Campaigners say they have momentum despite judges’ narrow decision to give government more time to review law

A campaign aimed at overturning the ban on heterosexual couples entering into civil partnerships has gained ground despite defeat at the court of appeal, equal rights supporters have claimed.

By a narrow two-to-one decision, the three judges decided to allow the government more time to review the law that prevents opposite-sex couples from taking advantage of civil partnership arrangements.

Should heterosexual couples be allowed to enter into civil partnerships? Read more

The ruling is a setback for the case launched in 2014 by two Londoners, Rebecca Steinfeld, 35, and Charles Keidan, 40, who reject traditional marriage on the grounds that it is a “sexist” and “patriarchal” institution.

But Steinfeld and Keidan said they planned to take their challenge to the supreme court if the law was not changed by the government or amended by MPs in parliament.

Denying them the right under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 to enter into a civil partnership – a choice open to same-sex couples – is discriminatory, they have argued.

All three court of appeal judges – Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Beatson – agreed that the discrimination against heterosexual couples could not last indefinitely.

Only Arden, however, said the government needed to change the law immediately. The other two judges in effect said ministers could have longer to review the situation.

All three judges agreed that the ban constitutes a potential violation of the appellants’ human rights under article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken with article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European convention on human rights.

In the ruling, Lord Justice Briggs said he could “well understand” the frustration felt by many over what they might regard as slow progress by the government.



“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. But he did not regard “micro-management” of government thinking about the policy to be part of the business of the courts.

Louise Whitfield, of the law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn, 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.”

Outside the court, 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.”



The couple, who are both academics, live in Hammersmith, west London, and have a 20-month-old daughter.



Tim Loughton, a Conservative MP and former children’s minister who supported the couple, was also at the hearing. His private member’s bill introducing equal civil partnership rights is before parliament but unlikely to make it into law.



He said he believed up to 40 Tory MPs and the main opposition parties backed opening up civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.

“We will see what bills there are in the Queen’s speech and I hope there will be one where we can stretch it to put in some equality amendment,” Loughton said.



Peter Tatchell, who has campaigned for equal rights, was in court. “I’m hugely disappointed with the ruling since the judges agreed with 90% of Charles and Rebecca’s case,” he said.

“They accepted the points of law but believed the government should have extra time. Millions of different-sex couples will feel that their rights have not been upheld by the court. The judgment goes against the principle that we should be equal before the law.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan (centre) with supporters including Peter Tatchell (second right) outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

Jeanne Rathbone, a celebrant for humanist ceremonies, said opposition to extending civil partnerships came from the “marriage industry and the church”.

“The legal process should be separated from the ceremony,” she said. “People don’t want the pressure of a big white dress and all-suits wedding.”



The campaigner and journalist Fiona Millar, partner of the former Labour spokesman Alastair Campbell and who has supported the campaign, said: “I am one of thousands and thousands of people in the UK in a mixed-sex relationship who will now be looking at the government and waiting for them to close the civil partnerships loophole by making them available to all.

“In 2004 the Labour government, albeit unwittingly, created a new, positive institution with a history, life and future of its own. Now that that institution exists, offering a progressive and new way for couples to gain legal recognition of their relationship, it is only right and fair that that institution be available to all. I hope the government acts soon.”

The Isle of Man is the only part of the British Isles that offers heterosexual couples the opportunity to enter into civil partnerships.

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.”

Sarah Champion, Labour’s shadow secretary of state for women and equalities, said: “Now that same-sex marriage has been legalised, it is an anomaly that civil partnerships are not available to all couples regardless of their gender and sexuality.

“Civil partnerships should be extended to heterosexual couples who wish to have a legal union in accordance with their individual beliefs and values.”



Nigel Shepherd, chair of Resolution, the family law organisation, said: “As family lawyers committed to the constructive resolution of issues on family breakdown, we see that the real injustice is the lack of legal rights for cohabiting couples – the fastest-growing household type in the country.

“Our lawmakers must also look at introducing safety-net legislation that will provide protection and fair outcomes when cohabiting couples separate.”

In an article published on Tuesday, Europe’s most senior human rights official, Nils Muižnieks, also backed the cause of equal rights. The Council of Europe’s human rights comissioner said: “Genuine commitment to full equality would at least require states to seriously consider opening up civil marriage to same-sex couples.”

Since Keidan and Steinfeld first appeared in court more than 72,000 people have signed a Change.org petition calling for civil partnerships to be open to all.

The case was taken against the secretary of state for education, Justine Greening, who is also the minister for women and equalities. Her department’s position is that she will not propose any change to the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 until she has more statistical data about whether the number of same-sex couples choosing or remaining in civil partnerships rises or falls following the introduction of same-sex marriage.



Ministers initially believed demand for civil partnerships might disappear once same-sex marriage rights were granted by David Cameron’s government.

Responding to the court of appeal ruling, a government spokesperson said: “We welcome the court’s ruling and are pleased that they have found the government’s approach to be lawful. We will carefully consider this judgment and will take it into account as we evaluate the take-up of civil partnerships and same-sex marriage.”



