SOME people are so keen on marriage they’ll do it several times. Others wouldn’t countenance it, seeing it as patriarchal tool of church and state.

Both perspectives are deserving of respect but the former seems to reap far more public approval than the latter. For whatever reasons, marriage is a touchy subject.

So it hasn’t been entirely surprising to see the ire directed at Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, who are arguing in the English courts that civil partnerships, currently only available to same-sex couples, should be open to all.

The court of appeal ruled against them on Monday, two to one. Lady Justice Arden, the minority voice, said: “My overall conclusion: the appellants are right.” All three judges rejected the notion that Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan, who balk at marriage’s historical baggage, should simply marry. However, the court wanted the government to have more time to consider the issue.

While arguing the murky origins of marriage, you can also argue civil partnerships don’t have the most illustrious history. They were brought in as a shoddy compromise to give gay couples legal rights while simultaneously appeasing those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, some see them as a preferred option to marrying.

Whether you believe civil partnerships should be open to all or that the argument is merely time wasting semantics, this court battle raises a worthy debate about whether marriage is fit for modern purposes.

In England, marriage legislation was last modernised in 1836 and certain aspects of the law date back to the 12th century. In 2015, the Law Commission, which advises the government, said marriage laws in England are “in dire need of reform”. In Scotland, marriage law was updated in 2006 to more reflect that couples are - or should be - equal partners, rather than English law, which still reflects giving protection to the wife and defining the obligation of the husband.

The number of mixed sex cohabiting couples currently stands at around three million - with two million dependent children - and those couples and their offspring face legal vulnerability.

If couples are increasingly choosing to make lives and children together without marrying then the law must evolve to provide other, straightforward options.

Cohabiters are the fastest growing family type and yet there are no protections, responsibilities or bonds. There is no such thing as a “common law marriage” and those who choose not to marry must rely on contract law, trust law and the goodwill of their partner. Other countries have options: in Australia, de facto spouses have the same legal rights as married couples. France has the civil solidarity pact.

The law will happily recognise people as cohabiting when they are claiming benefits and yet earlier this month a woman had to go to the supreme court to lay claim to her partner’s pension because they were not married. There exists a distinct double standard as to the recognition of partnership.

Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan argue that a change of legislation would only require the removal of the six words stating couples eligible for civil partnerships “must be of the same sex”. The law is never so simple.

But what is simply obvious is that a one-size-fits-all approach fails to recognise changing preferences and dynamics. As couples decide against marriage, it becomes vital to look at look at options for the protection of their rights and, more importantly, the rights of any children.

A blanket reliance on marriage might have been appropriate in 1836 but it certainly doesn’t reflect how we live now.