Civil partnership QC: marriage is no longer sexist
MODERN marriage is no longer a patriarchal institution, because couples can have mixed stag and hen dos, the Government’s lawyer has told the Supreme Court.
Responding to a case brought by a heterosexual couple who want a civil partnership, James Eadie QC, representing the equalities minister, said that many of the trappings that had made marriage a patriarchal institution were no longer a necessary part of the tradition.
Earlier in the day the lawyer representing Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, both academics, said they had “deep-rooted and genuine ideological objections to marriage”. Karon Monaghan QC told the court marriage was “historically heteronormative and patriarchal” and the couple’s objections were “not frivolous”.
She added: “These are important issues, no small matters, and they are serious for my clients because they cannot marry conformable with their conscience and that should weigh very heavily indeed.”
But Mr Eadie countered that while “we do not quibble with the genuineness of their objection” and the history of the institution “comes with patriarchy attached”, modern marriage had shed many of its sexist attributes.
Couples do not have to have “the giving away of the woman”, the white wedding dress, “or even a gender-segregated hen party”, he argued. He said that today’s “equal, modern society” meant the couple’s ideological opposition to marriage was weakened.
Mr Eadie argued that a decision on the issue should wait until next year following a consultation so the Government could have four years’ data from the introduction of same-sex marriage.
He said civil partnerships were “essentially identical” to civil marriage and were created to give legal recognition to same-sex unions at a time “when society was not felt ready” to recognise such relationships as marriages.
Mr Eadie told the judges the Government’s decision to “take some time” before
‘Couples do not have to have the giving away of the woman or even a gendersegregated hen party’
deciding on the future of civil partnerships is justified. “These are things for Parliament to consider and the more informed they are the better the legislative judgment is ultimately likely to be,” he said.
The Government said the aim was to see how extending marriage to samesex couples impacted on civil partnerships before making a final decision.
Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan suffered defeat at the Court of Appeal in February last year, but were allowed to appeal in August for a Supreme Court hearing. A panel of five Supreme Court justices, including the court’s president Lady Hale, began considering the couple’s appeal yestarday. They reserved judgment for a later date.