It’s passed the House of Commons by a huge majority. Now on to the House of Lords. Of course, philosopher Roger Scruton was on the wrong side of this one, with the argument that “gay marriage is homophobic”.
Note: this post has been updated in light of the excellent point made in the first comment!
Feminist Philosophers 
Sorry, but it’s equal marriage or possibly same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. It is for the B and the T (although it offers very limited benefits for trans people), not just the L and the G. I fear that if folk keep calling it gay marriage, then when it comes to pass, they’ll still be a conceptual gap between gay marriage and, well, marriage.
Goldfish, I agree that it’s not gay marriage, but I’m not sure that same-sex marriage works as a term either. What it really is is sexless marriage – not in the heretofore usual sense of that phrase (no jokes, please), but in the sense that the heterogeneity of the sexes of the persons concerned is an element of the proposed legal institution. This formulation (or something along those lines) offers the advantages of reducing the risk of what you call “a conceptual gap between gay marriage and … marriage” and of clarifying that the debate is about a single legal institution of marriage which would henceforward apply to all unions and, even as to existing or future marriages between a woman and a man (a point often overlooked), would be conceptually distinct from its predecessor institution.
My previous post should have read “is not an element of the proposed legal institution” (I inadvertently omitted the word “not”). Apologies; I was typing fast.
Oh, Roger. Is this what killing foxes for fun does to you?
367128 724655Very educating story, saved your site for hopes to read more! 801661