprehensive about expressing their religious beliefs. In conclusion, there is nothing remotely fair about seeking to dismiss and diminish the deeply had convictions and religions belief of thousands of people in Scotland who attend church, temple or mosque, work hard to do their best for their families and go about their everyday business without imposing their views on anyone else. That is why, Presiding Officer, I will be voting against as well this evening. We are all hugely influenced by our early experiences. I was very fortunate in mine. I come from a conscientious working-class Irish Catholic family steeped in social awareness. I was taught from an early age that perceived difference mattered not a job, that we were all job-tamsins burned. That maxim has stood me in good stead over the years. That is the reason why I will be supporting us tonight. It is not because I have had a number of emails that say that I should support it. If anything unbalanced, I have probably had more against it than for it. I will be doing it on the basis of what I believe to be right and because of some personal experiences. That is a huge step for the Parliament. It is a huge step for Scotland. I have talked about this being a good thing for the Scottish Parliament. I think that it is a good thing for the country. We pride ourselves in our equality, our fairness and our social justice, as Jackie Baillie said earlier on. I think that that is a perfect example of that. We talk about safeguards, safeguards for celebrities both religious and belief celebrities and we are not forcing anyone. That is about religious freedom. That allows certain religions to opt in or opt out. They do not need to do it. Nobody is forcing anyone. I tell you that I have two sons who are both married. None of them are going to feel less married if my brother can get married to his partner. That is a ridiculous argument. I am a bit older than some of the very eloquent speeches earlier on from Ruth and Markle and Kevin amongst a huge number of them. I remember growing up and I remember what it was like for people who were gay growing up. The thing is, they did not really know who they were because they were in the shadows. My brother, Michael, was 15 when he came out, but he never came out to us. The situation was so bad in Glasgow and in Scotland at the time that he never came out to us. He waited until he was 17. He went down to London. He started a new life, met a guy and went over to Portugal. He had to do that because that is the Scotland that we lived in at the time. For people to be saying that we should not be moving on, this is a good thing. There are no losers in this. There are only winners in this. I completely understand people's different views. I completely understand if you come from a religious aspect that you may have some concerns about it. Michael was more religious than I was. He kept his faith much longer than I did. I had lost my faith and, even when he was being discriminated against by his church, he still kept his faith much longer than I did. Religion should not be a barrier to this legislation. That is highly important legislation. He created a life for himself out with his homeland. He is over there and he is a partner now for 39 years. I am delighted to say that I phoned him up last night and I said to him, Michael, guess what I am doing. I am going to use you in a speech in the Parliament tomorrow. It was like again. He was comfortable with it. He told me a wee while ago that he was thinking about getting married. He is a partner. He has been a girder for 39 years and it is a fairly long engagement. He has decided that now is probably the time to get married. I suspect that none of us are getting any younger. They are looking to make sure that everything is right for when one of them goes. It is a great thing. The unfortunate thing is that he has to do it in Lisbon. What I hope is that if any member of my family or anybody I know who is of a different generation, who is coming up, who is homosexual or gay or lesbian, can do it in Scotland. I tell you, I do not know if the whip is in yet, but I will speak to you instead. I will be looking for that day off. I will be looking to go to Lisbon to see my brother getting married. It would be much easier if it was in Glasgow or Edinburgh. It is a great thing. When I was speaking to him last night, I said to him that I was going to use him today in a speech. He said to me, all right, okay. He says, coincidentally, James, I am going in tomorrow to sign the papers so that we can organise the day that the marriage gets celebrated. It is coming soon and it is going to be coming soon in this country. I am confident that we will be voting yes tonight. I am confident that when we get to stage 3, that this bill will become law. I will tell you Scotland where we have much better place for it. As an MSP, representing a large, diverse and multicultural region of Glasgow, I believe that it is part of my duty to tackle prejudice and tolerance and discriminations in all forms, not only because prejudice impacts on the lives of those who experience it but because it holds us back as a nation. The passing of this bill will have both a legal and symbolic significance for the LGBT people and their families who are often on the receiving end of prejudice and discrimination. As mentioned earlier by Ruth Davidson in her eloquent speech, recent research tells us that one in four young people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual have seriously contemplated or attempted suicide. Presiding officer, this figure is a disgrace in modern Scotland and I truly believe that by eliminating some of the remaining differences we could remove the stigma that could affect so many of our young people. Access to civil partnerships, as was mentioned earlier, was a huge, commendable step forward, but it ensured that a division between same-sex and mixed-sex couples carried on into the 21st century. I believe that opening up the institution of marriage would achieve true legal equality for the first time. I recognise that equality does not mean that we all have to be the same, but in my view it does mean that sharing the institution of marriage with those who have suffered discrimination, oppression and persecution for centuries. I also believe that the principle of equality should be extended to heterosexual couples who would like their relationship to be recognised in a different way. I have argued that civil partnerships should be extended to mixed sex couples who choose to celebrate their relationship in a civil or secular ceremony outside of traditional marriage. As a consequence of denying heterosexual people access to civil partnerships, we are once again segregating couples based on their sexual orientation. That is outdated and something that this bill should seek to remove fully from our society. I recognise that the proposal of same-sex marriage is challenging to many people of faith and to some of our religious organisations. Having Christian values myself, I understand the view that marriage is an institution specific to the relationship between one man and one woman. That is not a view that I personally share, but I passionately believe that those who hold it should be free to express it. That is why I am reassured to note that no religious organisations will be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will and that religious freedoms will be protected by that bill. Attitudes are changing in all parliaments across the world. Greater recognition for same-sex couples are high on the agenda. We should not be left behind on this issue and I look forward to being part of the Parliament that brought this long-over-dure legislation to the people of Scotland. Richard Lyle to be followed by John Finnie. I personally thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate today. Regarding the marriage and civil partnership bill, I have been contacted by a large proportion of my constituents, a majority of which are opposed to this bill. My constituent Ronnie Matheson questions why we are redefining a word that once meant one thing to now mean something different—marriage. He suggests that all previous literature, textbooks, records, legislation, poetry, plays, songs will have to be footnoted and dated with an explanation of the change of Scottish terminology. He suggests in his email to me that there is already appears to be a legal challenge to watertight safeguards in the similar English bill. Will this bill be watertight? I do not think so, and many repeat that observation. Constituents such as Mrs Morris, who is concerned that people who do not support same-sex marriage will suffer in the workplace. Other constituents such as Miss Young have concerns that ministers of religion could be prosecuted for refusing to marry same-sex couples. The question that I asked the cabinet secretary earlier on from Anne McHugh, I would ask her to look very carefully at the introduction of safeguards for people who believe in the existing definition of marriage. There is a danger that foster carers or adopters may be classed as unsuitable because of their opposition to same-sex marriage. The Government suggests that solutions for fostering guidance is not good enough. I would be grateful if you would highlight the following concerns. A clause being served in the bill that is used on the nature of marriage should not be considered during the approval process of foster carers and adopters. A statutory safeguard should be introduced into the Children and Young People's Scotland bill to ensure that what people think about same-sex marriage does not influence decisions on their applications to be adoptive parents. As I said earlier, 30 years ago I was a adoptive parent and I do not think that I would have passed because of my view today. Constituents, my wife's minister, no, I have no time. My wife's minister, Reverend Derek Hughes, recently emailed us, stating that all the bill stands will place supporters of traditional marriage in conflict with equality laws. He has went on at the very least. Amendments need to be introduced to this bill to protect ministers, chaplins, teachers and registrars, among others, who will find themselves in an uncomfortable situation when forced to choose between their deeply held religious views and the proposed new law. In light of that, many of my constituents feel that this section of the bill that is meant to be designed to protect those who speak out against same-sex marriage is not fit for purpose and should be amended to clearly specify that it is not against the law to criticise same-sex marriage. Let's assure that this bill, when passed, will be tested to the limit. Adoption will be tested. People who want to adopt will be, as I suggested earlier, questioned on their views. I would also like to remind the Parliament that the response to the Scottish Government's consultation when asked a specific question on whether same-sex marriage should be allowed, 64 per cent of responses from the Thin Scotland said that it should not. Furthermore, the Scottish for Marriage petition, which supposes the redefinition of marriage, has recently passed 53,000 signatures, which I feel demonstrates the enormous strength of feeling on this issue. Based on the figures that are given to the members tonight, I would suggest that Scotland does not support this bill. During many years of politician— I am sorry, but you need to start winding up. Yes. I know that this bill will pass eventually, but that does not stop me from voicing my constituents' concerns. I therefore intend to vote against this bill, conscious of the fact that I would have stood up for my constituents and presented their views on the matter. I apologise to the cabinet secretary for missing the very opening remarks. I was part of the committee that put together this report, and I think that it reflects a wide range of views. It is very important that all voices are heard. My colleague John Mason, who is on the committee, if I heard him correctly, talked about the importance of this in a negative term. I have to tell you that, for me, there is little more important than equality and fairness, and I fully endorse the bill. A number of people have talked about changed attitudes, and I think that that has been reflected in relation to gender, disability, race and sexual orientation. I have to say that, as a police officer who commenced in the mid-70s, I learnt laws about homosexuality that seem bizarre and, indeed, totally unacceptable nowadays. One of the phrases used in the equality network recent briefing is, excuse me, marriage equality matters to LGBT people, and that is very apparent, and we have heard very powerful testimony from Ruth Davidson, Mark Obiadw, Kevin Stewart, Jim Eadie and others. I received a lot of communications from people of faith. I am hopeful that I displayed our respect for their views. Those were very clearly individual views, their individual interpretation, and individually made from self-selected sources. I am sure that the faith groups will recognise that attitudes have changed, not least to things such as mixed-race marriages and divorces. If we check with the report, you will see that Professor John Cirstas talks about the liberalisation of attitudes even among regular worshipers. It is very clear that there is no requirement to marry and the protection that has been afforded by people by article 9 of the ECHR. I, for one, would commend the legislative co-operation with the UK Government on aspects of this. I hope that it is some future point that faith groups will participate, and I commend the humanists, the Quakers, Unitarians and the Liberal Jews and, indeed, others. There has not been too much said. I thought there would be more said of registrars. They are public servants, and they should complete public duty. We would not tolerate any objection to people saying that they would not participate in a mixed-race marriage, so, quite frankly, they need to get on with it. There has been a lot to talk of the nature of communications. Unlike Margaret Mitchell, I have not found opponents to have been any way inhibited in what they have contacted with me. I have had individually written letters, I have had the mass postcards, I have had personal representation, and I have to say that, given some of the people's strange obsession with physical acts, I have found some of them very uncomfortable. Like many others, I was not alone today getting a communication that started dear frequent sinner. I think I probably was unique in trying to explain when I did respond to someone in the range of other parliamentary work I got back what was nice work Satan. It is important to recognise that there are genuine views strongly held on both sides, and that is maybe not representative of all the faith organisations. The issues raised by the Scottish Transgender Alliance have been touched on by others, and I do not think that time will permit me to go into it. What I would commend the cabinet secretary for is his comment that he would think further on the issues. There are a number of issues that are very challenging to discuss, not least the age aspect, but I was reassured what I heard from the cabinet secretary at the Equal Opportunities Committee, and I look forward to those issues being addressed. The future will not be without challenges, but it must be without prejudice. The bill will make Scotland fairer and more equal, and, in light of an inclusive nation, I hope, equality and love, and the opportunity for that love to be publicly displayed via marriage must trump intolerance and inequality, and that will happen if we support the general principles of the bill tonight. We move to the wind-up speeches. I call John Lamont. A few matters on politics today have evoked such emotive engagement as the issue of same-sex marriage. It has been an engagement that has taken place at all levels and, indeed, across all parts of Scottish society. It has taken place between constituents and their elected representatives, between those elected representatives themselves and, of course, between the people of Scotland themselves. Wherever that engagement has taken place, we have found passionate, profound and deeply held views on all sides of the debate. I speak today as a Church of Scotland elder, as well as a Conservative. I therefore understand the anxiety that the proposals for same-sex marriage are causing to churches and religious groups across Scotland. However, I also understand and share the desire for religion to remain relevant in our modern 21st century progressive society. Religion is not, after all, afraid of change. It has responded in the past to changing conditions and standards, and the religions that many of us celebrate and enjoy in our lives today are products of the environment that they operate in. You do not even have to go back as far as Leviticus and its proclamations on footballs made of pigskin, beard trimming or bow-shaped haircuts to prove that point. In the New Testament, the Book of Mark is seemingly unequivocal in its opposition to divorce as is Timothy in its prohibition of the wearing of perils or gold. Religion has moved on from those times. Indeed, it has done so repeatedly, time and time again. When it did, it is right that the state recognised and facilitated that evolution. That is the point that I would like to stress. I have heard that opposition to same-sex marriage proposals is on the basis that they represent an unjustified and unwarranted interference in the affairs of religion by the Government, by the state. Such could not be further than the case. If religions do not want to embrace this gradual tide of change, they will not be forced to. Therefore, if anything, the bill will give religions greater freedom and greater autonomy by allowing them to pursue the agenda and the pace of change that they believe to be right when it comes to same-sex marriage. If the change is no change, that would, in my own view, be a sad state of affairs. Our country, our society and our religions would, I believe, be worse off for that, but I recognise that this is a religious, not a political decision. Our role as politicians here today is limited to deciding whether we should enable that process of change, wherever it may be, to occur. I believe that such change is not only right, but that it is inevitable. Religion and the church do not exist in a vacuum. Indeed, they cannot if they are to remain relevant in our society and if they are to continue to act as a credible force for good in our world. That is why I urge those who oppose the proposals that we are debating here tonight to seriously and critically examine the reasons for their opposition to same-sex marriage and to ask themselves whether they want their religion, their church and their society to fail to embrace change, the time for which has surely come. I am grateful. The member also acknowledged that most marriages that are conducted in Scotland at the moment are already civil or conducted by the humanist society. Even those who have concerns about the impact on religion should support the bill because of the opportunity for people to have civil marriages on the basis of equality. That is my point. The bill allows the religions and the churches to opt in or opt out as they require and as they want to develop at their own pace. It remains my view that this proposal is about consistency more than it is about equality. Marriage is permitted for one set of individuals and in order to exclude another set, there has to be a very good reason. I believe that in order to be consistent and because society accepts same-sex relationships, there is no good reason to exclude them from marriage. Certainly not on the basis of what sex the person they fall in love with happens to be. When I travel around my constituency and visit schools or meet young constituents, the idea of opposition to this bill is met with what I can only describe as bafflement. My experience has been that the younger generations support the proposal's aims for overwhelming numbers. If religion does not evolve and if the state does not allow it to evolve when it does, we risk excluding those younger voices from a tradition that has woven intrinsically into the basic fabric of our society. In his eloquent contribution in the debate on same-sex marriage in the House of Lords, the Earl of Quartown warned of this very danger. He implored his fellow peers to allow the next generation not to reject the traditions of yes to year, but to build on the traditions of the future. Those words are as true here as they are in Westminster. I conclude only by noting that we have, as a society, been here at these crossroads before. In only the last 20 years, we have debated passionately, often robustly, section 28, the lowering of age of consent, gay adoptions and civil partnerships. In each of those cates, I am proud that eventually our progressive democratic tradition prevailed. Today, we here in the Scottish Parliament have the opportunity of adding our voices to that tradition and the privilege of contributing to our society's progress. I will be voting for this bill tonight. It is the right thing to do for our country, it is the right thing to do for our church and it is the right thing to do to strengthen the wonderful institution of marriage. I call on Jackie Baillie, Ms Baillie. You have got nine minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the main, this has been a good and matured debate. I was struck, as I am sure the chamber is, by many of the contributions made today, some from a very personal perspective, others quite humorous and I have no time to mention them all, but I will attempt to cover some of the territory. Let me start with Ruth Davidson, because she is right when she says that marriage is a good thing, although I have been married for almost 30 years now. I keep telling myself that it is a good thing, but she is right when she talks about the value of extending marriage as an institution. She made a very personal and powerful contribution, which should give us all pause for thought, because it does matter to the future nature of our country and it does matter for our young people what we do tonight. Marco Biazzi spoke about how he felt growing up, and I know the area that he grew up in. It can sometimes be pretty unforgiving, believe me, but how he was made just to feel different and somehow less deserving, and providing us with testimony of his own personal journey informs our debate much more richly this evening. I am going to disagree with Mary Phee, which is always a dangerous thing to do, but Mary Phee said that attitudes are changing, but she said that they were happening at a snail's pace. I actually think that that is wrong, because when you look at society's attitudes, they are changing much faster than we can catch up with them. If you go back to the Scottish social attitudes survey that I mentioned before, in 2002, 41 per cent of people were in favour of same-sex marriage. You get to 2010, and a mere eight years later, 61 per cent favoured same-sex marriage. A 20 per cent shift in opinion on any issue in such a short space of time is hugely significant. John Mason spoke about the importance of tolerating different points of view. Our discussions in here will often be robust and rightly so, but we need to move forward together. His concern, shared by some in and outside this chamber, is that the protections are not sufficiently robust. I may well believe that they are, but I know that the cabinet secretary will want to look at this, so we are assured of the provisions that he has made with the UK Government to amend the UK 2010 equality act that are sufficiently robust. However, I am mindful that, in each of the 10 European countries that I listed earlier, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, France and most recently England and Wales, who have all passed same-sex marriage laws, have not had any religious or belief body or any celebrant being forced to conduct a same-sex marriage. I accept that it was only recently introduced in England and Wales, but no such claim can be made of the other countries. In the Netherlands it was passed in 2001, in Belgium in 2003, in Spain in 2005, and I could go on, but that is 12 years ago, 10 years ago, 8 years ago respectively. That is quite a while to be able to judge whether the protections are sufficiently robust and whether any church or celebrant has been forced to do something. I am happy to give them to them. I take her point about specifically on marriage, but would she accept that some of the assurances for adoption agencies have proved not to be solid over time? I think that there are many countries that perhaps are moving in a direction where they want to ensure that there is more equality. I think that they are taking steps forward appropriately, but ultimately this is a matter of equality. Of course we need to ensure protections are in place, but that does not remove the need to ensure that we are operating as an equal nation. Others have spoken against Elaine Smith, Richard Lyle, Margaret Mitchell and others besides, and I respect their right to hold a different view, but I think that they are quite simply wrong. Margaret McCulloch talked about agreeing to differ. Joan McAlpine is quite rightly picked up on that theme. Our society is actually quite mature. We do not always agree with each other. You only need to look at this chamber to see the truth of that, but we can walk out of this chamber, we can leave this chamber and nevertheless still come together and work together. In a second, Joan McAlpine is right to reflect that our society will do just that. We are tolerant of each other. We do come to accommodations with each other. That is life. That is how we live it. I thank Jackie Baillie for giving the way. I have listened with interest to the vast majority of this afternoon's debate. I wonder if Ms Baillie would agree with me that this debate is not about the competing interests of a traditional view of marriage or a modern view of marriage, but the reason that I will be voting yes this evening is because this piece of legislation allows everyone's views of marriage to be reflected in statute and in Scotland. I could not agree more. Jim Eadie, in a very powerful speech, set out how the bill will expand freedom for belief organisations who want to marry same-sex couples, how it will strengthen marriage, and therefore I agree absolutely with the comments by Bob Dorris. That is a first for Bob Dorris, too. Drew Smith and Patrick Harvie spoke about repealing section 28 in our pride in doing so. Thank you, Drew, for making me feel old and reminding me that you were at school. He is right to remember that this was not without consequences, often serious consequences, for the LGBT community, as they had to deal with some of the hysteria and homophobic bullying that surrounded the repeal. We need to make sure that that does not happen again. James Dornan also touched on the ability of the bill to strengthen marriage and talked about the experience of his brother Michael. I think that we all look forward to receiving the wedding invitation for the marriage in Lisbon now that we all know about it, but it has been an extraordinarily interesting debate. Elaine Murray and Patrick Harvie both remarked on how extraordinary it was that there was agreement across the chamber. Indeed, Patrick noted that this was probably the first time he has applauded Ruth Davidson with such enthusiasm, and that may well be true for many of us. It is not often that I find myself in absolute agreement with Alex Neil, Mark Macdonald and, even for goodness sake, Kevin Stewart—this must be a truly historic day—but Elaine was right to remind us about the glorious diversity of human beings, even those whom she described as being vertically challenged. We are all different, and that is what makes us all so absolutely interesting. Whatever that difference is, we should absolutely be tolerant of each other, but we should respect and celebrate that difference because that is the tapestry of our nation. For me and for many others across the chamber, this is about equality, fairness and social justice. It is about values that I believe we all share. I know that some might be hesitating tonight, but let me ask you this. Just think for a moment. What if your son or your daughter is unsure about their sexuality? What if they have a same-sex partner? Do you really want to deny them the opportunity to marry? I hope not. Can I urge all of you to support the general principles of the bill and ensure that the next generation can marry the person they love? I now call on Alex Neil to wind up the debate, cabinet secretary, if you could continue until 7.56. That would not be a problem for us. I begin by reminding the chamber of what the Equal Opportunities Committee said in its report, that it hoped that the members of the Parliament would approach the stage 1 decision with the same dignified tenor as our ever-in-sessions and with due respect for a diversity of views. Everybody who has spoken has tried to live up to that ideal, and I think that this has been one of the most powerful debates that this Parliament has ever held in a real tribute to the Parliament. We have heard some wonderful speeches from Ruth Davidson and many others tonight—very, very powerful indeed, putting the case for and powerful speeches, putting the case against. Can I begin by dealing with two fairly fundamental points that have been raised by those who do not feel at the moment that they can vote for this legislation tonight? First of all, can I emphasise that in terms of marriage, there are essentially two aspects to marriage. There is the religious aspect and there is the state law aspect. What we are dealing with tonight is the state law aspect of marriage, because what we believe is that the state should recognise marriage between people of the same sex as well as people of a mixed sex. We are not in any way—in this legislation—in any way to interfere with any religious or beliefs bodies approach to marriage. Indeed, there is only one way in which it even touches on it, and that is that those religious organisations in churches, such as the Unitarians and the Quakers, will now be able to have same sex marriages that they want to carry out, carried out on their premises under their religion, and those marriages now will be recognised by the state. Beyond that, there is no other impact of this legislation on marriage that is carried out or is defined by, or is exercised by, or is recognised by the state. What this legislation does, we do not redefine marriage. I think that Mary Fee's point, and I have heard the First Minister say, and I think that many of us would agree, that this legislation does not in any way redefine our marriage. What it does do is extend the eligibility for marriage. That is the key point of the legislation, that people, until now, in Scotland, have been ineligible for marriage, will now be eligible for marriage and for that marriage, and the love that that represents to be recognised by the state and by those religious bodies and only those religious bodies who want to recognise those marriages out of their own choice. Jimmy McGregor. I thank the Minister for his usual magnanimity in allowing me an intervention. Minister, I want to put down a marker in this debate because a substantial number of my constituents in the Highlands and Islands have expressed to me their concerns that clauses designed to protect teachers, parents, ministers, foster parents, registrars and public sector workers who hold what I could call traditional views, will not be strong enough and might be open to a legal challenge including at EU level. What specific guarantees can the minister give that legal safeguards will be watertight because my constituents are very anxious indeed for this reassurance, can the minister give it to them? Absolutely, and let me come to exactly why. We're giving actually four sets of guarantees. First of all, there are the guarantees in the legislation itself, and probably the biggest single guarantee is that in order to carry out same-sex marriage, any religious organisation, any belief organisation, any celebrant has to opt in to do so. It is their decision to opt in. Obviously, they cannot be forced to opt in, and it's not actually just as far as the organisation and the celebrant is concerned. For example, as the bill states, if, for example, the Church of Scotland changed its mind and agreed to recognise and participate in and carry out same-sex marriages, but its own celebrants did not wish to do so, its own ministers did not wish to do so, the ministers still have the right not to opt in. Both the rights of the organisation, of the religious body, of the belief body, as well as of the individual celebrants are absolutely guaranteed in this legislation, which is totally compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. If it hadn't been, the Presiding Officer wouldn't have approved it as competent legislation. Secondly, on top of that, we have agreed amendments with your Government, but we have been working very closely with them on this, Maria Miller and myself, and we have agreed the amendments that will go into the 2010 UK Equality Act to underline all those relevant protections for people who take a different view or who do not want to participate in same-sex marriage. Some aspects go slightly further than the protections that are already built in under the passage of the UK legislation. The third protection is in relation to education, and my friend the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning is out to consultation just now on the very point about the impact that this will have on educational guidance, and he will announce the outcome of that within the next two to three months. The final part, which has already been published, is the Lord Advocate's guidance to all the prosecutors in Scotland. If you read that guidance, it absolutely, explicitly and unequivocally guarantees the rights of both those people who are opposed to the principle of same-sex marriage and to those people who do not wish to participate in or carry out same-sex marriage. It is not just one set of protections. We are providing four sets of protections specifically around the legislation. I believe that that is a very reasonable balance between extending the freedom and the rights of those who are entitled to marry, along with extending and guaranteeing the protection for those who disagree with the policy and do not wish to carry out same-sex marriages. Annabelle Goldie. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary, and I too, like John Lamont, as an elder of the Church of Scotland, and I propose to vote for the bill this evening. However, I have a concern, cabinet secretary, about the level of protection afforded to let us assume a religious community that opts in, but an individual celebrant opts out. The amendment that I read here to the Equality Act says that a person controlling the use of religious or belief premises will not contravene that act by refusing to allow the premises to be used for a same-sex marriage or a civil partnership, but in fact the situation is that it is not a person within the Church of Scotland that may be a collective entity such as a congregational board, or it may be that having declined to participate in a same-sex marriage, a request is then made to use the Church's premises for a reception that is declined. Is that covered under this protection? Cabinet secretary. I tell the chamber that my intention is to issue the legal text of the proposed amendments to the Equality Act before the completion of stage 2. We have to agree the legal text with the lawyers in London and the lawyers here. I think that when you take both our bill and the protections in our bill along with the text of the amendments to the Equality Act, you will see unequivocally that those protections are quite frankly unchallangable both for the individuals and for the churches. Indeed, they extend to, for example, organists who are essential to a church ceremony. If an organist turns round and says, I refuse to play the organ at a same-sex marriage ceremony, because the organist is seen as a key part of a marriage ceremony, the organist will also be protected from any prosecution for refusing to take part. This is the most comprehensive set of protections imaginable for any piece of legislation that we have ever introduced. I believe that we have, and I thank Jackie Baillie for emphasising that point, a balanced package. On the one hand, we are extending the freedom and the right of those who wish to engage in same-sex marriage, and at the same time, we have all those protections for those people who are either against it in principle or who do not want to participate. Of course they will. As brief as possible, Mr Malik. Thank you very much. I want to ask you a scenario where someone actually challenges our decision at European courts and we lose. What protection could you then guarantee? We are very clear that there is no chance of a successful appeal to the European court. Apart from anything else, the European Convention does not give you the right to same-sex marriage in the first place, but there are other reasons why I do not have time to go into tonight, because we are absolutely, totally sure that any appeal to the European court would not be successful. I believe that the bill is, as Jackie Baillie and others have said, a balanced package that allows freedom and rights to be exercised by those at the present who cannot exercise them without in any way diminishing or threatening the rights and freedoms of those who take a different point of view. More importantly, as has been pointed out by many speakers, what the bill does—it is not the actual text of the bill that matters, it is the message that sends out about 21st century Scotland that we are joining those 16 states in America. We are joining those nine European countries who have already passed this legislation. We are joining our friends south of the border. We are joining all the other countries in South Africa and elsewhere who have already passed this legislation to provide a modern framework of legislation in relation to marriage that recognises the equality of all our people. As Robbie said, we are all Jock Tamsons' bairns, and all the bairns are entitled to exactly the same treatment right through our law, including now in relation to marriage law. I believe that this is a historic day for Scotland that future generations will look back and congratulate this Parliament on passing this progressive piece of legislation. That concludes the debate on stage 1 of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8355, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a stage 2 timetable for the Landful Tax Scotland Bill. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak but now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 8355. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 8355, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8356, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a stage 2 timetable for the Tribunals Scotland Bill. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak but now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 8356. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 8356, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8364, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press a request to speak but now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 8364. Formally moved. Paul Martin has asked to speak against the business motion. Mr Martin, you have up to five minutes. Presiding Officer, I rise on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party to oppose the business motion, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the bureau. Members will note that next Tuesday, after great debate, there will be a statement on the independence white paper. However, the sting in the tail is that the Scottish Government will arrange for an inspired parliamentary question next Tuesday morning so that it can launch its white paper at an event in the Glasgow Science Centre, clearly sidelining the role of the Scottish Parliament. Presiding Officer, it is beyond belief the arrogance and contempt that the Scottish Government displays for the Parliament. It makes no sense to anyone, other than the Scottish Government, why, on the very day that they will apparently be setting out their vision for the future of Scotland, that they will be sidelining the role of this Parliament. Let me be very clear, Presiding Officer, my position, and the position that I understand of the other main parties represented on the bureau. Next Tuesday, there should be a statement to this Parliament firstly, indicating very clearly— Order! Can we hear the member speak please, Mr Martin? There should be a statement here first to the Scottish Parliament, with the white paper at the same time being launched and released to this Parliament. Is the Government's business of the First Minister wants to massage his already inflated ego by then presenting the white paper carefully to a very carefully selected audience in the Glasgow Science Centre? Order! Can members please settle down? We have just had the most fantastic debate conducted in a great spirit of respect across the chamber, so can we now have that same kind of respect for speakers who are speaking? Presiding Officer, this chamber is not the Government's selected audience. This chamber is elected democratically by the Scottish people. The principles that the EU stands for are written in the parliamentary mace before you. Those words are wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity. The Government's approach to what we see before us, before this very business programme, ensures that the Government has no respect for those words. We oppose the business motion in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. I know that you call on Joe Fitzpatrick to respond to the business motion. Mr Fitzpatrick, you have up to five minutes. Great. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. That is 10 minutes that we could have spent continuing the debate that we just had, which I think was a fantastic debate. I am a great advocate for this Parliament. Mr Fitzpatrick. Presiding Officer, the language that has been used by some Opposition members as regards this week's business has been nothing short of ridiculous. There are other words that I could use, but especially when they considered just last week during the landmark passing the stage 3 referendum bill, they showed little interest at all in the stage 3 referendum, so much so that the last nine speakers last week in the debate, none of them came from the no parties. They could have pressed their buttons, but they all sat on their hands. The rank hypocrisy of the Opposition on this issue today is further exposed when we look at its behaviour in this chamber just four years ago. Mr Fitzpatrick could address the motion. Absolutely. The speech that was given by Mr Martin said that the Government, as a minority, was delayed in holding a debate on a similar publication on Scotland's future because the Opposition voted to block it. That hypocrisy is there on the record for all to see. To be clear, the Scottish Government is proposing an ITQ that will be answered on Tuesday morning prior to the launch, a launch that will be a press conference. The answer to the ITQ will include access to the full contents of the white paper for members and hard copies will additionally be lodged in Spice. There will then be a ministerial statement by the Deputy First Minister on Tuesday afternoon, and then there will be a full parliamentary debate on Wednesday, allowing the better together members to bring their combined wisdom to bear in this chamber. To any reasonable person, that would seem to be a comprehensive and balanced proposal. On the opening day of this Parliament in 1999, Donald Dure said many things that are often quoted, but I will quote just one. A Scottish Parliament nut an end a means to greater ends. Perhaps the MSPs from the no-camp feined outrage is because they know that next Tuesday marks a significant milestone of Scotland's journey to those greater ends. An independent Parliament with the powers to build a better, fairer and more prosperous Scotland. I move the motion. I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 8364, in the name of Joffix-Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 8364, in the name of Joffix-Patrick, is as follows. Yes, 64. No, 54. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is decision time to which we now come. There are five questions. The first question is at motion 8347, in the name of Joanne Lamont, on a motion of condolence for Helene Eadie, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment 8348.3, in the name of Keith Brown, which seeks to amend motion 8348, in the name of Joanne Lamont, on the future of the defence industry in Scotland, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 8348.3, in the name of Keith Brown, is as follows. Yes, 63. No, 54. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment 8348.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion 8348, in the name of Joanne Lamont, on the future of the defence industry in Scotland, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 8348.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is as follows. Yes, 54. No, 64. There was no abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion 8348, in the name of Joanne Lamont, as amended. On the future of the defence industry in Scotland, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 8348, on the future of the defence industry in Scotland, in the name of Joanne Lamont, is as follows. Yes, 62. No, 55. There was one abstention. The motion as amended is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion 8327, in the name of Alex Neil, on the marriage and civil partnership Scotland bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 8327, on the marriage and civil partnership Scotland bill, is as follows. Yes, 98. No, 15. There were five abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.