Yesterday's vote in the House of Commons for gay marriage marks a historic moment in the progress of equality in Britain. With the large Commons majority of 225, the elected representatives have spoken, and the House of Lords has no grounds for resistance.
Britain has joined other progressive states, including Sweden, Denmark, Canada and Belgium, in giving gay couples an equal right to marry as that enjoyed by heterosexual couples.
For once, a large majority of MPs (if not a majority of Tory MPs) fell into line with progressive public opinion (62% in favour to 31% opposed in a pre-Christmas poll) - as they've failed to do on issues ranging from drug laws to renationalising the railways.
I'm proud to say that the Green Party has been at the forefront of campaigns for LGBT equality. In Brighton, where the Green Party is running its first council in a minority administration, we hosted the council's first LGBT conference in 2011, holding workshops and presentations from council officers and local community organisations, whose work has benefited the city's LGBT community.
Just last month, lesbian, gay and bisexual pressure group Stonewall named Brighton and Hove City Council the most LGB-friendly local authority in the country, and the council has supported such events as the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia & Transphobia, and the Transgender Day of Remembrance. (Our sister party in Scotland has also been at the forefront of campaigning for gay marriage.)
Our Green MP Caroline Lucas was also leading in yesterday's debate, making the point that now there's a further equality issue be tackled. MPs have acknowledged that civil partnerships don't meet all couples' needs - now they need to go a step further, and acknowledge that marriage doesn't meet the needs of all heterosexual couples.
There can be no logical grounds for denying heterosexual couples the option of civil partnership as created under the Civil Partnership Act of 2004 - a simple, legal step that can resolve issues around child custody, inheritance, pension rights and a whole host of other issues.
There are many people opposed to the historical and political associations of the institution of 'marriage' - some of the same associations that have left some gay couples seeking the marriage option.
In France, the equivalent of civil partnerships have been available to gay and straight couples alike since 1999, and in 2009, some 95% of those taking up the pacte civil de solidarite (Pacs) were heterosexual. There are now two couple entering the civil partnerships for every three getting married.
And while we are talking about the institutions of 'coupledom', there's a further important issue to be addressed - an issue of education and understanding. There is no such thing as 'common law marriage' in Britain, yet it's a phrase that you'll hear bandied about regularly, and a false belief in its existence has had severe financial and emotional consequences for many.
There's also a recognised problem around inheritance when an unformalised partnership ends with the death of an intestate partner - a lot of work has been done around this issue; now's the time for action.
In 2004, 13% of men and 12% of women were cohabiting in England and Wales, and 1,278,455 children were dependent on a cohabiting couple. This affects a lot of people - and even if we complete the circle of equal marriage and civil partnerships it is still going to affect many.
We live in a world of many different family arrangements - what we need to do is to give couples a range of legal tools (and full understanding of them) so that they can have security and certainty about the shape of their family life, and real choices about how to construct it. We took an important step forward yesterday - now we need to complete the work.
Follow Natalie Bennett on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@natalieben
UK lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in first vote - CNN.com
Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free ...
Gay Marriage Could Soon Be Legal in the UK, But For the Wrong ...
Equal civil marriage consultation | Home Office
Jason Wakefield - 31 arguments against gay marriage (and why ...
Gay marriage | Society | The Guardian
Gay marriage vote dominates papers
PMQs and gay marriage vote reaction: Politics live blog
Homosexuals have never taken the same responsibilities as heterosexuals - never brought up children and made all the sacrifices that entails - so it is not fair for them to claim equal rights. They are just grasping and aggressive.
I see nothing wrong with this.
IMO, in this country at least, the religious definition of ‘marriage’ has only been around since we have had an established religion, a few thousand years at most.
With the rise of religious power, and its effect on government, that definition of marriage has become the ‘norm’; it should never be forgotten that until around the 4th century even catholic priests were married and have children .
I believe that same sex partnerships are nothing to be afraid of, and I see absolutely no reason why there should be any discrimination in law, with regard to pensions, allowances and basic human rights, against those that wish to confirm their commitment to each other in civil partnerships.
I my defence however I would point out that I recently attended my nieces ‘wedding’ to her girlfriend, and also that my eldest daughter is trans-gender and has a male partner who loves her (he knew her before her transition). My wife and I are very proud of my daughter, my niece and their respective partners.
I shall now sit back and await the brick-bats that are bound to head my way.
civil partnerships are like betamax or minidisks.. that thing that came along but gort replaced by something better.
So just get rid of them altogether, turn them into marriages, and have doen with teh while interim period that gave the 'not sures' time to get accustomed to equality.
Simples ! Job Done ! End Of !
At this rate us ginger people will be the only ones left to be discriminated against
Why not go and join the Taliban you plainly think just like them.
Simples ! Job Done ! End Of !
Just because they are single why should they be excluded? Another example of descrimination rearing its ugly head..
I also think this needs doing sooner or later, so why not get it done while it's a hot topic?