[Shaun]

The government has indicated it is committed to changing the law to allow gay marriage by 2015.

Ministers are to launch a consultation next spring on how to open up civil marriage to same-sex couples ahead of the next general election.

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone told the Lib Dem autumn conference that current laws were "simply not fair".

The leadership of both coalition parties back the move but it is likely to anger some Conservative activists.

And gay rights campaigners have urged the government to act immediately, saying existing laws are discriminatory and a consultation is unnecessary.

At the moment, only men and women are permitted to get married while civil partnerships, which became law in 2005, are limited to same-sex couples.

Civil partnerships give same-sex couples the right to the same legal treatment across a range of matters as married couples but the law does not allow such unions to be referred to as marriages.

Ms Featherstone told Lib Dem activists that a public consultation will begin in March 2012 with a view to changing the law ahead of the next general election scheduled for May 2015.

"Britain must not be complacent," she said. "We are a world leader for gay rights but there is still more we must do."

While civil partnerships were a "welcome first step", she said the party was committed to confronting "prejudice and discrimination in all its forms".

Heralding the proposed change as a Lib Dem policy, she added: "To deny one group of people the same opportunities available to another is not simply discriminatory. It is simply not fair."

Ministers have said the government is determined to listen to "all those who have an interest in the area to understand their views".

However, the consultation will not consider whether to allow same-sex couples to have religious marriages or to open up civil partnerships to men and women.

The Lib Dems have long campaigned for reform of the marriage laws, arguing that they are outdated and discriminate against same-sex couples.

Conservative leader David Cameron backed the move while in opposition as part of his modernising drive and the pledge to permit equal marriage was included in the party's 2010 election manifesto.

However, some Conservative MPs and activists are likely to be uncomfortable with the move.

And veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the government had delayed the consultation - which campaigners had expected to start last June.

"I am not convinced that there needs to be any consultation at all," he said. "The ban on same-sex marriage is homophobic discrimination and should be repealed."

And he said same-sex couples should be allowed to wed in churches and other religious buildings, arguing that some faith organisations had expressly asked to be able to conduct same-sex ceremonies.

He added: "It is an insult to people of faith for the equality minister to rule out any repeal of the ban on religious organisations conducting same-sex marriages."

New rules set to come into force early next year will allow religious premises to hold civil partnership ceremonies. The move is voluntary and religious organisations will not be obliged to do so.

A group of British couples are challenging the existing ban on gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships and plan to take the case to the European Court of Justice.

New York became the largest US state to date to legalise gay marriage earlier this year. Same-sex marriage is legal in six states and Washington DC.

Good news, but overshadowed by a lot of walking around on eggshells it seems.

[Chuck]

I read this on DailyMail and the comments in favour of it were all red arrowed.

[Tom]

So really they're just changing the name from 'civil partnership' to 'gay marriage' because neither church will let it happen and ultimately they can't be governed. The Pope would never allow it but CofE might allow it when Queen Lizzie & Charlie both die.

[Locke.]

I thought it was already legal

[Marc]

It's just wrong that they can't already, I agree with Shaun.

[Chuck]

That's something I've always wondered, what's the difference between gay marriage and civil partnership.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Locke.

I thought it was already legal

No you and Novo must wait

[Saph]

I thought it was legal aswell :s my dads uncle and his husband have been married for years, as long as I can remember, and im sure they got married in the UK

[Livia]

Many religions will not marry a man and a woman if one of them is divorced. I can't see them allowing same-sex couples to marry in church (or synagogue, or temple or wherever...) any time soon. Unless a same-sex couple are religious I don't see why it would matter anyway. Of course gay couples should be allowed to marry in civil ceremonies. If they love each other, who could argue with that?

[Locke.]

Originally Posted by Marc.

No you and Novo must wait

Novo shall be marrying JedwardFever once it's legal.

I'm more of a Pixie Lott sort of guy.

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by chuck.pass

I read this on DailyMail and the comments in favour of it were all red arrowed.

These are the same people who red arrow nice comments about Cher Lloyd, pure monsters.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Locke.

Novo shall be marrying JedwardFever once it's legal.

I'm more of a Pixie Lott sort of guy.

[Shasown]

More bloody pandering to the minorities, why cant straight people have a civil partnership?

No religious organisation can be forced to marry any couple if the couple fall outside of the eligilibity for marriage in the eyes of that faith, all the government will be doing is saying if the religious organisation wishes to allow same sex couples to marry the ban a past government imposed will be llifted.

[Chuck]

-glares at ElProximo-

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by chuck.pass

-glares at ElProximo-

Thank you very much chuck, now you have blown my disguise, curses foiled again!!!!!

[Shaun]

I agree that straight people should be allowed to have a civil partnership. (the difference from my perspective is that marriage is a religious commitment and civil partnerships are for legal reasons (financial benefits, etc.) - although I think there are still some inequalities between the two, and marriages offer more securities). I've no real desire to get married, but that might change when I get older and I still see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to marry a bloke (other than if it was against his will )

[Ninastar]

this is exciting.

[_Seth]

****ing finally.

[Patrick]

Why the **** are Christian and Syed planning a wedding then!?

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

These are the same people who red arrow nice comments about Cher Lloyd, pure monsters.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Why the **** are Christian and Syed planning a wedding then!?

Because thats a soap patrick its not a fly on the wall documentary.

Its easier to type wedding than civil partnership ceremony in the script.

[CaraRawr]

Great news

[lostalex]

It;s certainly a step in the right direction, but having gay marriage has nothing to do with a country's homophobia. Mexico is one of the most homophobic countries in the world and it has legalized gay marriages. Countries with gay marriage like Canada or Holland even have horrible problems with homophobia.

Just making the laws equal of course won't eliminate the real problem which is a sociological problem of homophobia.

The real problem is str8 male apartheid, which exists in all countries. Until we eliminate str8 male apartheid, homophobia and feminism are both lost causes.

Str8 men are a minority, but they have the majority of power in business and government. That is apartheid.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by lostalex

It;s certainly a step in the right direction, but having gay marriage has nothing to do with a country's homophobia. Mexico is one of the most homophobic countries in the world and it has legalized gay marriages. Countries with gay marriage like Canada or Holland even have horrible problems with homophobia.

Just making the laws equal of course won't eliminate the real problem which is a sociological problem of homophobia.

The real problem is str8 male apartheid, which exists in all countries. Until we eliminate str8 male apartheid, homophobia and feminism are both lost causes.

Str8 men are a minority, but they have the majority of power in business and government. That is apartheid.

But straight men are the biggest minority and men having more power in business and government is because men aren't as attached emotionally as women are. You can't have a heart so to speak in those professions. Thats why the majority of people who work in public sectors like healthcare and education are women

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Tom

But straight men are the biggest minority and men having more power in business and government is because men aren't as attached emotionally as women are. You can't have a heart so to speak in those professions. Thats why the majority of people who work in public sectors like healthcare and education are women

And also why the woman who do reach powerful positions, are regarded as cold hearted, callous bitches.

Civil partnerships are recognised in Scotland for straights as long as they have been together 2 years. Don't know how it works down south.

If two people want to be legally committed to one another: then surely in this day and age, why should that matter to anyone other than the 2 people concerned. It doesn't affect anyone else bar those two people, religion causes as much bother as it 'solves' at times, it really does.