Discrimination to deny this couple a civil partnership
IDON’T share the views of Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan that marriage is a “sexist” and “patriarchal” institution. But I can’t argue with their case – which was rejected in the Court of Appeal yesterday – that the refusal of the state to allow them to enter into a civil partnership instead of a marriage is discriminatory.
As the law stands gay couples have a choice of whether to get married or to enter into a civil partnership. Heterosexual couples do not. For them the only choice lies between getting married and cohabiting without any formal contract in their relationship.
If it was discriminatory to prevent gay couples from marrying – something which we were told endlessly by campaigners as well as by former prime minister David Cameron, then how can it not be discriminatory to prevent heterosexuals entering into a civil partnership?
The Steinfeld and Keidan case reveals how politics now works in Britain. What ultimately determines the law is not logic but how loudly a special interest group can shout. Gay marriage got the Parliamentary nod because there was a vociferous lobby behind it. Rebecca and Charles by contrast represent a much smaller group: heterosexuals who want the security of official recognition of their relationship but who are ideologically opposed to the concept of marriage.
PERSONALLY I can’t understand their objection. I can’t see why they don’t go to their register office and tie the knot as man and wife. They wouldn’t need any pomp and ceremony. Rebecca wouldn’t need to don a white dress and vow to obey Charles.
In fact they wouldn’t need to dress up at all or even have any guests. It could be done in 10 minutes flat after which they could get on with their lives knowing that the law would recognise them as a couple for the purposes of tax, inheritance and child-rearing.
But then I didn’t used to see why some people were so passionate about gay marriage either. Given that gay couples already had the option of entering into a civil partnership – which in any case was colloquially called “marriage”, why the need to stir up