A heterosexual couple who want to enter into a civil partnership rather than a marriage are to take their campaign for legal equality to a higher court.

Heterosexual couple challenge restrictions on civil partnerships Read more

Rebecca Steinfeld, 34, and Charles Keidan, 39, both academics who live in Hammersmith, west London, failed on Friday in their initial challenge to prove that opposite-sex couples are being subjected to discrimination.

The pair, who have been in a relationship since November 2010 and have an eight-month-old baby, said they were determined to secure legal recognition of their relationship through a civil partnership. They reject marriage on the grounds that it is a “patriarchal” institution.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 stipulates that only same-sex couples are eligible. Steinfeld and Keidan maintain that the government’s position on civil partnerships is “incompatible with equality law”.

Dismising their judicial review application, Mrs Justice Andrews, sitting in London, said many people would sympathise with the point of view “that it is unfair that a route to state recognition of their relationship which is open to a same-sex couple … remains unavailable to them because they are heterosexual.”

But, the judge said, “just as the UK was under no obligation to extend marriage to same-sex couples, it has never been under an obligation to extend civil partnership to heterosexual couples. The denial of a further means of formal recognition which is open to same-sex couples, does not amount to unlawful state interference with the claimants’ right to family life or private life, any more than the denial of marriage to same-sex couples did prior to the enactment of the 2013 act.”



She added: “This is not a case where they cannot achieve formal state recognition of their relationship, with all the rights, benefits and protections that flow from such recognition; on the contrary, it is open to them to obtain that recognition by getting married.



“The alleged interference by the state with their right to private life by denying them the right to enter a civil partnership is even more tenuous. There is no evidence that they are subjected to humiliation, derogatory treatment, or any other lack of respect for their private lives on grounds of their heterosexual orientation by reason of the withholding of the status of civil partners from them.”

Straight people deserve equal rights to civil partnerships. Marriage is not for everyone | Owen Jones Read more

Andrews gave them permission to take their case to the court of appeal because the case raised issues of “wider importance”.

After the judgment, Steinfeld said: “Civil partnerships are a modern social institution conferring almost identical legal rights and responsibilities as marriage, but without its history and social expectations.



“We don’t think there is sufficient justification for stopping us or other opposite-sex couples from forming civil partnerships.” She said they would appeal against the ruling.

Keidan said: “We believe that opening civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples would complete the circle of full relationship equality that began with the hard-won victory for same-sex marriage.



“Regrettably, the courts have so far been unable to compel the government to open civil partnerships to all, so it’s now time for parliament to demonstrate its commitment to creating a level playing field for all its citizens by extending civil partnerships to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.”

The former children’s minister Tim Loughton has put down a 10-minute rule bill calling on the government to extend civil partnerships to all couples. An online petition supporting the proposal has received 36,000 signatures.



The couple’s solicitior, Louise Whitfield, said: “It is clear that there is unjustified discrimination here in what the judge acknowledged was an important case, but she has set the bar too high in terms of whether the issue falls within the ambit of article 8, the right to protection of private and family life.”

The human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who backed the couple’s case, said: “This is a sad defeat for love and equality. It will be a huge disappointment to the thousands of heterosexual couples who would like to have a civil partnership.



“The court has rejected the principle that in a democratic society everyone should be equal before the law. It cannot be right that same-sex couples have two options – civil partnerships and civil marriages – whereas opposite-sex partners have only one option – marriage.”

Robert Wintemute, a professor of human rights law at King’s College London who has advised the couple, said: “It is very disappointing that the high court was not persuaded to make a declaration of incompatibility, despite the obvious sexual orientation discrimination in the Civil Partnership Act 2004.”

Ava Lee, campaign manager of the Equal Civil Partnership campaign, said: “While the judge found that the Civil Partnership Act is not incompatible with equality legislation, her judgment does not change the fact that there are thousands of couples around the country who do not want to get married but are deeply concerned about the precarious legal and financial position that this decision leaves them in.



“Civil partnerships are an institution that already exists, and offer the same legal protections afforded to married couples to those couples who feel that marriage is not for them.”