Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Living together but how?

by Amit Roy

AMONG Indians and Pakistanis and British Asians generally, cou­ples still tend to get married rather than live together – in what was once known as “living in sin”.


That old order changed once same-sex couples got the right to enter into “civil partnerships”.

But the Civil Partnership Act 2004 did not apply to heterosexual couples, which is why Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, who have been living together in London for many years and have two young daughters, have fought a long battle to change the law.

The supreme court ruled in their favour last week after their barrister, Karon Monaghan QC, said the cou­ple had “deep-rooted and genuine ideological objections to marriage” and were “not alone” in their views.

She said matrimony was “histori­cally heteronormative and patriar­chal” and the couple’s objections were “not frivolous”.

The Oxford Dictionary defines heteronormative as “denoting or re­lating to a world view that promotes heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation”.

Monaghan said: “These are impor­tant issues, no small matters, and they are serious for my clients be­cause they cannot marry conform­able with their conscience and that should weigh very heavily indeed.”

This may not sound very roman­tic, but the couple wanted to enter into a civil partnership.

To deny them that right was to breach their human rights, five su­preme court judges ruled unani­mously in a “landmark” judgement.

After their victory, Keidan, a magazine editor, said outside court: “There are 3.3 million cohabiting couples in this country, the fastest growing family type.

“Many want legal recognition and financial protection, but cannot have it because they are 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.”

This is not a happy outcome for the prime minister Theresa May, who is the daughter of an Anglican priest and probably wedded to the Christian notion of marriage.

But after the supreme court rul­ing, it is heterosexual couples who, ironically, have to be put on an equal footing with gays and lesbians when it comes to marriage.

More For You

Shabana Mahmood’s hard line on asylum risks repeating Tory failures

Mahmood's plans are uncannily similar to Priti Patel’s new asylum law in 2022

Getty Images

Shabana Mahmood’s hard line on asylum risks repeating Tory failures

Shabana Mahmood is already the third British Asian woman to be a home secretary talking tough on asylum. That shows how much ethnic diversity in high office has accelerated. No Asian woman had ever been an MP before Mahmood and Priti Patel were elected in May 2010. But that Mahmood is so closely following Patel’s agenda now casts doubt on how far the Labour government’s new asylum proposals can deliver control in the Channel or rebuild public confidence in the system.

Mahmood’s core mission is to grip the asylum issue: she declares her reforms to be the most significant since the 1950s. Yet, they are uncannily similar to Priti Patel’s new asylum law in 2022 – which also proposed asylum seekers getting only 30 months of temporary protection. Suella Braverman then went even further – pledging that no asylum claims would get heard at all. By memory-holing these efforts, Mahmood misses crucial lessons of why they failed. If “pull factors” of the UK asylum design were the key to small boat arrivals, Patel and Braverman would have stopped the boats before the election.

Keep ReadingShow less