Banning civil partnerships for straight couples could violate their human rights
‘Government must act very soon’
BANNING a heterosexual couple from having a civil partnership instead of a marriage could violate their human rights, a court has ruled.
Refusing to allow Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan to enter the arrangement because only same-sex couples were eligible was potentially discriminatory and breached safeguards to a family life, senior judges said.
The academics lost their Court of Appeal challenge that said they did not meet the legal requirement of being the same sex.
But the judges said they would wait until the Government had carried out a review of the rules before declaring whether it was incompatible with equality law.
Miss Steinfeld, 35, and Mr Keidan, 40, who claimed they objected to the ‘patriarchal baggage’ of marriage, said the law was on ‘borrowed time’. Last night campaigners expressed concern that the case could further undermine the institution of marriage.
Dr Sharon James, of the Coalition For Marriage campaign group, said: ‘If there is a change it would bring in a two-tier system. This would be introducing marriage-light. It should not be under- mined by a minority of people who want the rights and benefits of marriage without the costs of commitment. This is another weakening of the marriage banns.’
Miss Steinfeld and Mr Keidan wanted to enter a civil partnership to secure legal recognition of their seven-year relationship.
But they are prevented because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 – introduced by Labour under Tony Blair – says only same-sex couples are permitted. The pair, who live in Hammersmith, west London, and have a 20-month-old daughter, claim they have ‘deep-rooted and ideological objections’ to marriage. They said the Government’s position breached equality law because it discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Their case was paid for by public donations following a fundraising drive by campaign group Equal Civil Partnerships.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Miss Steinfeld and Mr Keidan had established potential violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Right, which relates to discrimination, and Article 8, which safeguards family life.
But they lost their appeal after the panel of three judges said the Government should have more time to evaluate the future of civil partnerships before declaring them incompatible with human rights laws. Ministers could not wait ‘ indefinitely’ to decide whether to extend the arrangement, they warned.
Mr Justice Briggs said he could ‘well understand’ the pair’s frustration at what they saw as the Government dragging its heels.
Lawyers for Education Secretary Justine Greening, who has responsibility for equalities, said a decision was taken after two public consultations and debate in Parliament not to extend or abolish civil partnerships. Instead, it was waiting to see how extending marriage to same-sex couples in 2013 impacted on civil partnerships before making a final decision.
A Government spokesman said it welcomed the ruling and would take the judgment into account during its evaluation of civil partnerships.
Miss Steinfeld and Mr Keidan intend to appeal to the Supreme Court. Miss Steinfeld said: ‘We are pleased the ruling has shown that the Government must act very soon to end this unfair situation.’
Conservative MP Tim Loughton, who recently introduced a Private Member’s Bill to give mixed-sex couples the right to a civil partnership, said the Government had ‘no excuse’ for delaying a change in the law as the bill received cross-party backing. MPs are due to debate the bill on March 24.
FEW will shed tears for buyers and sellers of Britain’s most expensive homes. But when a punitive tax on sales of houses worth more than £1.5million results in substantially lower receipts for the Treasury, everyone suffers.
Such has been the effect of George Osborne’s increase in stamp duty to a crippling 12 per cent on homes at the top of the market.
Unsurprisingly, the extra £18,750 tax demanded on a £1.5million home has led to a dramatic fall in numbers sold, with the Treasury taking hundreds of millions of pounds less from the top band of duty than before the swingeing increase.
This is cash that could be spent on hospitals, social care or defence.
But it’s not just taxpayers who lose out. The slump in top- end sales has also denied work to thousands of small businesses that rely on a fluid housing market.
If the Chancellor is wise, he will use next month’s Budget to bring down the top rate – and so push up tax receipts. NOBODY is stopping Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld from getting married in a register office. So why on earth are the courts wasting their time on this posturing couple’s plea for permission to form a civil partnership (at present available only to homosexuals), which carries all the same rights and duties as – you guessed it – a register office wedding? Aren’t there quite enough genuine injustices for judges to consider, without indulging such exhibitionists?