The couple married in
Yaletown,
Vancouver, in August 2003, a few weeks after
same-sex marriage became legal in
British Columbia, where Wilkinson had been working as a visiting professor at Simon Fraser University. On their return to the UK, the couple discovered that their relationship had no legal status. Two years later, with the implementation of the
Civil Partnership Act, the relationship was automatically converted to a
civil partnership. The couple sued for the recognition of their marriage, the trial beginning on 5 June 2006 before Sir
Mark Potter,
President of the Family Division. For an overseas marriage to be recognised in the UK, it must be shown that the marriage was legal, recognised in the country in which it was executed, and that nothing in the country's law restricted freedom to marry; Kitzinger and Wilkinson argued that their marriage fulfilled these requirements even though people could not legally enter into same-sex marriages in the UK. They rejected entering a civil partnership, believing them to be both symbolically and practically a lesser substitute, and asked the court to recognise their overseas marriage in the same way that it would recognise the marriage of an opposite-sex couple. They argued that a failure to do so breached their
human rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for privacy and family life), 12 (right to marry) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken together with Article 8 and/or 12 of the
European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated into domestic UK law by the
Human Rights Act 1998. In a 21 September 2005 press release issued by
Liberty, the British
civil rights organisation which supported their case, Kitzinger and Wilkinson said: This is fundamentally about equality. We want our marriage to be recognised as a marriage - just like any other marriage made in Canada. It is insulting and discriminatory to be offered a civil partnership instead. Civil partnerships are an important step forward for same-sex couples, but they are not enough. We want full equality in marriage. In handing down his ruling, 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 described this as an "insurmountable hurdle" to the couple's case. The Attorney General, as Second Respondent, sought £25,000 in costs. ==Aftermath of case==