Church powerless to stop same-sex marriage even if hundreds of thousands object In its first official statement on same-sex marriage, the Church of England committed itself to "the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman." Announcing the four-month consultation, Miss Featherstone and the Home Secretary Theresa May said the Government committed to ending the ban on same-sex couples marrying in register offices. "I believe that if a couple love each other and want to commit to a life together, they should have the option of a civil marriage, whatever their gender," said Miss Featherstone. Today is a hugely important step as we consider how to lift the ban on civil marriage for same-sex couples. This is about the underlying principles of family, society, and personal freedoms. Marriage is a celebration of love and should be open to everyone. Should gay marriage be allowed? The document repeatedly underlines that the change would only affect civil marriage and that there would be an outright ban on same-sex marriages religious premises even if some denominations wanted them. There are also provisions for the first time to allow transsexuals to have a sex change and stay married. And homosexual couples in existing civil partnerships will be able to "convert" it to a marriage although the option of civil partnership will still exist for same-sex couples. But plans to allow heterosexual couples who do not wish to get married to after into a civil partnership instead have been dropped. The document sets out a string of technical matters which have yet to be resolved including what the legal definitions of "adultery" and "non-consummation" would be in homosexual divorce cases. It also deals in detail with couples who previously had to divorce so that the husband or wife could have a sex change and then enter a civil partnership. They would now be allowed to marry for a second time. Labour's Yvette Cooper said that the proposals do not go far enough and called for religious groups to be able to host same-sex weddings if they wanted. Quakers, Unitarians and the Reform and Liberal branches of Judaism have publicly voiced support for same-sex marriage. But the Roman Catholic Church has argued for the status quo as a "natural institution." Last weekend a letter signed by the Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Revd Vincent Nichols, was read out in all parishes, inviting members to voice their opposition during the consultation. There are an estimated five millions Catholics in England and Wales includng more than a million churchgoers. Although senior Church of England clerics have voiced views on both sides of the debate, the established Church has not formally commented as an organisation until today. In a statement following the launch of the consultation, the CofE reaffirmed support for civil partnerships but said that it understood marriage as being "between one man and one woman" "The issue of whether marriage should be redefined to include those of the same-sex is a more complicated picture than has been painted," it said. Arguments that suggest 'religious marriage' is separate and different from 'civil marriage', and will not be affected by the proposed redefinition, misunderstand the legal nature of marriage in this country. They mistake the form of the ceremony for the institution itself. It adds: "Arguments that seek to treat 'religious marriage' as being a different institution fail to recognise the enduring place of the established church in providing marriages that have full state recognition. The Church of England will continue to argue against changing the definition of marriage, which has supported society for so long. Colin Hart, campaign director of the Coalition For Marriage, said: "After initially relenting and promising to include a question on the principle of introducing same sex marriage it is clear from the written statement given to both Houses of Parliament by the Equalities Minister that she will simply ignore any answers to this question. I always thought that a consultation was about listening to people and asking them their views, before making a decision. Not only are they redefining the meaning of marriage, they're redefining the meaning of consultation. This consultation is a sham. It is being pushed through despite the public never having a say on this change. None of the main political parties proposed redefining marriage in their manifestos and the impact assessment misses out many of the possible problems that could occur if this institution is redefined, for example how this change will affect our schools. "The institution of marriage is the not the play thing of the state, it belongs to society and therefore cannot be redefined by a few politicians obsessed with appearing "trendy" and "progressive.""