This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39039146

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Heterosexual couple lose civil partnership challenge Heterosexual couple lose civil partnership challenge
(35 minutes later)
A heterosexual couple have lost their Court of Appeal battle for the right to enter into a civil partnership instead of a marriage. A heterosexual couple have lost their Court of Appeal battle to have a civil partnership instead of a marriage.
Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, from London, challenged a ruling that they could not have a civil partnership because they did not meet the legal requirement of being the same sex. Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, from London, challenged a ruling that said they did not meet the legal requirement of being the same sex.
The couple had argued that this meant they faced discrimination. The judges said there was a potential human rights breach but the government should have more time to decide on the future of civil partnerships.
But the Court of Appeal dismissed their challenge. The couple said there was still "everything to fight for".
They intend to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The BBC's legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the couple had lost by the "narrowest of margins" as all three judges accepted that there was a potential breach of their human rights.The BBC's legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the couple had lost by the "narrowest of margins" as all three judges accepted that there was a potential breach of their human rights.
Our correspondent said: "The government's 'wait and see' policy, which is based on looking at the take-up of same-sex civil partnerships, was found by Lady Justice Arden not to be not good enough to address the discrimination faced by heterosexual couples.Our correspondent said: "The government's 'wait and see' policy, which is based on looking at the take-up of same-sex civil partnerships, was found by Lady Justice Arden not to be not good enough to address the discrimination faced by heterosexual couples.
"However, her fellow judges were prepared to let the government have a little more time and so the case was lost on that issue alone.""However, her fellow judges were prepared to let the government have a little more time and so the case was lost on that issue alone."
'Long overdue'
Ms Steinfeld, 35, and Mr Keidan, 40, want to secure legal recognition of their seven-year relationship but have said that marriage is not suitable for them.Ms Steinfeld, 35, and Mr Keidan, 40, want to secure legal recognition of their seven-year relationship but have said that marriage is not suitable for them.
The academics, who live in Hammersmith, west London, and have a 20-month-old daughter, say that the government's position is "incompatible with equality law". "We lost on a technicality - that the government should be allowed a little more time to make a decision," Ms Steinfeld said.
"So there's everything to fight for, and much in the ruling that gives us reason to be positive and keep going."
Mr Keidan said: "The Court of Appeal has made it clear the status quo cannot continue.
"The government should now recognise the benefits of opening civil partnerships to mixed-sex couples.
"The measure is fair, popular, good for families and children, and long overdue."
Civil Partnerships explained
The couple, who live in Hammersmith, west London, originally applied for notice to form a civil partnership in 2014, but were turned away by the registrars.
In the same year, the Same Sex Couples Marriage Act extended the right to marry to gay couples, who can now choose between civil partnership and marriage. The couple contend that the same choice should be available to all couples.
They then took their case to the High Court, but the judge ruled that the ban on mixed-sex civil partnerships was not unlawful.
Since the start of their campaign more than 72,000 people have signed an online petition calling for civil partnerships to be open to all.
'Equality and choice'
Kate Stewart and Matthew Cole, 46, decided to get a civil partnership in Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory, in June 2016, after deciding marriage was not for them.
"It just felt to be a more appropriate way to formalise the recognition of our relationship," said Dr Stewart, from Derby.
"I have been married before... but Matthew and I didn't feel that marriage reflected our relationship.
"The institution [of marriage] is very much unequal depending on your religion.
"We therefore felt it wasn't a status we were comfortable with because it still had hangovers of inequality from the past."
Dr Stewart, 48, said although they believe marriage is right for some couples, it was about having the choice.
They wanted recognition of their relationship after 10 years together.
But their civil partnership is not legally recognised in the UK.
"We paid for ceremony in pounds, we have a certificate, it was all very British, but as soon as we were back home we didn't have legal recognition," Dr Stewart said.
"The declaration that we were both each other's partner was quite moving... we were on an equal footing. It was surprisingly touching."
Why choose civil partnership over marriage?
What do you want to know about civil partnership and marriage? Send us your question and a BBC correspondent will answer a selection.
Use this form to ask your question: