'Our marriage is worth fighting for'

IT was a fairly low-key ceremony. Wearing casual clothes and in a small conservatory in front of just the marriage commissioner and two witnesses, the couple made their vows and exchanged their rings, before heading off for a wedding day dinner of pea soup, wild mushroom ragout and lemon sorbet.

But the ripples from that day - August 26, 2003 - today reach the High Court in London. In pronouncing Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson wife and wife, the commissioner set in motion a chain which provides the most serious challenge yet to the UK's refusal to recognise marriage between two people of the same sex.

Today the couple, backed by civil rights group Liberty, lodge their case with the High Court to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Britain. The main thrust of their argument is that if they were a man and a woman who married abroad, that marriage would automatically be valid in this country. To deny them that recognition is unfair discrimination. If they win, it will force the British Government to accept the legality of gay marriage.

"It is discrimination not to recognise our marriage, simply because we're two women and not a man and a woman. It is an equality issue," says Sue.

By 2003, Celia and Sue, who live near York, had been together for 13 years, but it was only when Sue went to work in Vancouver, British Columbia, that the possibility of marriage arose. Canada was the third country in the world to legalise same sex marriage, after the Netherlands and Belgium, but the only one to extend this right to non-nationals.

"Marriage had never been available to us before, so we never considered it," says Celia, a professor of sociology at York University. "While I was over there, the Canadian provinces started to recognise same sex marriage, so we decided to get married," adds Sue, also a sociology professor, at Loughborough University.

The initial impulse for marriage was practical. In the absence of any civil partnership laws, which do not come into effect until the end of this year, the couple had drawn up wills and powers of attorney, to ensure that if anything happened to one of them, the other could not be denied property or hospital visiting rights.

But these documents did not apply abroad, and rather than go through the whole process again in Canada, they decided to get married. It also helped deflect the questions Celia, 48, was asked by immigration officials about her frequent visits to Canada.

"Getting married solved a plethora of practical problems," says Celia. "And it was fun to be able to go through immigration, and when they say 'Why are you visiting again?', I say, 'I'm visiting my wife'.

"If you have been together for a long time, you feel you have got the commitment, you have got a solid relationship, and what is important is to protect it, not to announce it and have a big celebration."

"That is not to say it was not a very special day on a symbolic level," adds Sue, 51. "We did feel we were doing something quite extraordinary and rather special, because we were two women. It was also terribly exciting to feel you were at the forefront of something.

"The Canadians made no big deal about it. I went to get the licence and they said, 'Is it a man or a woman you are marrying?'."

Did it feel different to be married? "We didn't expect it to, but somehow it did," says Sue. "It turned out to be much more moving than we expected. I think that says something about the symbolism of marriage. We felt we had taken another step, entered another phase, in making this public commitment."

But it was when the couple returned to live in England that the limitations on their status really became apparent. Attempts to take out car insurance, and open an investment account, to take advantage of the benefits available to married couples, ran into trouble.

"They tried but the computer couldn't do it and came up with 'Marriage and gender status incompatible'," says Celia. "One company eventually overrode the computer system. It was the extent to which you bumped up against institutional boundaries - everything is set up for a man and a woman."

Many of the legal rights of heterosexual married couples will be available to gay couples once civil partnerships are introduced later this year, but Sue and Celia are adamant that securing those rights was not the point of their wedding.

"I would not want to downplay the importance of civil partnerships," says Sue. "It is the first time there has been recognition of lesbian and gay relationships and that is a huge step forward.

"But it stops short of marriage. It doesn't give that symbolic name and you feel the difference, that marriage means something as the gold standard of relationships."

"It is not an argument about whether same sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights and responsibilities as straight couples," adds Celia. "The argument is, are they entitled to the symbolic status of marriage itself, of what that means socially. People don't think of marriage as a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities, they think of marriage as something to do with commitment."

But there has been some opposition from other lesbians and gays, unhappy at an attempt to become part of what they see as a heterosexual institution.

"I absolutely support that argument and the right not to get married, but it is an empty gesture unless you have the right to get married," says Celia.

Marriage also has the advantage of being recognised internationally, unlike civil partnerships. And although gay marriage may be in its infancy, a number of couples who have married in Canada are going through the same process as Celia and Sue in their own countries.

"Same sex marriages are inevitably going to be accepted," says Celia. "It will happen because people will fight for it, although there is always going to be opposition to that extension of basic human rights."

Since they announced their plans to go to the High Court, they have been deluged with support and encouragement, many grateful that they are taking this step. One letter from a 70-year-old gay man who had been with his partner for 50 years, told how he believed his life would have been different if he had been able to get married.

Being at the forefront of a legal challenge may be exciting, but is also proving a nerve-wracking experience, with nationwide media coverage.

"I feel exposed and anxious, that we're not going to say the right things, or people are going to think we're weird - well they will think we're weird, I suppose," says Celia. "But I feel quite privileged to be able to do it, because we know other couples who married in Canada who can't do it, because they have children and they're terrified of what the media will do, or they're worried about their jobs. I feel we have a responsibility to do this, it is our duty."

"It is not often you get the opportunity to do something that could really make a difference," adds Sue. "It is something we feel really strongly about, and it becomes much more than a personal issue."