The High Court has given a couple permission to proceed in their legal battle against the ban on heterosexual couples entering into civil partnerships.
Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan have launched a legal challenge against the British government, arguing that civil partnerships need to be made available to straight couples in order to achieve full relationship equality.
Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing has allowed the case to proceed and also issued a Protective Costs Order (PCO), which would limit the couple's liability for legal costs incurred by the government if they were unsuccessful.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Latest Videos FromThe Week
"The granting of permission by a High Court judge is a significant milestone in our effort to open civil partnerships to all, regardless of sex or sexual orientation," Steinfeld told Pink News.
The pair argued that Laing's decision shows that the matter is of public importance and is in the wider public interest. They are urging Minister for Equalities Nicky Morgan to "avoid the need for costly legal action" by introducing a "simple" amendment to current legislation.
However, there remains strong opposition to lifting the ban, with David Cameron arguing that it would "undermine the sanctity of marriage".
What is the current law?
Currently, only same sex couples are able to enter into a civil union under the 2004 Civil Partnership Act. The legislation was intended to offer a legal alternative to gay couples who wanted to, but could not, get married.
But critics point out that because of the act, the UK lags behind countries including France, the Netherlands and New Zealand, where civil partnerships are available to both gay and straight couples.
Why would straight couples want a civil union?
Many couples wish to commit to each other and want the benefits of a legal union – including tax, pensions and inheritance – but do not wish to get married.
Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, the couple behind the legal action, argue that marriage is based on outdated, sexist traditions. They say they wish to be recognised as equal partners instead of husband and wife.
"Our objection to marriage is partly to do with its history, a union in which women were exploited for their domestic and sexual services," says Steinfeld. The couple points out several "sexist trappings" of marriage, including the requirement that only a father can sign the registry form and the "giving away" of a bride.
Many couples also wish to distance themselves with the religious associations of marriage. "I quite like the lack of a requirement to have any ceremony. It's a simple legal attachment," one supporter of civil unions told Channel 4 News.
Who is against?
Last year, David Cameron said he opposed opening up civil partnerships to heterosexual couples because it would undermine the sanctity of marriage.
"Frankly I am a marriage man, I am a great supporter of marriage. I want to promote marriage, defend marriage, encourage marriage," he said.
The Church is also unlikely to support such a move. "I could see that churches would start kicking up terribly about this," said Terry Sanderson the Tory MP who has led the campaign to lift the ban. "Civil partnerships are relationships that are not bound by holy writ, in the way that marriages are."
Who is for?
The couple's lawyer Louise Whitfield argues that their case is important for equality, not only for heterosexual couples wanting to be in a civil partnership, but also in the fight for equality for women.
Feminist campaigners have long had issue with many of the patriarchal aspects of marriage and welcome the move to give women the choice to opt out, while still allowing them to receive the same legal benefits.
Human rights organisations are also opposed to the ban, for the same reason they campaigned for equal marriage laws: it is discriminatory to deny one group of people access to a legal union based on their sexuality.
The Guardian's Holly Baxter argues that "until we have partnership equality and true choice across the board, we are putting ourselves to shame".
