Gay marriage rules to be challenged, but courts may say decision is Parliament’s

1 November 2010 by

Campaigners are seeking to challenge the rules against gay marriages and straight civil partnerships in the UK.

If they succeed then this would resolve the somewhat jumbled present position, where gay couples can form civil partnerships – which look almost exactly like marriages but aren’t – whereas straight couples are barred from doing the same.

As I posted here, the legalisation  of gay marriage may be close at hand, and campaigners have chosen Reverend Sharon Ferguson and Franka Strietzel’s impending marriage application as one of eight test-cases to push through the final barrier for same-sex couples.

At present, same-sex couples can form a civil partnership which has most of the features of marriage, but they cannot be officially married. The Equal Love campaign, launched by Peter Tatchel and OutRage!, has chosen four gay and four straight couples to fight both the ban on marriage for same-sex couples and also the ban on hetrosexual couples forming civil partnerships.

It is difficult to justify the current imbalance of rights, which arises from compromise rather than principle. The 2004 civil partnerships legislation effectively gave same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples in respect of property, tax and pensions. But the legislation fell short of providing full marriage rights, mainly as a compromise to religious authorities, some of which were opposed to the reforms.

The legal challenge will presumably come by way of judicial review. If the courts entertain the issue, it may well reach the Supreme Court as this is clearly a matter of public importance. However, the court may ultimately say – with some justification – that this is a decision for parliament rather than for them. The Supreme Court will be wary of making pronouncements on complex and controversial social issues given the trouble its United States equivalent has had over issues such as abortion.

From a human rights perspective, the European Court of Human Rights has recently rejected an argument that Austria‚Äôs refusal to grant same-sex marriages represented a breach of their human rights. The decision in Schalk and Kopf v. Austria was expressly supported by the previous government. So the UK courts would have an effectively blank canvas (that is, with no supportive European authority) on which to decide the case. And, unlike in the US, even if campaigners win in the Supreme Court, this will not automatically lead to any change in the law. The most they can hope for is a declaration that current marriage laws are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights or a (non-binding) order ‘quashing’ the rules.

Tactically speaking, campaigners will be looking to the United States where a Federal court in California recently struck down a ban on gay marriage in the state, marking the first step on a path to a United States Supreme Court decision on the issue. In that case, the applicants relied not just on principle but also an elaborate evidence-based analysis of the sociological status of gay marriage. This allowed the judge to find that “The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage“. I suggested at the time that such an approach may not work here, but it is certainly worth a try, and would answer some of the likely reservations from the courts that whilst they can rule on legal principle, only Parliament has a proper view of the will of the people.

Despite the controversy surrounding it, the Civil Partnership legislation has been operating for 5 years without any public outcry. In fact, a decent majority appear to support full gay marriage. This suggests that the UK is probably ready for an upgrade to full marriage equality. The courts may ultimately say that this decision must come from Parliament. Nevertheless, the campaigners will be hoping that the publicity surrounding the test cases will push the government into action.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: