Heterosexual couple urge ministers to 'stop making excuses' over civil partnerships for all couples
Couple want a legal recognition of their relationship which does not have ‘patriarchal baggage’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A heterosexual couple who are fighting for the right to have a civil partnership have called on the government to “stop making excuses” and make the legal union available for all.
Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, want legal recognition of their relationship which does not have “patriarchal baggage”.
But the academics from Hammersmith in west London are unable to do so because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 only grants rights to same sex couples.
The couple, who have two daughters aged two and eight months, claim the government’s stance is “incompatible with equality law”.
Their case was defeated at the Court of Appeal in February 2017, but last August they were given permission to take the case to the Supreme Court – the UK’s highest.
“Throughout our campaign, we have met hundreds of couples like us who love each other and want a civil partnership so they can celebrate their commitment and strengthen the security of their family unit,” the couple said ahead of Monday’s hearing, which is expected to last two days.
“Their reasons for not wanting to marry vary from bad personal experiences to expense to conscience – but that doesn’t matter. All they want is the choice of marriage or a civil partnership to suit them, which is currently available only to same-sex couples. We have a new equalities minister and she should take this opportunity to look afresh at the government’s position. It’s time for the government to stop making excuses which play with people’s lives, and give choice to all now.”
In court, the couple’s barrister Karon Monaghan QC said: “They have deep-rooted and genuine ideological objections to marriage. I want to observe that they are not alone in holding those deep-rooted objections.”
She said matrimony was “historically heteronormative and patriarchal” and the couple’s objections were “not frivolous”.
Ms Monaghan 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.”
Campaigners argue it is not fair that same-sex couples are able to enter into a civil partnership or get married given mixed-sex couples can only get married.
Speaking before the hearing, human rights campaigner and LGBT+ activist Peter Tatchell said: “It’s time for ‘straight’ equality.”
He added: “The ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships is discrimination and a violation of human rights. It is outrageous that the government is unwilling to legislate equality and that this couple are forced to go to court to get a basic human right – the right to be treated equally in law.
“It cannot be fair that same-sex couples now have two options, civil partnerships and civil marriages, whereas opposite-sex partners have only one option, marriage.”
The Court of Appeal agreed the couple had established a potential violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is linked to discrimination, taken with Article 8, which refers to respect for private and family life.
But, by a majority of two to one, the judges said the interference was justified by the government’s policy of “wait and evaluate”.
The government said after public consultations and debate in parliament that it was decided not to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, abolish them or phase them out at that stage.
Additional reporting by Press Association
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments