THE present civil partnership story is a complex intersection where the Human Rights Law, homosexuality, the Bible and the 21st century collide.

In spite of this, to those on each side of the debate, the basic issue is simple. Should homosexual couples have the right to enter civil partnerships that would allow them the same benefits that married couples enjoy?

The answers are either yes, of course, or obviously not. On this subject, perhaps more than any other currently being asked, there is no grey area. That suggests that the in-principle debate on the creation of civil partnerships in Jersey next month will not be a straightforward one.

If passed, the civil partnership proposition would enable the drafting of legislation that would set up gay marriage in all but name. It would also allow this Island to offer formal recognition to relationships which already have legal status in many other parts of the world.

Unfortunately, the States Assembly does not have a proud record on the consideration of gay issues. There were, for example, lamentable and fundamentally anti-gay speeches by certain Members in January 2006 during a debate on the reduction of the age of consent for homosexuals.

There is no escaping the fact that most of those who oppose the idea of civil partnerships will do so on deeply and sincerely held religious grounds. Many of those with deeply held religious convictions believe that introducing civil partnerships will cheapen and degrade marriage. Among that number are, apparently, some members of the Council of Ministers, a body understood to be divided on the issue.

We should not, however, imagine that the present initiative is prompted by a sudden burst of liberal feeling from free-thinking members of the Council of Ministers. Rather, the spur to action appears to have been some strongly worded legal advice indicating that the denial of marital benefits to homosexuals was not compliant with Jersey’s obligations under the Human Rights Law, leaving the Island open to costly and embarrassing legal action that would force through the change anyway.

But the central point of the civil partnerships controversy is not homosexuality, it is not the sanctity of marriage, and it is not the Human Rights Law. At its heart, the debate is about fairness.

There are advantages available to married heterosexual couples in terms of income tax, social security, residency and inheritance that are simply not available to homosexual couples. In this day and age that cannot be right.