1. Big human rights news breaking: After a 4-year battle @becccasteinfeld and @charleskeiden have won their fight to show that the law allowing civil partnerships for same-sex couples only is discriminatory and unlawful - Below is a quick review of @UKSupremeCourt's judgment
2. First thing's first, you can read @UKSupremeCourt's judgment here supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks… and super useful press summary here supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks…
This was a 5-0 judgment, so no conflicting opinions in the Court. Lord Kerr gave the only judgment. That's how we like it!
This was a 5-0 judgment, so no conflicting opinions in the Court. Lord Kerr gave the only judgment. That's how we like it!
3. Before I get to what the judges say. Rebecca and Charlie happen to be good friends of mine and I have seen first-hand the blood, sweat and tears which have gone into their battle. It has been inspiring. They lost at first instance and on appeal, which hurts. Huge kudos to them
4. To the judgment. This was about the odd position that after same sex marriage was legalised, same sex couples could show their commitment through civil partnerships and marriage, but opposite sex couples only had the option of marriage.
5. Rebecca and Charlie, like many other couples in modern Britain, were against the idea of marriage because of its historical 'baggage', and wanted a civil partnership. They argued the difference in treatment for opposite sex couples was discriminatory and breach of human rights
6. The Human Rights Act makes it unlawful to treat people differently on grounds of sex unless the treatment could be shown to be for a legitimate aim and proportionate to that aim. They argued the law breached Article 14 (anti-discrimination) & Article 8 (private life) together 
7. The @UKSupremeCourt agreed with their argument - the first court to do so (they lost in the High Court and - narrowly - in the Court of Appeal). The argument boiled down to whether the delay of five years since same-sex marriage was brought into law could be justified
8. Govt said it took things slowly to see how the people felt about the new law "after same sex marriages had taken root". Govt wanted a "period of reflection and inquiry" to see whether to abolish CPs or to allow them for everyone and in meantime inequality would be perpetuated
9. The Court wasn't impressed by the argument. In fact, they rejected it entirely. They said something very important in fact - that an otherwise discriminatory measure can't be justified by a need for a period to change the law. Here's the crux (annoyingly over the page break!)
10. And here's the stinger - Court said once law was changed to allow same sex marriages, creating a "new form of discrimination", that discrimination could not be justified for even a day! Govt should have eliminated that discrimination *immediately*. Can't get clearer than that
11. The next question was what to do about it. The appellants were asking for a 'declaration of incompatibility'. This is a Human Rights Act innovation where a court formally declares a statute to be in breach of human rights. It *doesn't* force the govt to do anything at all
12. It's important to understand that the UK Supreme Court, unlike it's US cousin, has no power to strike down acts of parliament. But once it declares them incompatible the govt usually does something about it as that's the implicit agreement behind the Human Rights Act power
13. The @UKSupremeCourt has been pretty reluctant to grant declarations of incompatibility recently, most famously in a case involving the right to die (Nicklinson) and very recently in the case about abortion in Northern Ireland (see my thread)
14. Lord Kerr was in minority (of 2 - with now President Lady Hale) in Nicklinson who said Court should "not be reluctant" to grant declarations. He cheekily, implying disapproval with the majority in that case, quotes himself in this judgment without attribution
15. Lord Kerr is right to be frustrated at the Court's approach in Nicklinson as arguably it emboldened the government to plough on with this indefensible case all the way to the @UKSupremeCourt and emboldened the lower courts to side with government.
16. Anyway, @UKSupremeCourt now led by Lord Kerr and Lady Hale were not reluctant to grant a declaration in this case. So now it's over to the Government to decide what - if anything - to do. There really are only two options: abolish CPs or make then available to everyone
17. Big props to @beccasteinfeld and @charleskeidan for seeing this through and mounting a positive and successful campaign. Sorry to get both of your twitter handles wrong in the first tweet, some friend I am! 😁✊👊👏
