Heterosexual couple win civil partnership case

[Deleted]

What's your opinion on this

A heterosexual couple have won their legal bid for the right to have a civil partnership instead of a marriage.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, from London.

The court said the Civil Partnership Act 2004 - which only applies to same-sex couples - is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ms Steinfeld said she hoped the government does the "right thing" and extends civil partnerships to all.

"We are feeling elated," she told the BBC outside court. "But at the same time we are feeling frustrated the government has wasted taxpayers' money in fighting what the judges' have called a blatant inequality."

The judgement does not oblige government to change the law, although it does make it more likely that the government will now act, the BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman explained.

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

The couple, who met in 2010 and have two children, said the "legacy of marriage" which "treated women as property for centuries" was not an option for them.

"We want to raise our children as equal partners and feel that a civil partnership - a modern, symmetrical institution - sets the best example for them," they explained.

Why we want a civil partnership

Since March 2014, same sex-couples can choose whether to enter a civil partnership or to marry. This has not been possible for mixed-sex couples, which led Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan to argue that the law was discriminatory.

This ruling overturns a previous judgement made by the Court of Appeal, which rejected the couple's claim, in February of last year.

What does a civil partnership offer?
Legal and financial protection for both parties in the event of the relationship ending
It is free of the religious connotations of marriage
Some object to marriage as an institution and its associations with property and patriarchy
The judges ruled that current UK law was "incompatible" with human rights laws on discrimination and the right to a private and family life.

Announcing the court's decision, Lord Kerr said the government did not seek to justify the difference in treatment between same-sex and different sex couples.

"To the contrary, it accepts that the difference cannot be justified," he said.

LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell called the ruling a "victory for love and equality".

"It was never fair that same-sex couples had two options, civil partnerships and civil marriages, whereas opposite-sex partners had only one option, marriage," he said.

Analysis
By BBC legal correspondent, Clive Coleman

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan appealed to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal rejected their claim in February 2017
It is an irony that the way in which relationship equality for same sex couples came about in the 21st century had the effect of creating inequality between them and different sex couples.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 created civil partnerships but defined them as a 'relationship between two people of the same sex'.

When the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 legalised same sex marriage, gay couples had two options as to how to formalise their relationship in law - marriage or civil partnership - whereas heterosexual couples could only marry.

The Supreme Court has found that inequality to amount to discrimination and a breach of the right to a family life.

The government accepted the inequality between same sex and different sex couples, but argued that it needed to have time to assemble sufficient information to allow a confident decision to be made about the future of civil partnerships.

Lord Kerr gave that argument short shrift, saying: "What it (the government) seeks is tolerance of the discrimination while it sorts out how to deal with it. That cannot be characterised as a legitimate aim."

The couple will later go to Whitehall to deliver a letter to Equalities Minister Penny Mordaunt.

Martin Loat, chairman of the Equal Civil Partnerships campaign, said: "There is only one possible way forward - giving everyone the right to a civil partnership - and we urge the government to seize this opportunity to announce it will end this injustice now."

More than 130,000 people have signed an online petition in support of civil partnerships for everyone.

The couple's barrister Karon Monaghan QC told the court her clients had "deep-rooted and genuine ideological objections to marriage" and are "not alone" in their views.

There are around 63,000 couples in civil partnerships in the UK and some 3.3 million co-habiting couples.

Personally I am indifferent

[united]

not a big deal

[Leih]

Don't see why this is even a thing that would have had to go to court?

If two straight people want a civil partnership then why not?

Weird.

[Serpha]

What's your opinion on this



Personally I am indifferent

So why post at all?

I watched a documentary some time ago with prominent lesbian feminist and she said that the goal is to destroy marriage altogether and than more and it seems like they succeeded with that looking at how marraige is at all time low.
Personaly, I'm not married but have been with my girlfriend for the past 15 years, ans since we are not getting any younger this could be good time to discuss civil partnership. Time will tell.

[Endus]

I think the silliness in the story is predicated upon the silliness of having "civil partnerships" in the first place, as "marriages that don't use the word marriage because fragile homophobic snowflakes start hand-wringing when gays can get married".

If they're the same thing as a marriage, then just use marriage.

If they aren't the same thing as marriage, you're not granting homosexual couples equal rights, and you need to work that homophobic bullshit out.

[Independent voter]

"legacy of marriage" which "treated women as property for centuries" was not an option for them.


That's the first thing I think when I look at my wife, "my swag".

[Deleted]

It surprises me that this wasn't possible before. Here we've had civil partnerships for heterosexuals since it was created. So, good thing that it's possible in the UK now too.

[Uncle]

So it was not allowed for heterosexuals? That's strange.

"legacy of marriage" which "treated women as property for centuries" was not an option for them.


That's the first thing I think when I look at my wife, "my swag".

Take care of her, she will take value with time, and you will be able to sell her for maximum benefits !

[Deleted]

Just get married, you idiots.

Much ado about nothing.

Sheese........

Guess you didn't read the article? Marriage has a history, a legacy and not everyone is interested in that. Some people just want the ease of having tax, inheritance, etc. taken care of without marriage.

[Minikin]

What's your opinion on this



Personally I am indifferent

Is this not the same as common law? I thought this was already in place unless I'm mistaken.

[MeteorPunch]

Wish I had time to waste on frivolous lawsuits.

[Machismo]

Wish I had time to waste on frivolous lawsuits.

Well... they won, so it wasn't exactly frivolous.

[Shinra1]

This couple clearly have too much time (and money) on their hands because the whole thing is a sham. They already had kids out of wed lock and have been cohabiting for most of their relationship. Why even bother going through with a ceremony? I guess they are just attention seekers. I can't help laugh at his wife though she must not love herself. He got you knocked up multiple times and you are raising his kids but he doesn't want to marry you and would rather have you as his common-law spouse. I would be ashamed to be her. Have you seen what she looks like lol?

[caervek]

Excellent news, this sets a great president for couples that don't want the religious connotations of marriage but want recognition of their status together

[Super Kami Dende]

I think the silliness in the story is predicated upon the silliness of having "civil partnerships" in the first place, as "marriages that don't use the word marriage because fragile homophobic snowflakes start hand-wringing when gays can get married".

Wut. Civil Partnerships like the people in this story are for people that want the benefits of Marriage without the Religious connotations applied to it. Why should it matter if people want a Partnerships but don't want a Marriage?

I see no real silliness to Civil Partnerships at all. The fact you are turning this into something about Homophobia is just asinine.

[The Stormbringer]

Good for them. More equality and all that.

[Vathoren]

This couple clearly have too much time (and money) on their hands because the whole thing is a sham. They already had kids out of wed lock and have been cohabiting for most of their relationship. Why even bother going through with a ceremony? I guess they are just attention seekers. I can't help laugh at his wife though she must not love herself. He got you knocked up multiple times and you are raising his kids but he doesn't want to marry you and would rather have you as his common-law spouse. I would be ashamed to be her. Have you seen what she looks like lol?

From the post:

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

Nice to see such tolerance though.

[Endus]

Wut. Civil Partnerships like the people in this story are for people that want the benefits of Marriage without the Religious connotations applied to it. Why should it matter if people want a Partnerships but don't want a Marriage?

I see no real silliness to Civil Partnerships at all. The fact you are turning this into something about Homophobia is just asinine.

There are no "religious connotations" to marriage if you don't want them. Marriage is a civil arrangement between a couple and the state. A religious ceremony is just a party you have to celebrate the signing of a legal document.

If you don't want the ceremony, you can just sign the document with a proper officiant and witnesses and file it with the State and you're married.

The point with the comments regarding homophobia aren't complex. Can gay couples get married? Yes or no. If "no", your society is homophobic and denies basic civil rights to couples based on their sexual orientation. If "yes", then this shouldn't be a story in the first place.

[Gurmech]

Attention seeking nonsense case. A hallmark of the 21 century...

[Super Kami Dende]

There are "religious connotations" to marriage if you don't want them. Marriage is a civil arrangement between a couple and the state. A religious ceremony is just a party you have to celebrate the signing of a legal document.

And? It is still based on a Religious Ceremony. I would rather a Civil Partnership over a Marriage and I'm straight. Since all I see a Civil Partnership being is a Marriage without the basis of past Religious connotations.