Same-sex Marriage in The United Kingdom - Wilkinson V Kitzinger

On 26 August 2003, Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson, both British university professors, legally married in British Columbia, Canada, however on their return their marriage was not recognised under British law. Under the subsequent Civil Partnership Act, it was instead converted into a civil partnership. The couple sued for recognition of their marriage, arguing that it was legal in the country in which it was executed and met the requirements for recognition of overseas marriages and should thus be treated in the same way as one between opposite-sex couples. They rejected the conversion of their marriage into a civil partnership believing it to be both practically and symbolically a lesser substitute. They were represented by the civil rights group Liberty. The group's legal director James Welch said it was a matter of fairness and equality for the couple's marriage to be recognised and that they "shouldn't have to settle for the second-best option of a civil partnership."

The High Court announced its judgement on 31 July 2006, ruling that their union would not be granted marriage status and would continue to be recognised in England and Wales as a civil partnership. The President of the Family Division, Sir Mark Potter, gave as his reason that "abiding single sex relationships are in no way inferior, nor does English Law suggest that they are by according them recognition under the name of civil partnership", and that marriage was an "age-old institution" which, he suggested, was by "longstanding definition and acceptance" a relationship between a man and a woman. He agreed with the couple's claim that they were being discriminated against but argued that this was justified on the grounds of protecting the traditional definition of marriage. The government sought £25,000 in legal costs from the couple which the High Court ordered them to pay.

Wilkinson and Kitzinger said they were "deeply disappointed" with the judgement, not just for themselves, but for "lesbian and gay families across the nation." They said that "denying our marriage does nothing to protect heterosexual marriage, it simply upholds discrimination and inequality" and also said that the ruling insulted LGBT people and treats their relationships as inferior to heterosexual ones; not worthy of marriage but only of an "expressly different, and entirely separate institution." They said however that they believed the judgement "won't stand the test of time" and that they looked forward to the day when "there is full equality in marriage." They had originally announced their intention to appeal the decision but later abandoned it due to lack of funds.

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said that the government's aggressive opposition to same-sex marriage and their successful demand of £25,000 from the couple damaged their "gay-friendly credentials". He also claimed that the demand in legal costs was designed to financially damage the couple so they would not be able to appeal. He said he was "angry but not downcast" about the ruling and that this was only a temporary setback in the "long struggle for marriage equality."