Report comment

On the matter of civil partnerships, now that same sex couples may lawfully marry (and marriages do not have to have any religious content) and since for most (if not all) practical purposes the benefits and burdens of marriage and civil partnership seem to be the same, I'm not quite sure why a heterosexual couple want specifically to opt for civil partnership, unless it's a point of principle. I thought that civil partnership was introduced for same sex couples at a time when they were not allowed to marry, so with hindsight it could be regarded as a transitional change and might now be "phased out" as Mr Rozenberg suggests.

However, Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan's case does raise a potential point of policy as to whether a heterosexual cohabiting couple (or more than 2 persons) in a non-sexual relationship who would not normally be able to marry, but wish to have the benefits that would attach to marital status, might enter into a civil partnership; in other words, an unmarried brother and sister, or two brothers and a sister (or vice versa), or cousins, or an aunt/nephew or uncle/niece, or persons within currently prohibited degrees of relationship . If of the same sex (such as two sisters, or two brothers) presumably they could enter into a civil partnership, but if they were not then as the law stands they couldn't.