![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Article 41.2.1 Irish Constitution.
2. Civil Registration Act 2004, s. 2 (2).
3. In 2006 a British lesbian couple, Wilkinson and Kitzinger, sought to argue that the recognition in England of their Canadian same-sex marriage as a Civil Partnership but not as a marriage, was discriminatory under Article 14 of the ECHR, read with Articles 8 and 12. The claim failed, principally on the basis that the discrimination could be justified, any adverse impact being minimised by the substantive rights in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 ([2006] EWCA 2022 (Fam)).
4. Zappone v Revenue Commissioners [2008] 2 IR 417. In contrast to England & Wales, however, at that time there was no Civil Partnership in Ireland.
5. S. 5 (1) Marriage Amendment Act 1961, challenged later in the case of Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory [2013] 250 CLR 441.
6. In England and Wales, Civil Partnerships were maintained when same-sex marriage was brought in in 2013. The case of R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the International Development (in substitution for the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary) (Respondent) lead ultimately to the Government legislating for opposite-sex civil partnership. Keidan and Steinfeld were an opposite sex couple who challenged the bar on them entering into a Civil Partnership. They were ultimately successful, prompting a Government Review. See: [2016] EWHC 128 (Admin); [2017] EWCA Civ 81 (Court of Appeal); and [2018] UKSC 32 (Supreme Court).
7. Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 (‘CFRA’).