Yesterday the Government unveiled proposals to give gay and lesbian couples the same legal rights as married couples.

Nick Morrison looks at whether this is a long overdue move towards equality, or a threat to the very fabric of society.

JUDITH and Irene have been a couple for more than 20 years. They have built a home and a life together, which they share with their 12-year-old daughter. But that life together will soon come to an end: Judith has terminal cancer. On top of the emotional anguish of losing her partner, Irene also faces losing the home they have shared for two decades.

Even though Judith has left her share in their home to her partner, Irene will have to pay 40 per cent inheritance tax on that share, a bill she cannot afford. The result is Irene, and their daughter, will have to sell the house and find somewhere else to live.

For Stonewall, the campaigning group which has taken up Judith and Irene's case, this is an injustice which is long overdue for reform. And yesterday the Government accepted the merits of their argument.

The proposed civil partnerships will give gay and lesbian couples the same legal rights as married couples, including rights over pensions, inheritance and to act as next of kin in hospitals. While the measures are not described as a "gay marriage", they are clearly as close to a marriage contract as possible.

"We have been campaigning for a long time for legal recognition of stable, loving relationships, and just because they're between two men or two women, doesn't mean they're not valid," says Stonewall's Helen Marsh.

"But it is not the same as marriage and there is no pretension that it is. Marriage has certain cultural and religious connotations, whereas this is simply a legal recognition of a lasting relationship."

Under the Government's proposals, lesbian and gay couples would be able to register their partnership by signing an official document at a register office, in front of a registrar and two witnesses, although there will not be an official ceremony. Partners will also be able to dissolve the agreement, in an equivalent of a divorce.

The move follows the introduction in a number of areas, including Darlington, of gay partnership ceremonies, although these have no legal status.

Deputy minister for equality Jacqui Smith says the new partnerships provide the first legal recognition of same sex partnerships.

'Same-sex couples often face a range of humiliating, distressing and unnecessary problems because of a lack of legal recognition. Civil Partnership registration would underline the inherent value of committed same-sex relationships. It would open the way to recognition and justice for those who have been denied it too long," she says.

Ironically, criticism of the proposals has come from veteran gay campaigner Peter Tatchell, who claims it discriminates against straight couples who decide not to marry, although Stonewall's response is that marriage is not an option for gay couples.

A more fundamental objection comes from a religious quarter, particularly the evangelical wing of the church. Roger Smith, head of public policy for Care, a Christian campaigning charity, says the proposals are duplicating the rights given to married couples, without looking at why those rights were given to married couples in the first place.

He says: "Married couples have been given these rights for many good reasons, including that they intend to stay together until 'death do us part'; there is the promise to be exclusive, which provides stability for the couple, for their children and for society, and the fruitfulness, that married couples can produce children.

"There is no requirement for that within a civil partnership registration scheme. If you want to copy, you must copy like with like, and this clearly does not do that."

He says many of the proposed partnership rights seem perfectly acceptable, such as issues over next of kin and decisions over medical treatment, but rights over inheritance and tenancy succession are more problematical. "We're not convinced that same-sex partnerships satisfy enough criteria to get the benefit of tax and benefit breaks," he says

He says Care's position is that two people become one in marriage, a situation which, for biological reasons, he suggests cannot happen for a gay couple.

"Our position is that same-sex relationships are not of the same nature or quality as a marriage. I know I will be accused of being a bigot, but what we're doing is expressing a widespread opinion that there is a difference between heterosexual marriage and a same-sex relationship," he says.

"If there is a difference, it seems to me it is legitimate to draw distinctions in legislation as it applies to those relationships. I don't think it is a 'second-class citizens' type of argument to say one is not the same as another."

The danger as far as the evangelicals are concerned is not just an abstract belief that same-sex relationships are not on the same level as marriage, but that giving validity in law to the former will end up weakening the latter.

"Legislation does not just reflect social attitudes, it changes them, and if you give the same rights to same-sex couples it gives the impression there is no difference between the two types of relationships," says Mr Smith. "Marriage is special and different and unique, and if that is right we don't want anything in legislation that would detract from that."

But this cuts no ice with Sue Lister, who has been with her partner Anne Murray for 17 years. Earlier this year, the couple, from York, signed a partnership register.

"Issues such as who is next of kin are very important. When you go into hospital and the nurse says 'Who is next of kin?' It is outrageous that I can't say Anne," says Sue.

"We have both made out wills in each other's favour, and we have had powers of attorney made out, but there is still the question of whether it would be honoured, unless there is a change in the law."

But for Sue the Government's proposals are about more than just the individual rights, important though they are. They are about society - and the law - finally recognising that same-sex relationships are just as valid as heterosexual ones.

"At what point are we going to stop being invisible and be recognised? It is beyond belief that anyone would say to Anne and me that our relationship doesn't have the validity of a marriage - it is not on in this day and age.

"I demand respect from our society, for me and for my relationship, and I'm not going to settle for anything less."

Current Partnership Rights

Next of kin

Married couple: Husband or wife can act for spouse, for example when one partner is mentally ill.

Same-sex couple: Must defer to legal, usually blood, relatives.

Death registration

Married couple: Husband or wife can officially register death of partner.

Same-sex couple: Must get 'legal' relative to register death.

Tax

Married couple: The surviving partner does not pay inheritance tax.

Same-sex couple: Surviving partner pays up to 40 per cent inheritance tax.

Pensions

Married couple: Husband or wife can benefit from pension payments following partner's death.

Same-sex couple: Some schemes give pension rights, but in most cases payments cannot be transferred.

Hospital visits

Married couple: Husband or wife has right to see partner in hospital.

Same-sex couple: No right to see partner or to be kept informed.

Property

Married couple: Husband or wife has right to remain in shared property after death of spouse.

Same-sex couple: Surviving partner has no right to live in shared property.