Straight couple lose battle to have civil partnership
 

heterosexual couple who object to the "patriarchal baggage" of marriage have lost their latest battle for the right to enter into a civil partnership.

Rebecca Steinfeld, 35, and Charles Keidan, 40, want to secure legal recognition of their seven-year relationship through that route - but are prevented because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 says that only same-sex couples are eligible.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.tel...tle-court/amp/

Discrimination is always ugly, no matter in which direction it points.

Why the hell would you want to get a civil partnership (which is basically a second class marriage for gays introduced before same sex marriage was legalised) when you could just get married? This couple are clearly just attention seekers

Many people don't believe in the institution of marriage but want to show their life long commitment.
All options should be available to everyone if we want equality.

Marriage is generally seen as a religious unity, they may want to show their unity in another way...

Yep

They should at least have the right to a civil partnership , if they want it, otherwise it looks as though they are being discriminated against. Why not? They're not hurting anyone.

There's loads of marriages that are humanist or non-religious. I'm not saying I disagree with the couple's point but the fact they spent thousands on legal feels suggests they just want attention and sympathy

Everyone should have the right without having to explain themselves to others. Their money is their own to do what they want with.

No doubt there have been many similar attention seeking allegations made towards gays for wanting to get legally married.

Would you spend thousands just for attention?

It suggests to me that they're fighting for something they believe in.

It makes no sense to deny this of heterosexual couples and this whole obstruction is really just damaging the progress and attention needed for those in the minority

The "why would they want or need it" argument can also be made of gay or bisexual couples wanting a Christian marriage. Ask them personally. But don't deny them outright.

:joker:attention seekers and not gay.:joker:

Marriage isn't a religious thing though, it's civil, religion doesn't have to play any part in it if they don't want it to, their reason is because of 'patriarchal baggage' which suggests they'd prefer a Civil Partnership because it's newer (unless I've totally misunderstood the meaning of that? seems a bit vague).

The whole point in Civil Partnerships was to be able to afford similar rights to gay couples that straight couples already get when marrying, they wouldn't exist to begin with if it wasn't for marriage being exclusionary of gay people, so now that isn't the case I don't see why they don't just abolish them. If they're going to keep them then sure open them up to everyone but I just really don't see what the point is in having them at all anymore. (Or keep Civil Partnerships and abolish marriage :spin: )

I agree

They domt sound that committed to each other.

I had no idea civil partnerships still existed

They should be allowed it, I just dont understand why they would want it.. it always seemed like a 'marriage 0.5' to me... and also, a civil partnership to me now, almost seems like a thing of the past..

I've supported their campaign for years, was very disappointed when I received the email of the verdict last week. The judge basically admitted they were right but that the government deserved more time though, so I hope they manage to get to the Supreme Court because I think (and hope) they will win.

Marriage is a patriarchal institution rooted in religion and isn't for everyone, I see absolutely no reason why civil partnerships shouldn't be opened up to heterosexual couples. It should've been a clause in the Equal Marriage bill.

Then they could get married in a non-religious ceremony. A civil partnership is basically marriage some of the legal benefits of marriage. I don't really understand why they'd want what essentially a lesser form of marriage.

If they want it then I say let them have it but it's senseless and it reminds me of children that only wants a certain toy because another kid has it and they don't, they don't need it, their toys are better but they want it just because.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44627990

Supreme court overruled this

Yes ,sure I heard they had won ,good for them.

Positve discrimination for certain groups is DISCRIMINTION! If it is morally acceptable for gays then it is morally acceptable for straights. It isn’t rocket science. Disbloodygraceful!!!

Fair enough if you want to be half in and half out.:shrug:
I suppose it has its benefits to those that can’t or don’t want to marry for any reason.

:laugh: Yeah, but some think that equality does not apply to others once they have gained it themselves.

With apologies to Orwell:

“All animals are equal, but some newly equal animals are more DESERVINGLY equal than others.”

Why did LGBTDDFTHNBCCE (or some other combination of initials which I have long-since lost track of) want the right to be legally married?

Do you honestly believe gays want to have privileged position? I don't.
C'mon Kirk, you can do better than this.
It's all to do with government's inertia. Once they introduced gay marriage they should have either abolished civil partnerships or opened them to straights. Once equality is reached it should be maintained, not distorted because the government can't be arsed to clarify its position.
Personally, I'd keep them alongside marriage, for everybody who is not keen on full marriage (be it civil or religious). So this straight couple (and others) should not be denied.

I can see why there was some confusion as the way I understood it was that civil partnerships were only invented as an option for gay couples who weren't allowed get married really. I assumed that civil partnerships would be phased out though now gay people can get married