Ban on heterosexual civil partnerships in UK ruled discriminatory

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/heterosexual-couples-should-not-be-allowed-civil-partnerships-court-rules

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, a couple who say traditional marriage is patriarchal, lose court of appeal case

Heterosexual couples should not be allowed to enter into civil partnerships with one another, the court of appeal has ruled.

But one appeal court judge said the law needed to be changed immediately, while two other judges said the government could have longer to review the law.

The decision follows a three-year legal campaign by two Londoners, Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, who reject traditional marriage on the grounds that it is a "sexist" and "patriarchal" institution.

Denying them the right to enter into a civil partnership – a choice open to same-sex couples – was discriminatory, they had argued.

Keidan and Steinfeld lost by a majority of two to one in the appeal court judgment.

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

Only Arden said the government needed to change the law immediately. The other two judges effectively said ministers can have longer to review the situation.

Louise Whitfield, from the law firm Deighton Peirce Glynn who represented the couple, said: "This is very frustrating. It was such a narrow win for the government. They 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 that the government had run out of time already. The other two judges, however, allowed the government a bit more time to consider the issue."

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

[celedhring]

Civil Unions are open to both hetero and homosexual couples in Spain, and always been IIRC. They don't accrue the same rights/obligations as regular marriages, although they are broadly similar.

[Archy]

Same over here. Civil Union is possible over here, I'm currently in one with my gf.
Outside of some details it's the same as marriage.
Biggest difference is that you have to name your partner in a testament otherwise they won't inherit.
They pay the same taxes on the inheritance as if you would've been married.
I also had to offically aknowledge my daughter to the authorities as mine, if I would've been married this would(ve been automatically.

[Eddie Teach]

They should allow them to marry as lesbians.

[Grey Fox]

Wow.

I didn't know that was a thing.

[garbon]

Wow.

I didn't know that was a thing.

UK authorized civil partnerships for gay couples when marriage wasn't an option for gays. When gays got gay marriage in UK, they never changed rules on civil partnerships, so currently gays have more 'options' than straight people.

[Grey Fox]

So very British.

[garbon]

So very British.

I think some states that had granted gays civil unions had (have?) the same situation in US.

[MadImmortalMan]

Another reason why there's no reason for the government to be able to decide who can get married/civil unioned/going to IHOP for lunch.Was this all Henry VIII fault?

[Richard Hakluyt]

The government of the time took some shortcuts and we ended up in a silly place 

I think it would have been better to set up civil unions for all and put the religious marriages outside the state's purview. But we still have an established church and the Queen is governor of that, so the constitutional issues and legislation would have been more complicated.

[celedhring]

Even though they were aimed at homosexual couples, civil unions were surprisingly successful among heterosexuals - since it's a more flexible and "a la carte" legal relationship than an actual marriage -, and they remain pretty popular in a post-gay marriage reality. 15% of Spanish legalized relationships are civil unions, while 85% are marriages.

[Admiral Yi]

How is a civil union different from just living with someone?  What rights and obligations does it entail?

[celedhring]

How is a civil union different from just living with someone?  What rights and obligations does it entail?

In Spain for example it allows for a pension if one of the partners dies, job leaves if your partner is sick or gave birth, health care as if you were married, and some other things. It doesn't incorporate other economic rights and obligations marriages enjoy (i.e. alimony, inheritance privileges, tax advantages...), although some of those can be incorporated into the partnership if both partners agree to it.

It's kinda an intermediate state between "just living with someone" and being married.

[Josquius]

Avoiding the "they take all your money if you break up"  factor is really selling these civil unions to me

Anyway.  The couple in question. They're funny looking.

[Solmyr]

In Finland, we are (finally) getting gender-neutral marriage laws on the 1st of March. After that, no new civil unions will be possible, though existing ones will remain in force. That said, there is also the state of "living together with your partner" type of arrangement which is semi-recognized by the authorities.