Barker and Monk's edited collection brings together academics and commentators who offer a range of perspectives both on civil partnership in the UK, and on the recent introduction of same-sex marriage. The contributions reflect on the fact that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 have widely been perceived as a victory. Yet they are also conscious that formalised same-sex relationship recognition can alternatively be viewed as a problematic engagement with heteronormative patriarchy. The contributions not only set out the background to these landmark pieces of legislation, but also look intriguingly towards the future, at an important point in the history of legal reform. The volume includes thirteen substantive chapters. In the first of these, Barker and Monk provide an overview of the past decade of legal history of the recognition of lesbian and gay relationships. They explain that, particularly given that civil partnerships can now take place in religious premises, there are now few differences between civil partnership and (heterosexual) marriage, with exceptions relating to language and sex. However, there are still questions to be answered, centring on the disparities in pension provision for surviving partners in same- and different-sex couples, and whether civil partnership will become available to heterosexual couples.

Part I focuses on the social and legal process towards same-sex marriage, noting the tensions and debates that formed part of this. In Chapter 2, Weeks provides an interesting comparison between the position in 2001 (where same-sex marriage seemed a distant prospect) and the present day, viewing the changes that have taken place concerning the possibilities around sexuality to be ‘profound’ and ‘unexpected’. He situates those changes in the context of their political terrain, with the government having been anxious to support marriage-like relationships in light of the statistics showing decreasing marriage and increases in divorce and single parenting. Weeks further locates the roots of the shift in the LGBT community in Britain having become an ‘ordinary’ part of British society. On making this assertion, he is clear that he is drawing a distinction between ‘ordinariness’ and normalisation, which ties into his previous assertion of a lesbian and gay ‘wish for recognition for what you are and want to be, for validation, not absorption’ (Weeks, Reference Weeks2008, p. 792). Although it may be difficult to imagine this ‘ordinariness’ without at least an element of assimilation about it, the author stresses its importance in quietly transforming the meanings of formal relations. Whilst Weeks describes the recent law reforms as being ‘very British’, Norrie proceeds, in Chapter 3, to set out the distinct path taken by Scotland in introducing same-sex marriage. He links relationship recognition with the legal practicalities of devolution, claiming that the Scottish Parliament was willing for Westminster to act on its behalf in 2004 due to the fact that the Parliament was still finding its feet. Moreover, he cites as reasons for their approach at that point the dominance of the Scottish Labour Party, and the nervousness of Scottish politicians to challenge religious forces as a consequence of the ‘Keep the Clause’ campaign (concerning the Local Government Act 1988, section 28). By comparison, within the debates on the Bill that became the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, a great deal more maturity was evident. In fact, Norrie ends his chapter by raising the possibility that the Scottish review of civil partnership currently taking place may draw a different conclusion to the English one, with there being no guarantee that they will follow the lead, as in 2004. This may result in registered relationships having different consequences, depending on whether their registration took place in England or Scotland. Norrie's chapter offers an original analysis that will be particularly relevant to constitutional law and devolution scholars, as well as sexualities researchers.

Browne and Nash, in Chapter 4, examine the strategies utilised by conservative opposition in relation to the developments towards relationship recognition. The authors contend that their arguments were structured to claim support of equal rights whilst, at the same time, opposing same-sex marriage. Browne and Nash set out how civil partnerships were supported, rather than same-sex marriage, so as to deflect criticisms of homophobia and bigotry. Furthermore, offering a really useful contribution to the debate, they explain how opposition groups drew on queer and critical arguments made against marriage by those more broadly against the disciplining normativities of marriage. In this respect, the claims of some gay men and lesbians that they did not want marriage were used to support a point that civil partnership was ‘enough’. In Chapter 5, Renz discusses an often overlooked dimension of the law concerning same-sex relationship recognition: its implications for trans people. She observes that, whereas people that were married were previously required to divorce in order to obtain a gender-recognition certificate (enabling them to legally change gender), this requirement was removed by the 2013 Act. A certificate may now be granted within an existing marriage, provided that written consent has been obtained from the spouse. Consequently, the legalisation of same-sex marriage has meant that trans people are no longer forced to choose between the legal recognition of their relationship or of their gender identity. Nevertheless, Renz argues that the language used during the debates in Parliament constructed the spouses of trans people as being particularly in need of legal protection, with the cisgender partner being treated as a victim. In contrast, she identifies that it may be the case that trans spouses are held to ransom by their spouse refusing to grant consent (which will delay the process of transitioning). This is striking, given the recent increase in the prosecution of LGBT youths for ‘gender fraud’.

Part II of the collection looks at the impact of the debates about recognition and the reforms themselves, on social policy and practice, institutions and individuals. Cocker, in Chapter 6, details how those lesbian and gay families that ‘make the grade’ within the adoption process are most likely to conform to conventional heterosexual norms. In this context, same-sex partners may opt themselves to perform compatibly with such ‘ideals’ and to mask certain aspects of their lives. Social work practice persists in reinforcing an ‘othering’ of those who do not ‘fit’ present societal conceptions of what makes a family. Whilst recent legislative changes (such as the Adoption and Children Act 2002) have transformed the landscape of social work practice in terms of same-sex partners, this legislative framework will only be as effective as those who are responsible for implementing it. In Chapter 7, Heaphy, providing an account of his empirical research into people who entered into civil partnerships under the age of thirty-five, goes back to the issue of ‘ordinariness’ (as raised in Chapter 2). He tells us that the majority of his participants described themselves as ‘married’, with them additionally labelling their civil partnership ceremonies and celebrations as ‘weddings’. The marriages of past generations were constructed as ‘traditional’, with participants casting their own relationships as ‘post-traditional’. That said, they subscribed to the idea of the couple as the natural focus of adult relationships. In this way, Heaphy draws the important conclusion that, whilst we may celebrate the rights acquired by same-sex couples to be ‘ordinary’, the battle for recognition and support of diverse (non-couple-centred) relational lives remain ongoing.

Goddard, a vicar, offers the account of an insider, and a reflection on the position that has been taken by the Church of England, in Chapter 8. He observes there to have been a ‘climate of resistance’ against same-sex marriage, despite wide-ranging opinions amongst the Church's members. Goddard identifies an international dimension to the Church's formal opposition, emphasising a desire to avoid tearing the fabric of the Anglican Communion. However, he stresses that, should the Church wish to retain its historic relationship with English society, it cannot resist change for much longer. Goddard's chapter highlights the importance of not generalising about any particular body of people. Taylor also makes this point in Chapter 9 with respect to lesbians, pointing to the significance of social positioning. She argues that the sense of inclusion brought about by recognition of same-sex couples is classed with those who have social and economic capital achieving standing as ‘legitimate subjects’. Taylor refers to the ‘safety net’ that enabled middle-class partners to make claims on shared resources (such as pensions) and the new possibilities created for them to avoid inheritance tax. These developments suggest that it may be that ‘middle-classness’ is being used as a norm. As against this, the change in welfare benefit law (under which same-sex partners are now treated as a couple), although signifying the affirmation of gay and lesbian relationships, has been financially detrimental to those people who could least afford to lose (a point reminiscent of findings made by Harding (Reference Harding2008)). The same can be said of the recent introduction of the ‘bedroom tax’.

Part III of the book, which is more specifically ‘law’-focused, looks at what happens at the end of relationships. Dietz and Wallbank, in Chapter 10, examine the way in which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 equates civil partnership to marriage. Drawing on some of the themes raised by McCandless and Sheldon (Reference Mccandless and Sheldon2010), they explain how it has sustained the dominance of the two-parent family. They set out how the new legal framework offers parental status to those in the privileged relationship of the civil partnership. Whilst those not in civil partnerships must seek licensed treatment, they can obtain legal parenthood by a ‘contract-like’ arrangement. Unlicensed, and potentially more unconventional, families fall outside of the provisions, though, which precludes the possibility of a third legal parent. In fact, the authors contend, judges have portrayed gay fathers as donors, or even as constituting a threat to the lesbian family. Dietz and Wallbank write persuasively in support of the dismantling of hierarchies so as to facilitate new challenges to heteronormative family life. They draw attention to the need to consider recognising more than two individuals as parents in order to reflect the ‘reality’ where there is evidence of multiple parent activity. This is necessary in order to prevent gay fathers from suffering the same marginalisation as, historically, have lesbian mothers.

In Chapter 11, Monk provides stimulating analysis of three cases: two concerning the death of a partner in a same-sex relationship and one being Lawrence v. Gallagher [2012] 1 FCR 557, the first reported case of financial relief on civil partnership dissolution. He introduces gender as a framework for thinking about these cases, asking whether the court might have decided differently were the scenario to involve a man and a woman. Monk additionally draws upon media accounts of Lawrence, suggesting that both they and the judicial reading of the case call into question what it means to be ‘a man’. He ultimately concludes that the cases evince the ongoing significance of gender as a foundation of the legal recognition of same-sex couples. This impacts not only those who go to court, but also those who seek advice from lawyers and, more widely, on understandings of ‘law’. Auchmuty returns to the issue of gender in Chapter 12 in her exploration of why statistics have shown that more men initially entered into civil partnerships, and that more women have subsequently dissolved their partnerships. She explains the backlog of gay men entering into civil partnership as being for practical reasons (centring on inheritance tax), as well as for the purpose of protecting a younger partner in the event of the older one's death. Drawing back on Taylor's work, Auchmuty further suggests that class played a role in the disinclination of women to engage with civil partnership. On top of this, the author raises the point that men, unlike women, will not have experienced marriage as a site of patriarchal power. In terms of the dissolution statistics, Auchmuty accounts for the greater dissolution rates for women on the thought-provoking basis that ‘we expect women to fulfill our trust in them, to listen and share, to treat us well and not to abuse us’ (p. 212). This is, she says, in contrast to men, whom society will tend to assume will behave badly. As to their perceptions of the partnerships themselves, Auchmuty, in a way that speaks to Heaphy's chapter, cites generational differences. She describes the older women whom she interviewed in her empirical research as being less likely to use the language of marriage than the younger couples, who modelled their civil partnership on heterosexual marriage. Auchmuty contends that gendered roles appear to be the only roles that younger lesbians and gay men recognise. As a result, despite earlier high expectations, civil partnerships may arguably prove to be no more egalitarian than (heterosexual) marriage.

Finally, Barker, in Chapter 13, imagines how family law might develop from the current position. Particularly in light of the absence of conjugality in civil partnerships and same-sex marriage, she emphasises the opportunity to shift away from a focus on sexual partners. She considers arguments in favour of moving towards care as the foundation of the legal recognition of relationships. However, situating the issue in its political context (and in relation to the broader Conservative policy package), she concludes that this could work to support further welfare cutbacks, continuing to encourage the privatisation of care. It could further marginalise critical discourse around the institution of the family that was already conspicuously missing from the recognition debates (see e.g. Young and Boyd, Reference Young and Boyd2006). Barker considers that an approach proposed by the Law Commission of Canada may be more appropriate as a solution (this being to take an individual provision and ask what the objective of this particular provision is, creating an objective-based criterion, rather than asking how ‘deserving’ a relationship is of legal recognition). Whilst perhaps meaning less certainty than focusing specifically on relationships (sexual, caring or otherwise), Barker suggests that such an approach would enable us to start to think differently about the family, and enable a movement away from the sexual family.

This fascinating edited collection works to consolidate interdisciplinary knowledge about same-sex relationship recognition, and its wide-ranging nature means that it will be of interest to many socio-legal scholars. However, it will prove of particular relevance to those with an interest in family law, and law, gender and sexuality. The collection is timely, given that, in light of what has now been a decade of civil partnership, we are in a position to reflect on whether past predictions have come to fruition. The impact of the landmark changes on understandings of the law, and on expectations about relationships, has been viewed as disappointing by some (e.g. Auchmuty). That said, in raising questions about the heteronormative assumptions underpinning legal conceptions of ‘the family’, the book shows that there is still some potential left to undermine these assumptions.