News

Court of Appeal: Denying straight people civil partnerships is NOT unlawful

By on
30

The boyfriend and girlfriend claimants think the law discriminates against them

The Court of Appeal has this morning ruled against a boyfriend and girlfriend who claim civil partnerships are unlawful because they’re not available to straight people.

The appellants, Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, had brought the case as a judicial review against the Secretary of State for Education. They said marriage is “not an option” for them because of its sexist legacy (“it treated women as property for centuries… and still leaves room only for fathers’ names on marriage certificates”).

Through their barrister, Matrix Chambers’ Karon Monaghan QC, the pair argued that restricting the availability of civil partnerships to homosexual couples infringes their human rights. They said the Civil Partnership Act 2004 breaches the Human Rights Act 1998 — namely article 14, tagged to article 8 — and sought a declaration of incompatibility.

At first instance over a year ago, the judge, Mrs Justice Andrews DBE, said the claim falls at the first hurdle because the state is under “no obligation” to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. She gave the claimants permission to appeal because of the case’s “wider importance”. Now, sitting in courtroom 74 this morning, the judges — Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Beatson and Lord Justice Briggs — upheld Andrews’ decision.

It was a narrow win for the government, however. All three judges agreed there was discrimination and said it could not last indefinitely, but only Arden stated the government needs to change the law immediately. Beatson and Briggs said ministers can have longer to review the situation.

While Steinfeld and Keidan haven’t managed to win over the Court of Appeal, they have captured the public’s attention. Over 72,000 people have signed a petition calling for the law of civil partnerships to be extended to heterosexuals.

Read the judgment in full below:

For all the latest news, features, events and jobs, sign up to Legal Cheek’s weekly newsletter here.

30 Comments

Anonymous

‘Because of its sexist legacy’. That guy must be such a self hating cuck. I bet his girlfriend dominates him with a strap on and makes him apologise for his white male privilege.

(44)(25)

Putinkrieg

Stunning analysis. You should speak at one of my lad’s rallies.

(4)(2)

Trumpenkreig

Thank you sir.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

“civil partnerships are unlawful because they’re only available to straight people”

Aside from the obvious typo, your heterosexuality isn’t what prevents you from entering into a civil partnership. It’s the fact that you probably wouldn’t want to do it with a person of the same sex.

(3)(7)

Anonymous

Yeah, it should say ‘they’re only available to bent people’

(20)(5)

Anonymous

I believe they prefer the term “people of kinkness”

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Is ‘benders’ pejorative?

(0)(0)

Oscar Wilde (Dec'd)

No, but I believe “mincing sodomite” is.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

The world is going mad. But don’t worry, people have already protested this decline of our civilisation via the ballet box.

Brexit and Trump are just the beginning. this mess can be undone.

(11)(3)

Anonymous

Protesting via the ballet box – was that the Arabesque Spring?

(20)(1)

Anonymous

Debussy wrote some nice Arabesques.

(2)(1)

Anonymous

Inequality is only bad if it disadvantages a minority group.

Didn’t you know that?

(13)(3)

King Bumboil of Siam

Me no likey.

(0)(1)

Paddy McGuinness

No likey, no lighty!

(5)(0)

Not Amused

We should probably abolish marriage. It certainly isn’t fit for purpose. Divorce is pathetically broken and run like a cash cow from a warehouse in Bury St Edmunds. The MCA has created a generation of over powered DJs acting with all the probity and respect for the law of any corrupt small town policeman. Private law children is basically a lottery riven with an institutional sexism so palpable you could spread it on toast.

If these people think civil partnership is some panacea to fix the broken institution of marriage then they are deluding themselves. Civil Partnerships are exactly the same problems just with a different hat.

(4)(13)

Anonymous

Recently divorced, NA?

(3)(3)

Anonymous

Yeah, sounds like a good plan. After all, children who are born to married parents are only significantly more likely to have a successful, happy life compared to kids of single or cohabiting parents. But let’s not allow statistics to get in the way of ideology…

(19)(4)

Anonymous

Is this really a statistical truth? And if so, is legal union of the parents really the causal factor?

Assuming that the logic relates to emotional stability and the benefits of having both a mother and father figure, then I cannot imagine why children of cohabiting couples should be less happy than children of married ones.

Have you considered that single parent families are more common in economically deprived areas? Coming from a poor background has an incidental effect on likely level of education etc, which in turn influences likely chances of a child’s “success” etc…

(1)(0)

Mr Garrison

What do you think about marriage, Mr Hat?

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Anyone a rough idea of what the costs would be for such an action?

(0)(0)

Jimmy Savile OBE, KCSG

One meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelion dollars.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

I hear in Japan they let you marry action figures of scantily clad 14 year old girls.

(0)(1)

King Bumboil of Siam

An blowup dolly type too!!!

(0)(1)

Officious Bystander

“…upheld Andrew’s decision.”

Who’s Andrew??

Should it not have said
“…upheld Andrews’ decision.”

referring to Mrs Justice Andrews DBE – or Geraldine as the new LC would refer to her in interviews.

(7)(0)

Anonymous

In that case, “upheld Andrews’s decision”.

(1)(1)

Hmmmmmmm

I’m not convinced Charles and Rebecca would happily use the monickers ‘boyfriend’ and ‘girlfriend’ – they would take nearly as much offence to that description as to husband and wife.

(0)(1)

Rzbg

Oh do fuck off. These straight people whining about not having Civil Partnerships need to grow a pair.

Once upon a time gay people were not given the luxuries straight people were in this country. To harken after something that was never awarded the same symbolic status as marriage, deliberately because homosexuals at that time were not deemed able to have equal status to heterosexuals, is pathetic.

Get a civil ceremony in a registry office and fuck off.

(4)(3)

Anonymous

U triggered m8?

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Wish each other well, be good to each other, kindness

(0)(0)

Louis E.

What is needed is a 3-tiered system,not one mandating equal treatment by society as a whole of relationships of manifestly unequal value to society as a whole.
Married,necessarily opposite-sex the highest tier,unmarried opposite-sex the middle tier and same-sex the lowest tier,with sexual orientation specifically prohibited from being treated as relevant at any stage.

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.