the extension of marriage to same sex couples by the Marriage
(Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
Strongest objections gave from the religious organisation. Creation of the ‘quadruple lock’ to ensure
no court or ECtHR would force them to conduct marriages for same sex couples.
2013 act provides that no organisation or minister can be compelled to marry same sex couples;
provides for an opt in system for organisations who want to conduct these marriages; amends the
Equality Act so no discrimination claim can be brough against these organisations refusing to marry
same sex; ensures that the legislation does not affect the canon law
the extension of civil partnership to opposite sex couples (following
the case of Steinfeld and Keidan [2018] UKSC 32
s6A(3A) provides that religious organisations do no have to perform same sex marriages
In June 2018, Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan celebrated their ‘landmark victory’ at the
Supreme Court. The Court had made a declaration that the provisions of the Civil Partnership Act
precluding different-sex couples from entering into a civil partnership were incompatible with article
14 of the European Convention on Human Rights when taken in conjunction with article 8.
the Civil Partnership (Opposite Sex Couples) Regulations 2019 (SI
1458/2019)).
Civil partnership: ties that (also) bind?- Joanna Miles and Rebecca
Probert*
Essay discuss three separate but overlapping groups for whom CP is the best option.
CP is not a satisfactory solution for cohabiting couples who have a variety of reasons for not going
into a legally binding union, some of which will apply equally to civil partnerships and marriage.
civil partnerships will not necessarily satisfy the concerns of individuals who oppose marriage on
ideological grounds. Most of the arguments for why they oppose marriage also apply to CP
CP is not always the best option for individuals who want to run their relationship on an equal
footing and believe that a civil partnership is the best way to do so. If such couples chose civil
partnership over marriage, their relationships may be more equitable than married couples', but this
would be a result of correlation rather than causality.
there are reasons to question that simply forming a civil partnership rather than marrying will be
enough to overcome the structural impediments to equality.
Other countries’ approach that have introduced an alternative opt-in regime
1. Nordic countries introduced a formal alternative that was marriage in all but name for same
sex couples and abolished it once same sex couples could marry
2. Introduce a formal alternative to both different and same sex couples that carry the same
rights as marriage but have not closed this alternative even after opening marriage to same
sex couples
In New Zealand cohabiting couples already had rights as ‘de facto’ partners before civil unions
were introduced in 2004. In Australia, de facto couples (different- and same-sex) have essentially
*
(Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
Strongest objections gave from the religious organisation. Creation of the ‘quadruple lock’ to ensure
no court or ECtHR would force them to conduct marriages for same sex couples.
2013 act provides that no organisation or minister can be compelled to marry same sex couples;
provides for an opt in system for organisations who want to conduct these marriages; amends the
Equality Act so no discrimination claim can be brough against these organisations refusing to marry
same sex; ensures that the legislation does not affect the canon law
the extension of civil partnership to opposite sex couples (following
the case of Steinfeld and Keidan [2018] UKSC 32
s6A(3A) provides that religious organisations do no have to perform same sex marriages
In June 2018, Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan celebrated their ‘landmark victory’ at the
Supreme Court. The Court had made a declaration that the provisions of the Civil Partnership Act
precluding different-sex couples from entering into a civil partnership were incompatible with article
14 of the European Convention on Human Rights when taken in conjunction with article 8.
the Civil Partnership (Opposite Sex Couples) Regulations 2019 (SI
1458/2019)).
Civil partnership: ties that (also) bind?- Joanna Miles and Rebecca
Probert*
Essay discuss three separate but overlapping groups for whom CP is the best option.
CP is not a satisfactory solution for cohabiting couples who have a variety of reasons for not going
into a legally binding union, some of which will apply equally to civil partnerships and marriage.
civil partnerships will not necessarily satisfy the concerns of individuals who oppose marriage on
ideological grounds. Most of the arguments for why they oppose marriage also apply to CP
CP is not always the best option for individuals who want to run their relationship on an equal
footing and believe that a civil partnership is the best way to do so. If such couples chose civil
partnership over marriage, their relationships may be more equitable than married couples', but this
would be a result of correlation rather than causality.
there are reasons to question that simply forming a civil partnership rather than marrying will be
enough to overcome the structural impediments to equality.
Other countries’ approach that have introduced an alternative opt-in regime
1. Nordic countries introduced a formal alternative that was marriage in all but name for same
sex couples and abolished it once same sex couples could marry
2. Introduce a formal alternative to both different and same sex couples that carry the same
rights as marriage but have not closed this alternative even after opening marriage to same
sex couples
In New Zealand cohabiting couples already had rights as ‘de facto’ partners before civil unions
were introduced in 2004. In Australia, de facto couples (different- and same-sex) have essentially
*
