R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) v SS for International Development is one of the less surprising judgements handed down by the Supreme Court in recent times. The issue was simple and straight forward. Could inequality of treatment towards heterosexual couples be justified under Equality and Human Rights legislation? That there was inequality of treatment was a fact. Same sex couples had a choice; they could marry or enter into a Civil Partnership whereas couples of different sexes had only the choice of marriage.

The Government argued that the justification was that time was needed to work out how best to remove the unequal treatment. Well 4 years on from the legislation allowing same sex marriage, this argument was to say the least rather weak. The Court, with a unanimous voice, had no qualms about declaring the current legislation incompatible with the Human Rights Act. It is for the Government now to deal with this incompatibility and introduce legislative changes to ensure that there is equality of treatment under the law for gay and straight couples.

Any views expressed here are entirely my own, for as many will know, away from the day job I am Canon Holroyd, member of Liverpool Cathedral Chapter. I am well aware of the current stance of the Church of England on same sex marriage but have to say that I would be in favour of the church going further than just blessing same sex relationships. I see this Supreme Court decision as paving the way towards a more logical view of our attitudes to Marriage and Civil Partnerships both in the church and in society at large.

I believe that marriage is a sacrament and that the promises made by couples in church are more than a “legal contract.” However I also recognise that in today’s world, my understanding of marriage may not be everyone’s view. Indeed, it was because of the historical background to marriage and its religious overtones that this particular couple in this case pressed for the right to enter into a civil partnership. If couples merely want a relationship recognised by society accompanied by a number of legal rights which mirror those in marriage, then what is wrong with that?

It seems to me that moving to a situation where same sex and straight couples can choose the kind of legal basis for their relationship either as a sacrament or merely a contract is entirely logical. If the latter then let it be called a marriage with its religious history and overtones and made in the sight of God. If this is not their belief, then a civil partnership can be entered into which has the same legal consequence but has quite another context and ceremony underpinning it.

At the end of the day, it is the quality of that relationship which really counts rather than the sexes of the parties thereto. Is the partnership one where love rules supreme through all the difficulties and joys of life?; or is it a relationship which gradually deteriorates and the parties decide that the relationship is no longer viable and worth the effort. Evidence seems to suggest that on the whole, a long term relationship with another human being is a stabilising and positive influence on the health and wellbeing of the parties as well as being a stable context to nurture children. On the other hand there also needs to be a mechanism for release from any relationship which is abusive or damaging or has no purpose as our current dissolution and divorce laws allow as our family practitioners well know.

It will be interesting to see where the government goes from here and indeed what the church decides to do. I for one hope that the choice for couples remains, as it reflects the diversity of views in a secular age. I can’t help feeling that the Good Lord rejoices in any relationship where love and mutual support really flourish and grow. As to the label attached to that relationship, I would be surprised if our Creator really cares.