‘Marriage lite’ in the U.K.

In a new spin on marriage equality, the U.K.’s highest court this week ruled that British law illegally discriminates against heterosexual couples. The 5-0 ruling by Britain’s Supreme Court on Wednesday found a 2005 law establishing civil partnerships exclusively for same-sex couples violates the human rights of opposite-sex couples.

The decision overturned a 2017 appeals court ruling against London couple Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41. The couple, who have two daughters together, argued they had a right to civil partnerships instead of marriage, an institution they said had “patriarchal baggage.” Originally filed in 2014, the year Britain legalized same-sex marriage, Steinfeld and Keidan’s suit claimed the government was denying heterosexual couples equal rights by providing same-sex couples with two options—civil partnership or marriage—while giving heterosexual couples only one.

The appeals court agreed with the couple but found the British government should be given more time to decide whether to extend civil partnerships to all or abolish them. But Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision moved up the timeline by declaring the current situation “incompatible” with human rights law.

“We have fought this battle not only on our own behalf but for 3.3 million unmarried couples in England and Wales,” Steinfeld and Keidan said in a statement released after the decision. “Many want legal recognition and financial protection, but cannot have it because they’re not married and because the choice of a civil partnership is not open to them. The law needs to catch up with the reality of family life in Britain in 2018.”

But pro-family advocates, far from being pleased, said the ruling enshrines an inferior alternative to marriage into British law.

“This is yet another fundamental attack on marriage from a court system that seems determined to do all it can do undermine it,” said Ciarán Kelly, deputy director for the Christian Institute, a U.K.-based advocacy organization. “The couple who brought this case objected to what they called the ‘sexist trappings’ of marriage. But that is to fundamentally misrepresent what marriage is about.”

Kelly said marriage, and its public promises of lifelong faithfulness, is the “gold standard of commitment,” adding, “It is beneficial for the individuals involved and for society as a whole. With this ruling the court has given its backing to ‘marriage lite’—all the benefits of marriage but without the responsibilities.”

Steinfeld and Keidan have called for the government to push for a new law extending civil partnerships to all during this parliamentary session. If the British government does not take action on the issue, the couple could take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.