Hammersmith Couple Lose Legal Bid for Equal Civil Partnerships

---

But judge grants permission for 'victims of discrimination' to appeal

A couple who live in Hammersmith have lost a High Court bid to be allowed enter into a civil partnership rather than marry.

Rebecca Steinfeld, 34 and Charles Keidan, 39 claimed they were the victims of discrimination and argued that the Government’s position on civil partnerships was "incompatible with equality law".

The pair, who are both academics have been together since November 2010 and have eight month-old baby Eden, want to secure legal recognition of their relationship through a civil partnership rather than marriage.

However, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 currently stipulates that only same-sex couples are eligible.

At the court, Mrs Justice Andrews rejected their application for a judicial review. " The difference in treatment complained of does not infringe a personal interest close to the core of the right to family life, still less the right to private life protected by the European Human Rights Act," she said.

However, she also acknowledged that there will be many people who sympathise with the claimants' point of view and granted them permission to appeal saying: "It raises issues of wider importance and is the kind of case that deserves the consideration of the higher court."

Rebecca and Charles, whose supporters include Hammersmith MP Andy Slaughter, are part of the Equal Civil Partnerships which is calling on the government to extend the right to civil partnerships to all couples, regardless of sex or sexual orientation.

The campaign has also reached the House of Commons, where a Ten Minute Rule Bill (a type of Private Member’s Bill) calling for a minor amendment to the Civil Partnership Act to remove the clause limiting civil partnerships to same-sex couples had its second reading in January.

After the judgement Rebecca said: " We made this claim because the UK Government is barring us, and many thousands of opposite-sex couples like us, from the choice of forming a civil partnership, and we want this to change.

" Personally, we wish to form a civil partnership because that captures the essence of our relationship and values. 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.

" Unfortunately, the judge has concluded otherwise. We are seeking permission to appeal her decision on behalf of ourselves and the more than 36,000 people who signed our petition on Change.org calling for civil partnership equality."

Charles added: " 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.  We campaigned for equal marriage and believe that the significance and symbolism of opening marriage to same-sex couples cannot be overstated.

" 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."

Louise Whitfield of Deighton Pierce Glynn, the solicitor representing Charles and Rebecca, 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.

" Moreover, the Government’s arguments to justify that discrimination on the basis of cost are fundamentally flawed, as this cannot be a 'legitimate aim' in these circumstances.  We are therefore advising our clients on the matter of an appeal."

February 2, 2016