Unsatisfactory answers

Finally, a reply from the Department for Constitutional Affairs - though not an encouraging or particularly enlightening one.

The government's decision is as follows: "The UK recognises two forms of legal relationship; marriage and civil partnership (for same sex couples). As the UK has no form of opposite sex legal union other than marriage it would not be possible for us to recognise such relationships from another country."

The last sentence is a logical non sequitur. The UK has no form of same sex legal union other than civil partnership, yet the government has found it perfectly possible to recognise "such relationships from another country" - by deeming them to be civil partnerships.

The question that needs to be asked is why the government has seen fit to make explicit provision for the recognition of same-sex overseas marriages as civil partnerships, but has not made parallel provision for the recognition of opposite-sex overseas civil partnerships at all.

Is this a deliberate policy? If so, what is its justification? Is it an oversight? If so, when will it be rectified? Political disagreement is one thing, but there is no excuse for fobbing off important questions using sloppy reasoning.

This matter is far from closed.