Supreme Court rules in favour of heterosexual couple in civil partnership fight

The judges granted a declaration that the 2004 Act was “incompatible” with human rights laws on discrimination and right to a private and family life.

Announcing the court’s decision, Lord Kerr said the Government “does not seek to justify the difference in treatment between same-sex and different sex couples.

“To the contrary, it accepts that the difference cannot be justified.”

Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan, from Hammersmith, West London, lost their case at the Court of Appeal in February 2017, but were given the go-ahead last August for a Supreme Court hearing.

The couple, who have two children, contend that the Government’s position on civil partnerships is “incompatible with equality law”.

During the hearing their barrister Karon Monaghan QC, told the court they have “deep-rooted and genuine ideological objections to marriage” and are “not alone” in their views.

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

Introduced before same-sex marriage came into force in England, Wales and Scotland in 2014, civil partnerships conferred similar rights regarding property and parental responsibility afforded to heterosexual couples under civil marriage.

Ms Steinfeld was raised in the Orthodox and discussed Jewish marriage customs in Israeli newspaper Haaretz, while Mr Keidan is known in the community for his work with the charitable Pears Foundation.