So this decision from the UK Supreme Court demanding that Westminster open civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples on equality grounds is a bit of a game-changer over there. 

It makes the strongest-yet case for Parliament to extend civil partnerships as an option for opposite-sex couples, saying that any argument to the contrary has not been sufficiently or logically made. It’s an evolution of civil partnerships away from what was once a “separate-but-equal” regime. 

My idea is that if Parliament acts on this (it’s already legal in some British crown territories like Jersey, but it’s not a sure thing that Parliament will keep CPs), it will allow for both heterosexual femininity and heterosexual masculinity to evolve a bit away from legal and political relationship hierarchies. Under this, in the CP, the father won’t be required to “give away” their daughter as a “wife” to a “husband”. This may even go as far as needing to change entire laws around parent relationships with their children. I want to see this happen, because it may have a broader impact upon the Anglosphere’s gender heirarchy beliefs. It may also help further a heterosexual masculinity which isn’t as hinged on gender hierarchy or power within relationships. 

The only reason why the US didn’t adopt civil unions or domestic partnerships en masse – even for heterosexual couples – is because the federal government never accepted them, benefitted them or even talked about them.