I am still processing what a case like this means to me. As I read this, it sounds like the taxes expected of single people is just too damn high in Britain. A person should be able to expect to inherit their home from a family member AND be able to pay heritage taxes without fear of loosing their home. Citizens should expect that land and homes can remain in the family when someone dies. These taxes are to be questioned not someone's right to marry. At least, that's how I see things in my world. Of course, I also think these two women should have the same rights of married/civil unioned couples. It is also reflective of the discrimination perpetuated against single individuals. Why is it that couples have more rights than individuals? Why must we idenitfy as couples to gain tax breaks?
Taxes are revenue constructions. They are created for the purpose of increasing funds that governments use to pay for other services (a very generic understanding here). Tax breaks are created to remedy burdens placed on specific populations, organizations, etc. within a particular system. So, where are the tax breaks for two elder members of society who just want to keep their home?
I do think these single women should have equal rights as gay/straight couples within the United Kingdom. Why should they be penalized for being single? They share the same burden of home ownership that couples do.
Still, I would want the right to civil union in U.K. as a queer person, so lets hope this case remedies their issue without disturbing others rights of civil union.
I have not done any research on this case and my thoughts are a response to this one post.