Same-sex marriage vote: on the wrong side of history

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/same-sex-marriage-conservatives-editorial

Version 0 of 1.

The immediate headlines after the vote, rightly and inevitably, are all about the splits in the Tory party and the large revolt against David Cameron. These things matter very much in the dynamics of British party politics as the 2015 election begins to loom. But let us come to them in a moment, because the headlines convey hot news rather than cool history. In the eye of the latter the most important thing that happened on Tuesday evening at Westminster was undoubtedly the fact that MPs passed the government's same-sex marriage bill. They passed it by an overwhelming majority of 225 votes, and in due course it is now likely to become the law.

Good. Permitting gay and lesbian people to marry is a progressive social reform whose time has come, and come rather more rapidly than many would have thought possible a generation ago. The change is right in principle, the moment is timely, public opinion is prepared for it, and MPs did well in leading and reflecting that sentiment. The vote should be conclusive. The religious traditions which oppose the bill – by no means all of them do – are going to have to adjust to the change over time, which the bill gives them scope to do. But adjust to it they should, the established church in particular. Within a generation, perhaps less, we will all be amazed at what the fuss was about.

The six-hour debate in the Commons had its highs and lows, its excitements and its longueurs. The equalities minister, Maria Miller, set out the case for same-sex marriage, with all the provisos woven into the bill, with patience and clarity, taking more than 20 interventions. Labour's Yvette Cooper matched the mood well from the opposition frontbench. But the meat of the debate came from the backbenches in the hours that followed. Some 71 MPs had indicated a wish to speak. There were notable pro-reform speeches from MPs like the Liberal Democrat Stephen Williams, the Tories Crispin Blunt and Nick Herbert, and Labour's David Lammy and Steve Reed. There were reactionary contributions from several Tory rightwingers and from the Democratic Unionists. But the speech which perhaps spoke most movingly about the kind of country that 21st-century Britain has become came from the Conservative MP for Finchley. Mike Freer made a speech about his wish to marry his gay partner and his sense that the time had come. It was not a speech which Mr Freer's most celebrated Finchley predecessor, Margaret Thatcher, could or would have made, and it said something about the journey which parts of the Tory party have been on.

But not, unfortunately, enough of them. Tuesday night's voting showed something deep and damaging about the Conservative party too. Overall, the majority for the government's bill was massive. But early analysis suggested that only about 132 Tory MPs supported their government and their prime minister in the total of 400 MPs backing the bill. With around 139 Tories thought to have voted against it (out of a total of 175 opponents) and perhaps a further 30 abstaining or absent, it was clear that Mr Cameron's party is hugely divided on the issue. Mr Cameron's position as leader is not at risk, but to have a majority of his party voting against him is a humiliating rebuff nevertheless. And for the second time in a week, the Lib Dems and Labour together carried the day.

Tuesday night was the latest climax in a disintegrating crisis of Tory party credibility. Revolts on Europe and the House of Lords have now been trumped by Tuesday's revolt against the same-sex marriage plans. A significant section of the Tory party has effectively thrown its full weight against Mr Cameron's Toryism. This bill was intended to be a statement of what has changed about the Tory party. There is still some truth in that modernising claim. But it is overshadowed by the even louder statement about what has not changed – and has no wish to change. A large part of the Tory party has not understood its failure to win the 2010 election. Tuesday night suggests it is hellbent on ensuring that it fails to win the next one too.