These people should be shot

Heterosexual couple challenge civil partnerships ban
A heterosexual couple have begun a legal fight at the High Court against the ban on members of the opposite sex entering into civil partnerships. Charles Keidan and Rebecca Steinfeld, from London, say their case is a "basic issue of discrimination and equality".

Miss Steinfeld said they want to commit to each other in a civil partnership as it "focuses on equality". The Civil Partnership Act 2004 requires that partners be "two people of the same sex". It grants gay couples legal rights similar to those given to married couples. The government has said it consulted on the issue and found a lack of consensus, so does not plan to make any changes to the law.

Mr Keidan and Miss Steinfeld want their relationship recognised in law, but they do not want to get married. Miss Steinfeld told the BBC: "We see each other as partners in life and want to be partners in law. "We want to be able to celebrate our relationship with each other and formalise our commitment to each other within a social institution which is modern, which is symmetrical and that focuses on equality, which is exactly what a civil partnership is."

I ****ing despair so I do

 

Lawyers must laugh themselves to sleep every night.

 

We're not Gay and we don't want to get married but we want the law changed to suit us.

 

Will they not be getting rid of this now that ***s can get married anyway?

 

Yep, the Civil Partnership was brought in from 2004, before same sex couples could get married. Now that they can get married they should really bin it before more moaning faced ****s like these start complaining they are being hard done by.

 

I don't see why it should irritate people so much - they want security for each other once one of them dies without having to get married. Civil partnerships already exist. It's not doing anyone any harm so I can think of many people I'd rather see shot.

 

Why not just get married?

 

You and Toby ?

 

Because they don't believe in it as an institution maybe?

 

"We want to be able to celebrate our relationship with each other and formalise our commitment to each other within a social institution which is modern, which is symmetrical and that focuses on equality, which is exactly what a civil partnership is."

In other words Marriage does none of this according to them. They are Dicks Dan, pure and simple dicks.

 

Sensible Dan...sensible

 

Yes I know that - but in the pantheon of "look at me" people they're hardly premier league in my opinion.

 

Then why a civil partnership? What actually is the difference?

Let's be honest Dan, they're a pair of attention seeking half wits and if not shot for this in particular then certainly for the puke inducing ****e in their statement

 

If you are in a long term relationship, sharing bills such as mortgage, are you not Common Law and then protected?

 

If there's a major war the West's ****ed.

 

Civil partnerships are probably cheeper with no fuss but as Dan says they can get each others pensions etc .
Seems pretty sensible .