Church and state collide over same-sex marriage On Thursday, the public consultation will end for what would be one of the most profound social reforms of our time, the legalisation of same-sex marriage. In truth, this was never a consultation in the strictest sense of the word. People have not been asked whether or not they approve of gay marriage, since the Government has already made up its mind to bring forward legislation later this year. This exercise is about how to implement that decision. However, many respondents are against the idea in principle, notably the churches. Campaigners maintain that the views of religious groups should not be accorded any special weight because the proposals are intended to apply only to civil marriage. But as the Church of England points out in its submission, published today, this is a false distinction. The implication that there are two categories of marriage, civil and church, mistakes the ceremony for the institution. Matrimony, as the word suggests, involves the union of a woman and a man and legislation is not going to change that fact. The last government, in a widely welcomed reform, ensured that the same legal rights were available for same-sex couples by introducing civil partnerships. It is disingenuous of campaigners to argue that legalising same-sex marriage would not have an impact on the churches because it is restricted only to civil ceremonies. To begin with, it is unclear whether human rights and anti-discrimination laws could require churches to carry out same-sex marriages even if exemptions are enshrined in a new Act. Moreover, there is the potential for the biggest clash between canon law - which sets out the Church's definition of marriage - and the law of England since the Reformation. As the Church of England says: "Changing the state's understanding of marriage will change the way marriage is defined for everybody and, despite the Government's assurances to the contrary, will change the nature of marriages solemnised in churches and other places of worship." In addition, if the concept of gender is removed from marriage, it cannot be left in place for civil partnerships, a point that is also made by supporters of gay marriage. Why should heterosexual couples - or two sisters living together - not be granted civil partnership rights? The Government believes the reform demonstrates its commitment to equality and modernity. Yet it risks opening a serious breach with the established Church while also alienating other religious groups, and laying down a legal minefield that will benefit only lawyers. If this has been a true consultation, then David Cameron should make sure these objections are given proper consideration.