It is a great strength of the Bill that it offers a secular solution to the way same-sex couples are treated. However, there is an important religious dimension because the Church of England, quite rightly, is the Established Church of our country and Christian values are intertwined throughout our constitution.

I was a signatory to a cross-party letter sent to all Members of Parliament in September, urging support for this measure. We think the Bill will remedy many of the injustices faced by stable, same-sex couples. We also believe the Bill should be passed in its original form without the amendments passed by the House of Lords at Report Stage. That amendment extended the scope of the Bill to family members and carers. I have great sympathy for siblings and others in a mutually supportive relationship – but I am convinced this is the wrong Bill in which to address those issues. That view is shared by Carers UK, The Law Society and others. So I hope this House will remove that amendment.

It is easy for Government and for Parliament to misjudge the speed of social change. Both have to proceed with caution. Similarly, Christian interpretation of scripture moves on and practice in the Church evolves and it does so in a way which some find too fast and some, too slow. I believe the time is right for both Parliament and the Church to take a lead – which will be acceptable to the majority of our citizens, including our Christian congregations.

So, what is good about the civil partnership Bill? First, justice for gay and lesbian people. This Bill removes some of the almost medieval prejudices against them. If they enter a civil partnership, the Bill gives them similar legal recognition and similar consequences for their relationship that married couples enjoy.

I am a strong supporter of traditional marriage. I declare my interest – I have enjoyed 36 years of marriage and I look forward to many more. I believe the term marriage and the cultural identity it implies should be reserved for heterosexual couples and that it should have a religious as well as a secular dimension. I can understand why some committed, same-sex couples yearn to call themselves married. I urge them not to alienate opinion by pressing this wish, and to settle for civil partnerships.

By giving legal and practical recognition to those relationships, it may help support them and encourage the stability and durability of such relationships. Surely it is good to minimize the breakdown in any relationships?

I believe this Bill will actually enhance the institution of marriage by increasing public approval for stable, committed, loving, interdependent relationships in society. I fail to see that acknowledgment of one permanent, faithful, stable relationship can undermine the status of another legally acknowledged, permanent, faithful, stable relationship. How can my marriage be undermined by your civil partnership – or the other way around? Surely, the more committed, stable, relationships the better.

Furthermore, the fact that opposite sex couples cannot enter into a civil partnership (because they have the option of marriage) stops civil partnerships being an alternative to marriage. It is marriage or nothing for a straight couple, civil partnership or nothing for a same-sex couple.

I also think this Bill will reduce prejudice against such relationships and reduce homophobic violence. It also reduces homophobia because it challenges the view that the social benefits of marriage (stability, faithfulness, nurturing of children, mutual support and so on, can only apply to relationships between people of the opposite sex. That is very important. I have found it quite a struggle, intellectually and emotionally, to come to the view that same-sex couples can become parents. They do not always want to. It is not always appropriate. Opinion remains very divided within the gay community, let alone the heterosexual community, about the merits or otherwise of in vitro fertilisation or embryo manipulation among lesbian partners.

As more lesbian and gay people become parents, there is now a growing body of research from the UK, Australia, Canada and the USA that finds no measurable difference between the children of lesbian mothers in terms of gender identity, social or emotional disturbance, quality of friendships and social acceptance, and sexual orientation. Those are the facts. I have faced them and I have talked to same –sex couples in my constituency. I have concluded that I was as prejudiced about this as most people are, not because I was wicked or perverse or stupid – but because that is the received wisdom of the society into which I was born and educated, and it requires effort to open one’s mind and adjust one’s attitudes. That can be a painful process – and a journey which for all sorts of reasons many people are unwilling to undertake. In short, we follow the pack, or we take a lead. I hope the House will take a lead.

During scrutiny of this Bill in Committee, I hope the Government will think again about the pensions issue. I believe a wider power than exists currently in Clause 245 (1) is needed to allow limited retrospection to 1988. Individual pension schemes would then be altered by regulations after Royal Assent. This is an issue of fairness. Yes – there would be a cost – which would amount to about 0.02% of pensionable payroll – or £12million over 15 years. Surely a price worth paying?

Returning to the Christian dimension, it was heartening that on Second Reading in the House of Lords, both the Bishops who spoke (Oxford and Peterborough) were broadly in favour of the original Bill.

Because I am a Christian, doing my best to live a Christian life, I pay attention to what the leaders of my Church say. In 2003, the House of Bishops of the Church of England published their guide to the debate entitled ‘Some issues in human sexuality’. The Chairman of the Working Group that produced it was the Bishop of Oxford. It makes heavy but necessary reading if a non-theologian like me seeks wisdom in place of prejudice. The Bishop also gave the official Church of England view on this Bill on my birthday earlier this year, at Second Reading in the Lords. He said that the General Synod had voted to reaffirm the unique place of marriage in the law of this country, but also recognised that there are issues of hardship and vulnerability for people whose relationships are not based on marriage, which need to be addressed by the creation of new legal rights. That motion was passed by 248 to 27 votes. He also reported that in their response to the Government’s consultation on the Bill, the Archbishop’s Council reiterated the central and unique place of marriage and went on to endorse the need for new legal rights because ‘the law no longer reflects current social patterns and needs amendment to remedy injustice’. I agree.

In coming to my decision to support this Bill, I have been grateful for advice from many organisations and individuals – on both sides of the argument.

I have received e-mails from as far-afield as New Zealand, which has been through this debate already. I am particularly grateful to Jacqueline Humphreys, an experienced English barrister specialising in family, matrimonial and ecclesiastical law, who has pointed out some of the potential legal problems that the Church of England may face if the Bill becomes law. These range from the consequences of the clergy entering civil partnerships, to the potential conflict with the Equality (Sexual Orientations) Regulations 2003 and the exclusion of Part II of the Sex Discrimination Act to women priests. There could also be new challenges in the occasional offices of baptism, marriage and funerals.

I am also grateful to many individuals who have pointed me to the growing number of Christian websites tackling issues of sexuality from all angles. I started with www.inclusivechurch.net and moved from there across the spectrum of the debate and around the world. I was particularly struck by the discontent among evangelicals at their traditional line.

In discussing this Bill with people of all ages, it is clear to me that there is indeed a generation divide. It is far harder for people over the age of about 40 to cope with change of all kinds, especially cultural, social and religious change. So, mindful of our heritage and core beliefs, I am convinced that the future is even more important than the past and I hope that Parliament will bring the Civil Partnerships Bill to the Statute Book as soon as possible.