Particularly since under the Lester bill the registered couples he envisages would as a quid pro quo lose any tax advant- ages

Particularly since, under the Lester bill, the registered couples he envisages would as a quid pro quo lose any tax advant- ages they enjoy through being single.Lord Lester, Stonewall, and the Labour MP Jane Griffiths, who has introduced a similar ten-minute rule bill in the Commons, would go further. They would extend the right of “registered partnerships” to unmarried heterosexual couples. Part of the argument for doing this is that the disadvantages that apply in the cases of gay couples apply equally to unmarried heterosexual couples. Indeed Ms Griffiths took up the issue after a woman constituent was left in seriously adverse circumstances after her male partner died. There was the recent case of Anna Homsi, the long-term partner of an SAS soldier killed in Sierra Leone, who was refused a widow’s pension by the Ministry of Defence, and only received an ex-gratia payment after very wide publicity.Secondly, it’s argued, there is very widespread acceptance of unmarried partnerships.

The recent report of British Social Attitudes showed that only a quarter of the population think married couples make better parents than unmarried ones. Ms Griffiths says she has discovered the interesting fact that of 6,000 police officers in the Thames Valley force, 1,400 are living in stable, unmarried relationships. She points out that they contribute heftily into the pension scheme but their partners would not benefit, as their wives would, if they died. Finally it might look discriminatory if gay couples got the fiscal benefits of marriage and unmarried heterosexual couples didn’t.These are valid arguments But I suspect they will not persuade the political classes. It isn’t yet clear how much political will there is for any legislation.

But there is probably more sympathy among relevant ministers for giving a legal status to gay couples than for heterosexual ones who are unmarried – even though Alan Milburn and Stephen Byers – not to mention Alastair Campbell – are all in the latter category. I’m told, for example, that David Blunkett is quite warmly disposed to the idea of a legal status for gay couples – who can’t, of course, get married – but believes that if heterosexual couples want the benefits of marriage, they should get married. Mr Blunkett wouldn’t be the responsible minister but he is bound to be influential and he has discussed it with Baroness Morgan, the equality minister, who first looked at the issue before going back to Number 10, to be replaced by Barbara Roche.Equally it’s rather easier to see the new (somewhat) more cuddly Tory party backing a move to allow gay couples to register than it is to change the laws in ways which they – and some ministers, possibly the Christian Tony Blair included – would surely see as further undermining the institution of marriage. For a start, gay people are an electoral force; a recent National Council for Social Research report identified one in 19 men saying they were gay, with one in 20 women doing so – some two million adults. Ministers should also bear in mind that Stonewall’s Angela Mason is one of the shrewdest and most formidable lobbyists on the political scene. For another, it will not be lost on this highly media conscious government that even The Sun’s Richard Littlejohn has counter-intuitively written a column entitled “Why I Back Gay Marriage”.In these circumstances, what would be inexcusable would be to do nothing at all – certainly in respect of gay couples.