Court blow to marriage as straight couple win civil partnership fight

‘Stand up for marriage’

HETEROSEXUAL couples are expected to be able to enter into civil partnerships if they don’t want to marry following a landmark ruling by Britain’s highest court yesterday.

Senior judges said banning different sex couples from having a civil partnership was discriminatory and breached human rights.

The Supreme Court decision paves the way for a change in the law and raises fears that the institution of marriage could be further undermined.

Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, won their case after a four-year legal battle.

The academics argued that because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 – introduced by Labour under Tony Blair – permits only same-sex couples, they had suffered discrimination.

Giving their ruling, the five judges said that it was no longer lawful for the Government to want more time to consider whether to equalise the law – either by permitting heterosexual couples to form civil partnerships or scrapping them altogether.

They said that the existing legislation was ‘incompatible’ with Miss Steinfeld and Mr Keidan’s right to a family life.

In a civil partnership, a couple is entitled to the same legal treatment in terms of inheritance, tax, pensions and next-ofkin arrangements as those in a marriage.

Outside the court, Dr Steinfeld said: ‘We are feeling elated that the Supreme Court has ruled that this mistreatment cannot continue any longer.

‘We hope the Government is going to do the right thing at last and extend civil partnerships to everybody.’

Mr Keidan said: ‘The law and government needs to catch up with family life in 2018. People are already suffering because of this.’

Miss Steinfeld and Mr Keidan wanted to enter a civil partnership to secure legal recognition of their seven-year relationship.

The pair, who live in Hammersmith, West London, and have two daughters aged two and nine months, 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.

The court ruled that the couple had suffered a violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Right, which relates to discrimination, and Article 8, which safeguards family life.

However, Colin Hart, chairman of the Coalition For Marriage campaign group, said: ‘Day by day the hostility of the Government towards traditional marriage, the lifelong commitment between a man and woman, becomes clearer.

‘It is time for those who care about family breakdown and the welfare of children to stand up for marriage, backing it in the tax system and providing meaningful support to those in difficulty.’

But Martin Loat, of the Equal Civil Partnerships campaign, said: ‘There is only one possible way forward – giving everyone the right to a civil partnership.’ Earlier this year, the Government decided, after public consultations and debate in Parliament, not to act until it had more data on the effect of changing the law. Yesterday a Government Equalities Office spokesman said it would consider the judgment with ‘great care’, adding: ‘The Government is very aware of its legal obligations.’

In Scotland, the SNP has said it plans to consider legislating for civil partnerships ‘later in this parliament’.

Last night, Scottish Government spokesman said it will ‘carefully consider’ any implications of yesterday’s ruling for Scotland.