A heterosexual couple, who lost an Appeal Court battle to have a civil partnership, have said they will spend another £25,000 to appeal again.

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan from Hammersmith, west London, have spent four years and thousands of pounds on their legal battle and claim the Government's position on the matter is 'incompatible with equality law'.

But on Tuesday their appeal was rejected after judges ruled Parliament needed more time to decide the future of civil partnerships.

Scroll down for video

Pictured: Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, who lost their legal battle to have a civil partnership, outside the Royal Courts of Justice

Now the couple, who have a 21-month-old daughter, hope the Government will extend the law to include heterosexual couples as well as same-sex couples.

If not, they have vowed to continue their legal battle, which could cost upwards of £25,000.

Ms Steinfeld, 35, told the Sunday Telegraph: 'It's an extremely onerous amount for a young couple with a child, so we hope that if it comes to an appeal, people who support us will dig deep.'

The couple - she is an academic, he is a magazine editor - have previously paid their legal fees through donations from philanthropic organisations and crowdfunding, which raised £35,000. They say they have also spent around £7,000 of their own money.

Currently the Civil Partnership Act 2004 stipulates that only same-sex couples are eligible.

Mr Keiden, 40, and Ms Steinfeld have been in a committed relationship since November 2010 and got engaged four years ago. They have given their daughter the surname of Keidstein - a blend of their own names.

But both object to the 'patriarchal baggage' of marriage and instead want to secure legal recognition of their relationship through a civil partnership.

Ms Steinfeld said: '[Marriage] just isn’t right for us, and isn’t for lots of other people.

'We see each other as partners - not as husband and wife - and we didn’t want all the social pressures and expectations that surround marriage, like the bride wearing white virginal dresses and being given away by her father.'

The couple issued their appeal In November challenging High Court judge Mrs Justice Andrews's decision to dismiss their judicial review action.

Speaking after it was rejected on Tuesday they both seemed optimistic about the future.

Ms Steinfeld said: 'We are pleased that today's ruling has shown that the Government must act very soon to end this unfair situation.

Pictured: Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London

'All three judges agreed that we're being treated differently because of our sexual orientation, and that this impacts our private and family life.

'All three rejected the argument that we could "just get married".

'All three emphasised that the Government cannot maintain the status quo for much longer - they are on borrowed time.'

The judges agreed the couple had established a potential violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to discrimination, taken with Article 8.

But Lady Justice Arden dissented on the question of whether the policy of 'wait and evaluate' was justified at present.

Ms Steinfeld claimed Lady Justice Arden accepted their case on almost every other point.

She said: 'We lost on a technicality, that the Government should be allowed a little more time to make a decision.

'So there's everything to fight for, and much in the ruling that gives us reason to be positive and keep going.'

Mr Keidan, 34, said: 'The Court of Appeal has made it clear the status quo cannot continue.

'The Government should now recognise the benefits of opening civil partnerships to mixed-sex couples.

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan from west London, argued that the Government's position on civil partnerships is 'incompatible with equality law (pictured, with supporters outside the Royal Courts of Justice)

'The measure is fair, popular, good for families and children, and long overdue. They have everything to gain.'

WHAT IS THE CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT? The Civil Partnership Act, which was passed in 2004, states that such partnerships will provide legal rights and obligations to couples regarding children, property and pensions would be available to 'two people of the same sex'. It was passed after gay rights campaigners demanded legal recognition for unions between same-sex couples. And in 2013 same-sex marriage for was legalised, in a landmark ruling, giving gay couples the right to marriage or a civil partnership. But the former continues to be denied to heterosexual couples. Advertisement

During the couple's legal challenge in November, Karon Monaghan QC, told Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Beatson and Lord Justice Briggs in the Court of Appeal that the issue was whether the bar on opposite sex couples entering into civil partnerships was incompatible with Article 14, taken with Article 8, which refers to respect for private and family life.

She said: 'They wish very much - and it is of very considerable importance to them - to enter into a legally regulated relationship which does not carry with it patriarchal baggage, which many consider comes with the institution of marriage.'

Also speaking at the time, Dan Squires QC for the Secretary of State for Education, who has responsibility for equalities within Government, said that a decision was taken, after two public consultations and debate in Parliament, not at this stage to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, abolish them or phase them out.

It was decided to see how extending marriage to same-sex couples impacted on civil partnerships before making a final decision which - if reversed in a few years' time - would be disruptive, unnecessary and extremely expensive.

Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan said they would continue to fight, despite today's ruling

He described the judge's decision as 'unimpeachable'.

Before the ruling on Tuesday Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan were joined by supporters and campaigners, outside the Royal Courts of Justice, who waved placards calling for an end on the ban of opposite-sex civil partnerships.

Ms Steinfeld said: 'When we started our legal battle for the right to form a civil partnership three years ago, we could never have envisaged the incredible levels of support that would follow.

'Over 72,000 people have signed our petition on Change.org calling on the Government to open civil partnerships to all. We have received support from nearly every major political party.

'It really is remarkable but it just speaks to the fact that opening civil partnerships is popular, fair and would be good for families and children.'