Civil partnerships must be available to all
In a unanimous decision, Supreme Court rules that the current law unlawfully excludes heterosexuals
Mr Keidan said there was now only one option –
‘to extend civil partnerships to all’
CIVIL partnerships could be opened up to all after the Supreme Court ruled that they unlawfully exclude heterosexual couples.
In a unanimous judgment, five Supreme Court judges ruled that the current law was incompatible with human rights legislation.
The Government Equalities Office, overseen by Penny Mordaunt, the Inter- national Development Secretary, had previously said it would not resolve the issue until 2020. But the Supreme Court said its slowness to deal with the issue was not appropriate.
The Daily Telegraph understands that the minister’s personal view is that they should be extended to all couples.
The appeal was brought by Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan who said they had “deep-rooted … ideological objections to marriage” because it was “historically hetero-normative and patriarchal”. Following the judgment the couple embraced in court as they were applauded by their supporters.
In a statement outside court, they said they were “elated” and Mr Keidan said there was now only one option – “to extend civil partnerships to all”. Speaking in the House of Commons, Tim Loughton, a Conservative former minister who has brought a private members’ bill that would broaden the availability of the partnerships, also urged the Government to “resolve this illegal inequality and extend civil partnerships to everyone”.
Civil partnerships were introduced in 2004, 10 years before the law was changed to allow same-sex marriage. Lawyers for the Government argued that it needed to collect four years of data on the demand for civil partnerships before it could decide what to do.
Figures show that the number of partnerships registered fell to 890 in 2016, down from 6,305 on average each year between 2007 and 2013.
A document last month set out plans for a consultation to assess whether there was still enough demand among same-sex couples since the marriage law changed in March 2014.
The judgment, given by Lord Kerr, criticised the Government, saying it had created a “situation of inequality” and then asked “for the indulgence of time”.
The justices made clear the decision did not oblige the Government or Parliament to act. But experts suggested a decision may have to be made more quickly. A Government Equalities Office spokesman said: “The Government is aware of its legal obligations, and we will obviously be considering this judgment of the Supreme Court with great care and will respond in due course.”
The ruling by the Supreme Court on the legality of restricting civil partnerships to gay couples has presented the Government with a quandary. The basis for the judgment was that it was discriminatory under European human rights law to deny similar arrangements to heterosexual couples.
This was always going to be an issue from the moment gay marriage was legalised. Civil partnerships were limited to same-sex couples because the alternative of getting married was not available. As soon as it was, the limitations on civil partnerships could never be sustained, legally or morally. Moreover, if civil partnerships were extended to all, why not for any couple living together whatever their relationship?
There are now several options. The Government could do nothing and let the current system continue despite the ruling; or civil partnerships could be extended to all couples; or they could be scrapped now that the option of marriage is equally accessible.
What is important is that the institution of marriage, which enjoys increasing popularity, is not damaged by establishing an alternative to supplant it. It is telling that even though this case was brought on equality grounds, campaigners have hailed the outcome as a nail in the coffin of marriage. They argue that it is patriarchal (which will be news to many couples) and old-fashioned.
The couple who petitioned the Supreme Court objected to marriage for themselves, but their personal preferences should not be allowed to harm it for others. Marriage is the bedrock of society and of a stable family life. The state has an interest in preserving it.