The right to be civil partners

Is it time civil partnerships were open to all couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation?

The case of Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, a heterosexual couple who want to have a civil partnership instead of getting married, will resonate with many couples today, a growing number of whom are questioning whether the traditional means of committing to each other and legally binding their relationship is in line with their desires and values.

After being told in 2014 that they couldn’t enter into a civil partnership because they did not meet the legal requirement of being of the same sex, Steinfeld and Keidan decided to take their case to the High Court on the grounds of discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

Although the couple’s claim for judicial review was dismissed at the end of January, a decision which they intend to appeal, it has nonetheless triggered a debate on the problematic aspects of conventional marriage and its place in modern society.

Steinfeld and Keidan describe themselves as feminists and said that they wish to be civil partners instead of husband and wife because civil partnerships “focus on equality” which is something they do not feel marriage does.

It certainly cannot be denied that marriage is a fundamentally patriarchal and slightly out-dated institution and for many it is an endorsement of traditional gender roles and symbolic of the oppression women have suffered for centuries.

The traditional marriage vows, in which a woman says that she will ‘love, cherish, and obey’ her husband, are a stark reminder of this, and it is not uncommon for couples to leave out the word ‘obey’ – or write their own vows altogether.

Many would argue that marriage can be whatever people want it to be and that modern couples are reinventing marriage as an institution which promotes love and equality, but there still appears to be a romantic emphasis on the bride being given away by her father and taking her husband’s name – both undeniably patriarchal elements of marriage signalling the ownership of a woman by a man throughout her life.

Not everyone takes it to mean that any more, and of course women can get married without adhering to either of those traditions.

But for an increasing number of people, myself included, these customs are emblematic of an unnecessary and expensive fanfare, the foundations of which conflict with their beliefs and the fight for equality.

Marriage does however afford couples significant legal advantages, including exemption from inheritance tax, pension benefits and parental responsibility for children.

Civil partnerships, introduced under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, offered the same rights as civil marriage to same-sex couples. But, as of 2013, same-sex couples are now able to get married on exactly the same terms as heterosexual couples, meaning that they now have the choice of signing up to a civil partnership or for marriage.

While the idea of discrimination against straight people initially sounded a little odd and even slightly ridiculous, the introduction of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 has made an unlikely case for it, as demonstrated by Steinfeld and Keidan.

It is of course well overdue that same-sex couples shoud have the same rights as heterosexual couples and that their relationships be recognised in law. And the discrimination that they face should not be underplayed. Nor should we be duped into thinking that the LGBT+ community now stand on completely equal footing with everyone else.

But, in terms of the options of ways in which to legally bind one’s relationship, there is now an imbalance which contradicts the concept of equality.

The legalisation of gay marriage has been pivotal in challenging traditional gender roles and stereotypes and conventions of marriage, and it is a critical step towards equality for all in society.

However, shouldn’t straight couples also have the opportunity to defy these traditions by not getting married, without having to forfeit the legal benefits of marriage?

For same-sex couples, being able to get married means that they are recognised as equal to heterosexual couples.

For many women, being able to have a civil partnership would mean that they would be recognised as equal to men.

It seems only fair that all couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, should have the same choices and rights.

The government is now reportedly considering getting rid of civil partnerships altogether, meaning that any couple wanting to have their relationship recognised in law will have no option but to marry.

Steinfeld and Keidan’s continued fight, and the increasing support for their cause – demonstrated by their petition which has been signed by over 37,000 people – however, offers hope that one day civil partnerships may be available to all.