Everything you need to know about the civil partnerships ruling

Heterosexual couples who would rather have a civil partnership than get married still cannot do so after a key ruling, though that hardly settles the matter.

Here are the key questions surrounding the future of civil partnerships...

Who challenged the law and why?

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan pursued the Court of Appeal battle in their bid to enter a civil partnership rather than get married.

The couple of seven years wanted to get legal recognition of their relationship but object to the "patriarchal baggage" of "the institution of marriage".

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 currently rules only same-sex couples are eligible.

Why were they defeated?

Though the three appeal judges were split they upheld - by a majority of two to one - the law as it stands.

They accepted the argument that a reversal would be disruptive, unnecessary and extremely expensive.

But that does not settle the matter.

The couple and their supporters called for 'straight equality' at London's Royal Courts of Justice. Credit: PA

Why not?

The judges mainly refused to change the law in order to give the government more time to judge the effectiveness of the current legal vows.

It was decided to see how extending marriage to same-sex couples - which occurred in 2014 - impacted on civil partnerships before making a final decision.

As the defeated Ms Steinfeld recognised: "All three (judges) emphasised that the government cannot maintain the status quo for much longer."

What does the future hold?

The judges accepted the Government's policy of "wait and evaluate", which means the issue could be revisited in the future.

Professor Rebecca Probert, a family law expert from the University of Warwick, said that is likely to be governed by the wider demand for change.

Some same-sex couples converted their civil partnerships into marriage after 2014's law change. Credit: PA

Could being recognised as civil partners mean more equality than the legal status of husband and wife?

Prof Probert said future research may suggest it is better for heterosexual couples, especially those who are ideologically opposed to marriage, to have an option to enter into a civil partnership.

But she said the move could be slowed if it is seen as undermining the wider perception of the institution of marriage and its creation of husbands and wives.

"I think this is an area in which the terminology really matters. It means something to people," she said.

Does the "patriarchal baggage" in marriage that Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan object to really still exist?

Historically it's been undeniable but more recently, legally, the tropes of patriarchy have been dropped.

Up until the late 19th century a woman's property automatically passed to her husband when she got married.

And it was not until 1991 that it became a crime for a man to rape his wife.

But much of what remains is governed by convention rather than the law, for example there is no legal requirement for a woman to take her husband's name.

"There is nothing intrinsically in the law that makes it patriarchal any more," said Prof Probert.

The perception of the traditional creation of husband and wives could slow moves to heterosexual civil partnerships. Credit: PA

So what are the legal differences between civil partnerships and marriage?

"Very little", according to Professor Probert, apart from some technicalities related to consummation and adultery.

She said the marriage union could be annulled if one or both partners have been unable or unwilling to consummate.

But a civil partnership cannot be dissolved as a result of adultery as the technical term means a married person engaging in heterosexual sex with someone they are not married to.