Last week Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan lost the latest round of their legal battle when the Court of Appeal elected not to overturn a lower court's decision that the couple should not be given the right to enter into a civil partnership.
However, the Appeal Court, whilst refusing to overturn the lower court's decision, did so on the basis that the Government should have more time to decide the future of civil partnership. The Appeal Court also made a finding that there was a 'potential' breach of the couple's human rights.
The case has brought the issue of the future of civil partnerships into sharp focus.
Civil partnerships were introduced by the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which came in to force across the UK on 5 December 2005. The legislation was brought in to allow same sex couples to enter into a legally recognised relationship akin to marriage, without opening up marriage to all. At the time there was great debate surrounding the decision not to simply allow same sex couples to marry.
The legislation remained unchanged until 2014, when there was a sea-change in the law and same sex couples in England, Wales, and Scotland were allowed to marry in just the same way as opposite sex couples (the legislation in question was the 'Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013' for England and Wales and the 'Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014' for Scotland). Ireland followed suit, voting to allow same sex marriage in 2015. Northern Ireland remains the only part of the UK yet to legalise same sex marriage.
As a result both the UK and the Scottish Government are currently evaluating the need for civil partnerships. The Scottish Government ran a consultation on the subject, the results of which can be viewed here.
Three options were put forward by the Scottish Government - no change, abolishing civil partnerships (by allowing no new partnerships) or opening up civil partnership to opposite sex couples.
The published responses indicate a broad spectrum of views. With regard to the option of allowing opposite sex couples to enter into civil partnerships, those in favour generally cited issues of equality - arguing that this is the only way to remove sexual orientation discrimination from marriage, and that only by opening up civil partnerships to all will there be true equality, with all couples having the same options. Some of those responding to the consultation questions considered marriage to be a patriarchal institution and preferred the more modern concept of the civil partnership.
Those opposed to introducing opposite sex civil partnerships argue that doing so would in fact be a backwards step. They argue that the whole concept of civil partnerships was born out of inequality, that they were a concept put in place to give some mollification to same sex couples who wanted to marry but could not, and that they served to underline the discriminatory failure to allow same sex couples to get married. Those opposed to introducing opposite sex civil partnerships argue that now that marriage is rightly available for all the concept of a civil partnership is obsolete.
On a practical level, the numbers thus far would appear to suggest that civil partnerships may have had their day. Of a total of 29,691 marriages registered in Scotland in 2015, 1,671 involved same sex couples. Only 64 civil partnerships were registered during the same period, 372 fewer than 2014.
Interestingly, when publishing the consultation the Scottish Government made it clear that they were already of the view that the case for introducing opposite sex civil partnerships has not been made.
Whether the case of Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan (and any others who may follow suit) will change that view remains to be seen.
We await with interest the fate of civil partnerships both north and south of the border.