This had to happen.

[Workingman]

When same-sex couple were allowed to "marry" there were always going to be challenges. Today another one came along, but with a difference.

An heterosexual couple is now going to the High Court to attempt to be allowed to have a Civil Partnership - previously only allowed for same-sex couples.

They do not want marry yet still be partners with the same equal rights in law conveyed upon same-sex couples; and in the spirit of equality why shouldn't they?

[Rodo]

Why not indeed. I can't see how anybody could find sufficient reason to refuse them.

[Kaz]

Well clearly, now that marriage is legal for same sex couples the civil partnerships scheme should be scrapped, as it was only ever there to replace the marriage ceremony before it was legal for them. There is no need for both.

I think this couple are playing silly-buggers to be honest and are trying to make a point, for some reason...

[Workingman]

Kaz, they are, but this is because of one of those unintended consequence things not foreseen by the lawmakers.

When I met C we lived together and bought a house together, but we were not equal - in law, and neither were same-sex couples. Civil Partnerships changed all that, and this was a good thing.

Non-married heterosexual partners ere still not equal and to allow them Civil Partnerships would solve that. Yes the case is a Cause célèbre, but it is not without merit.

[Aggers]

When I read about this I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

What the hell is the world coming to? Same sex marriage? It sounds like a dirty joke.

What next? Divorce because the marriage has not been consummated ?

What bloody idiots are running this country?

[Workingman]

John, divorce because the marriage had not been consummated, was legal in the Middle ages, but so was 'Marriage' if a couple agreed over a pint in the pub.

We moved on and a legal framework was entered into civil law and the Church, but for marriage between man and woman.

Now we have moved on again with 'marriage' between same-sex couples to give them the same equalities as traditional married couples. Why is it so wrong for those heterosexuals who wish to live together, as if married, not to have that same protection?

[Kaz]

Non-consummation has always been a reason for divorce or annulment, even in the Catholic Church.

[Kaz]

Frank there is no need for any couple to have civil partnerships, the concept is redundant! Marriage is a legal contract, couples who want legal rights should marry.

[Aggers]

Non-consummation has always been a reason for divorce or annulment, even in the Catholic Church.

I know that, Kaz. You don't want me to explain further, I'm sure.

[Workingman]

Frank there is no need for any couple to have civil partnerships, the concept is redundant! Marriage is a legal contract, couples who want legal rights should marry.

Kaz, if couples do not marry, whether it be in church or in the registry office, and simply live together, they are not equal in law.

For same-sex couples, who could not 'marry', that anomaly was removed with Civil Partnerships, and rightly so.

This heterosexual couple, who do not wish to 'marry', now want the same rights, in law, as same-sex couples now receive through Civil Partnerships.

All I am saying is that this challenge is one that was always going to happen because of the way the law was formulated.