Mr Stanhope said the attitude of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland towards same-sex civil unions was no different to that of their Liberal predecessors, John Howard and Philip Ruddock.

"I don't believe for one minute that by recognising gay and lesbian relationships under the law, we are in any way diminishing marriage," he said. "It's my 36th wedding anniversary tomorrow. Recognising the loving relationship of [Labor MLA] Andrew Barr does not diminish my marriage one iota and I challenge anybody to suggest it does."

Mr Stanhope told a news conference he was embarrassed that his federal Labor colleagues would both deny human rights of gay and lesbian people within his community, and show disrespect for the democratic rights of the people of the ACT.

"At both levels, Prime Minister Rudd has failed dismally," he said.

His comments echoed those of ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell when he announced on Sunday that he was giving up on his bid to enshrine gay civil unions in law. He described the Rudd Government's position as "hypocritical" and "appalling", and accused Mr Rudd of being unduly influenced by the Christian lobby on the issue.

A spokesman for the federal Attorney-General said yesterday the Government's policy was based on the national policy platform, "not the views of any particular lobby or group".

Faced with intransigence on the issue from Mr McClelland, who has argued that the original ACT Bill mimicked marriage, Mr Corbell reluctantly accepted a compromise that would allow same-sex couples to register their relationship and have a ceremony paid for by taxpayers, but without any legal recognition.

Mr Rudd had directed Mr McClelland to threaten to override the ACT legislation, as the Howard government did when it was last put forward in 2006. This was despite Mr Rudd having said in December that same-sex unions were a matter for the states and territories.

In the 2006 Senate debate on disallowing the Howard government's veto on the same issue, Labor senators Kate Lundy and Penny Wong spoke passionately against federal intervention. Mr Stanhope said his federal colleagues could "rightly be accused of gross hypocrisy" and that when push came to shove, their "grand speeches" were just empty words.

A Canberra same-sex couple, who would only give their first names, Liz and Jodie, expressed disappointment at the Rudd Government's position. Liz, 34, said she was "quite devastated" by the news that the ACT Bill would no longer go ahead.

"It's very disappointing that we're not going to be supported in having our relationships recognised in the same way as the relationships of the rest of our family and friends," she said.

The couple have two daughters, aged three and one. Jodie, 37, said she wanted to know why the rights of "this working family" weren't equal to everybody else's.

"We are the same as everybody else. We pay taxes like everybody else. We are ordinary working people living a domestic life there is nothing outrageous about us. We want the very same bland rights that everybody else has."

Gay lobby groups such as Good Process and the Canberra-based Campaigns for Civil Unions have expressed deep disappointment at the Rudd Government's opposition to same-sex civil unions.

Good Process member Heidi Yates said while she welcomed Mr McClelland's commitment last Wednesday to remove discrimination from about 100 federal laws, it was not the end of the matter.

"Until there's full equality in Australian law, and that includes The Marriage Act, and until same-sex and opposite sex couples both have the same options, the discrimination and prejudice will continue."

The Australian Christian Lobby has commended Mr Rudd and Mr McClelland on their intervention, which it said removed aspects of the Bill that would have mimicked marriage and extended its reach to minors.

Managing director Jim Wallace said while he did not want to see gays and lesbians disadvantaged from "legitimate entitlement", the Government was right to intervene.