Sir Elton John stole the show (and not for the first time) but the entertainer and his partner, David Furnish, were simply one of hundreds of couples who entered into civil partnerships in England and Wales yesterday. This innovation is not without its controversy and there will be some left uncomfortable at what has been glibly (and inaccurately) called “gay marriage”. Yet the point of civil partnerships is both to allow homosexuals to secure legal rights over property or pensions and to symbolise a degree of commitment to each other. It is not a threat to heterosexual couples strolling down the aisle in a formal religious ceremony.

The response of most of the public to civil partnerships appears to be to wish the couples well and not to think more of it. After the publicity given to the first of these partnerships fades, the process will hardly be noticed by the wider country. It will be a matter of obvious interest to the friends and families of the gay men and lesbian couples involved, but will become unexceptional. This would, therefore, be a very British social revolution.

Yet revolutionary it is in many ways. It was barely a decade ago that the proceedings of the House of Commons were interrupted by protesters as MPs voted to lower the age of consent for homosexual acts from 21 to 18, rather than 16 as those campaigning for change wanted. On reflection, however, those angry activists might agree that traversing in careful steps smoothed the path to equality. When the transfer from 21 to 18 did not create the turmoil that had been predicted in some quarters, the shift to 16 proceeded relatively peacefully and then Parliament — with Tony Blair and Michael Howard in the Ayes lobby — moved on to civil partnerships.

This measured approach has permitted public opinion to be carried. That has been most striking in Northern Ireland where the first civil partnerships were signed on Monday. Homosexuality in the Province was not made legal until 1982 and this year a DUP councillor declared that God had sent Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for organising a gay pride march. But those who demonstrated against a les-bian couple forming a partnership this week did so with apparent humour.

The paradox of what would have seemed once such a radical change is that it is essentially so conservative in character. Most of those who travelled to town halls yesterday to have their relationships codified in law did so because they wanted to signal their loyalty to each other and to add further to the stability they had already accumulated during many years together. In an age when, for various reasons, heterosexual couples often choose not to exercise their right to enter a civil or a religious bond, and when divorce rates in this country remain close to the highest levels in the world, the determination of couples to buck the trend is surely to be admired.

The alternative, and it would be a curious moral position, is to contend that unstable homosexual relationships are preferable to civil partnerships that celebrate love and involve significant legal commitments. The reform enacted offers society at large a better outcome. The Prime Minister declared yesterday that the change in the law had been a “modern, progressive step forward for the country and I am proud we did it”. He is entitled to his pride, but the step which he rightly encouraged is in many respects as conservative as it is progressive.