EQUALITY should mean equality. None of us should rest until that simple principle applies as widely as it can across our society. It is why this newspaper backed the right of gay and lesbian people to marry each other.

There was opposition on faith grounds but our decision was one based with confidence on what was right for individual freedom.

When Larry Lamont and Jerry Slater celebrated the passing of the legislation at the Holyrood Parliament, two mature men found themselves on the front page of The Herald and other newspapers. It seemed that the campaign had been successful.

There were even medals. Nicola Sturgeon was lauded at a recent celebration by the wider LBGT community. Under the radar, however, there has always been a rumbling disagreement.

It concerns civil partnerships. They were our first concessions to something akin to, but by no means the full equivalent of, gay marriage. But, once granted, this created a three-tier wedding cake.

There was the big, base tier of conventional marriage, whether in kirk, chapel or registry office. Then there was the new middle tier of civil partnership for gays, who gained a kind of “marriage lite”.

And there was the unattainable top tier of marriage for LGBT couples. But when we created equal access to marriage, allowing all citizens access to the bottom-tier of the wedding cake, what happened to those who wanted to carry on with civil partnerships?

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was among the first to raise this as a legitimate issue. He said immediately that, if civil partnerships became law to the benefit of gay couples, they had to be made available to straight couples. And why not?

If couples wish to go through a public rite to celebrate their relationship, without terming it marriage, who are we to stop them, and why?

But that is what the Scottish Government appears to be proposing, saying it is “not persuaded that opposite sex civil partnership should be introduced”.

One respondent to the Equality Network’s survey said: “Marriage comes with many traditions, teachings and connotations that I heavily disagree with. A civil partnership would allow me to live a better, fairer life without compromising my beliefs and values.”

Since civil partnerships already exist, it is hard to see a cost argument for blocking this. Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network said: “We know that a significant minority of mixed-sex and same-sex couples would prefer a civil partnership to a marriage, and at the moment only same-sex couples have that option. Equality means making that available to all.”

Equality should be available to all: that seems a reasonable proposition. If this is to be a genuine consultation exercise, it should be incumbent on ministers to take account of the views expressed and pay heed so that they can shape policy.