Mal Fletcher comments

This, of course, is not what democracy should be about. That government - or those who work closely with it - are able to define the parameters of a debate and keep us talking only within those lines is far from democratic.

Yet it seems that, on the central issues of marriage and family, this is largely the position of the British government.

If we are to be governed by lobby groups, we can expect wide-ranging debate to fall out of fashion.

Lobbying is, after all, the representation of one point of view over and above all others. It is the art of encouraging one line of thinking, particularly among leaders and opinion-formers, to the exclusion of others.

Some might argue that the Law Society is a form of glorified lobby group, charged with looking after their interests as a professional group.

If that is true, though, it should be willing to accommodate those from among its ranks who actually want to debate issues like the place of the nuclear family and its role in promoting the common good.

For their part, libertarian lobbyists are very good at providing the appearance of debate. Once they feel secure enough that their ideal is winning the day - by virtue of sheer persistence if not the strength of their argument - they may tolerate platforms where 'less enlightened' views can be heard.

Some may even speak up in defense of their opponents, in order to be seen as free speech advocates.

The one thing they cannot generally abide, however, is true debate on a level playing field. Very often, they carry with them too much of a victim mindset to be comfortable with that. The same, it must be said, seems to be true of some within religious communities who mistake bias for persecution.

When it comes to lobbyists of any persuasion, one might expect a certain reluctance to debate. Politicians, however, are meant to be, if anything, the targets of lobbying, not the ones doing it.

The Prime Minister appears to have made up his mind that the argument over the shape of marriage is already decided and that he can keep people pliant by limiting public discussion on the issue.

At the same time, he is avidly supporting the idea of forcing internet servers to provide parents with an opt-out - or better still, an initial opt-in - when it comes to online porn services. This, he says, is the best way to protect children from the devastating effects of pornography.

He is absolutely right to support such an idea - and should be applauded for doing so. Few things destroy innocence and emotional security for a child like premature sexualisation.

At the same time, his government is investing in programmes to help new parents to bond with their children. He insists that these 'bonding classes', as some have named them, do not represent a nanny-state approach. They are, he says, simply a wise, proactive step which will help families to better serve children.