AAL Insight: Heterosexual Civil Partnerships

Feb 10, 2018

Written By Jack J Collins, Editor of AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Despite a recent defeat in a court case, the campaign for equal civil partnership rights for heterosexual couples has claimed a moral victory and another step towards gaining their ultimate goal.

Earlier in February, a split decision from a three judge panel narrowly ruled that the government needed to be allowed more time to review a law which prevents opposite-sex couples from participating in a civil partnership agreement.

Whilst this was a setback for the campaign, there can be no reasonable doubt that there have been hugely positive elements in the words and actions of the three judges, something which supporters were quick to pick up on.

The campaign for equal civil partnerships was set up in 2014 by two Londoners, Rebecca Steinfeld, 35, and Charles Keidan, 40, who had applied for a civil partnership on the grounds that they rejected the institution of marriage for being a ‘sexist’ and ‘patriarchal’ institution, but were turned down on the grounds that they were an opposite-sex couple.

Their campaign has taken them to numerous cases and battles over the following years, but Keidan and Steinfeld have stated that they plan to take their legal challenge to the supreme court if the law is not amended by either a government act of a Bill in the Houses of Parliament.

They argue that the denial of the right to enter under a Civil Partnership (as laid down in the Civil Partnerships Act of 2004) because of the nature of their relationship, is discriminatory and thus is in direct violation of their Human Rights.

Interestingly, all three of the judges on the panel agreed with this idea. The ban on heterosexual civil partnerships, they claimed, was in opposition to Article 14 and Article 8 of the European Convention of Civil Rights. Article 14 deals with discriminatory issues, whilst Article 8 sets out the rights of respect for private and family life.

The judges also made it clear that they did not think the discrimination against opposite-sex couples would be able to last indefinitely, and that a change would be made at some point.

So why did they vote against the campaign?

Only one of the judges, Lady Justice Arden, voted in favour of changing the law and making a legal challenge to the government on behalf of the claimants.

The other two justices in question, Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Beaton, said that whilst they agreed in sentiment with the claimants; they were willing to give the government longer to review the situation.

Lord Justice Briggs said that he was able to “well understand” the frustration which had been so keenly displayed by members of the campaign team over what they regard as slow progress on a governmental front.

“Some couples in their position may suffer serious fiscal disadvantage if, for example, one of them dies before they can form a civil partnership,” he said. He stated, however, that he did not feel that micro-managing the government was within his jurisdiction as a justice.

Louise Whitfield, who represented the couple, said: “This is very frustrating. It was such a narrow win for the government. The judges all agreed that the government was living on borrowed time and that there had been a potential violation of their rights.

“Lady Justice Arden said the government had run out of time already. The other two judges, however, allowed the government a bit more time to consider the issue.”

Steinfeld said: “We are deeply disappointed by the ruling and very sorry to not be able to share good news, but there’s so much in the decision that gives us reason to be positive and keep going.”

Keidan added: “We are determined to go on with our battle. There are 3 million mixed-sex couples who are cohabiting in this country. We want to challenge this ruling in the supreme court but we hope it won’t be necessary. Defeat is hard to accept today but it gives us a chance to regroup and move on. There’s cross-party support for us now.”

Matt Hawkins, of the Equal Civil Partnerships Campaign, said: “Regardless of the decision made in court today this campaign has generated an incredible momentum of its own. Pursuing our legal case has always been one part of a much broader campaign and the number of people backing this cause continues to rise week on week.”

Rayner Grice, a family law specialist and Partner at National law firm Clarke Willmott LLP commented on the ruling for AllAboutLaw. He stated that: “this ruling means that cohabiting couples are still not able to be afforded the same legal rights as married couples unless they marry, albeit that they may well be demonstrating the same commitments by way of financial commitment and children.

“The government have been reported as saying that it would be too expensive to change the current legislation so that heterosexual couples can have a civil partnership but also that now marriage is available for same sex couples that civil partnership may be phased out.

“However this continues the debate for the rights of cohabiting couples on relationship breakdown or death in that the protection afforded to them is extremely limited. Is that right when most are demonstrating the same level of commitment to each other? Should they be forced to marry so that they can protect themselves and their children on relationship breakdown and death?

“Some will say that marriage still has religious connotations and why should they have to marry if they are not religious. Currently there is consideration of changing the current law for cohabitants and the recent decision regarding pension benefits or a deceased’s partner demonstrated the changing view on cohabiting couples.

“Some may say that the answer may be that if commitment is the determination for grating enhanced rights then a civil partnership for cohabiting couples may be the answer.

“However what today’s judgment shows is that the rights of cohabiting couples are still very much inferior to those of a married couple. Can that be right when cohabiting couples are the fastest growing family type in the UK, and how are we to protect the needs of children of such families?”

Commercial Insights