civil partnerships

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan took their battle for 'a relationship of equals' to the Supreme Court – and won.
Many brave LGBT activists worked tirelessly for marriage equality - what's to stop heterosexual couples working to remove gender discrimination from the marriage process?
A prenuptial/precivil partnership agreement is entered into by the parties before entering into their marriage/civil partnership and sets out what will happen in the unhappy event that the relationship breaks down and ends in divorce/dissolution.
So what if there were children involved, would that change my view? I don't think so. I think our cohabitation law needs reform to recognise and protect the financially vulnerable parent out of wedlock but again, even with children, if people want to cement their relationship or give it "recognition" and/or "protection", they can marry.
Whether you like the concept of marriage or not, equality should surely allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same choices. You can have a civil ceremony of marriage already without requiring the religious element and be registered by a civil registrar, but it is still marriage; why not simply allow a CP?
Personally, I can't understand why they would want to have a civil partnership in the first place. They have no idea of the struggle people in same sex relationships faced to be allowed to get married. Many people in same sex relationships did not see civil partnerships as a positive thing. Civil partnerships were their compromise when they could not have marriage by law.
Today's decision is a setback to Rebecca and Charles' campaign. However, equal civil partnerships already have cross-party support from MPs and the second reading of Tim Loughton's Private Member's Bill is due to take place on 24 March 2017. Hopefully, the Court of Appeal's ruling today will encourage Parliament to put an end to this unjustifiable discrimination.
This is something that is long overdue, and would allow for legal recognition and commitment, but in a modern institution. This would not be an attack on marriage, but merely opening up an element of choice to couples.