Relative Content

Tag Archive for Kamph

Modern marriage is no longer patriarchal because of mixed hen parties lawyer

The aim was to see how extending marriage to same-sex couples impacted on civil partnerships before making a final decision which, if reversed in a few years, would be disruptive, unnecessary and extremely expensive. He said that today’s “equal, modern society” meant the couple’s ideological opposition to marriage was weakened. Mr Eadie argued that a decision on the issue should wait until next year following a consultation so the Government could collect four whole years of data following the introduction of same-sex marriage.  He said civil partnerships were “essentially identical” to civil marriage and were created to give legal recognition to same-sex unions at a time “when society was not felt ready” to recognise such relationships as marriages.Mr Eadie told the judges it is accepted Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan have a “genuinely held” objection to marriage, but the Government’s decision to “take some time” before deciding on the future of civil partnerships is “justified”.”These are things for Parliament to consider and the more informed they are the better the legislative judgment is ultimately likely to be,” he said. The Government said it was decided, after public consultations and debate in Parliament, not to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, abolish them or phase them out at that stage. He added that he number of civil partnerships formed in England and Wales fell by 85 per cent in the first two years after the introduction of same-sex marriage.But Ms Monaghan argued the delay was unacceptable as they were “instantly” discriminated against from the moment the Marriage Act came into force.Civil partnerships were introduced in 2004, a decade before the law was changed to allow same-sex couples to get married. Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan suffered defeat at the Court of Appeal in February last year, but were allowed to appeal in August for a Supreme Court hearingA panel of five Supreme Court justices, including the court’s president Lady Hale, began considering the couple’s appeal earlier today.They reserved judgment for a later date.  But Mr Eadie countered that while “we do not quibble with the genuineness of their objection” and the history of the institution “comes with patriarchy attached”, modern marriage had shed many of its sexist attributes. Couples do not have to have “the giving away of the woman”, a white wedding dress, “or even a gender-segregated hen party”, he argued.  Modern marriage is no longer a patriarchal institution – because couples can have mixed stag and hen dos, the Government’s lawyer has told the Supreme Court. Responding to a case brought by a heterosexual couple who want a civil partnership, James Eadie QC, representing the Equalities Minister, said that many of the trappings which made marriage a patriarchal institution were no longer a necessary part of the tradition. Earlier in the day the lawyer representing the couple, academics Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, said they had “deep-rooted and genuine ideological objections to marriage.”Karon Monaghan QC told the court that marriage was “historically heteronormative and patriarchal” and the couple’s objections were “not frivolous”.She added: “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.” Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily  Front Page newsletter and new  audio briefings. read more