A lesbian couple who were married in Canada have lost a High Court battle to have their marriage recognised under UK law.

Sir Mark Potter, President of the High Court Family Division, this morning refused to declare Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson’s 2003 marriage legal saying that to do so would "fail to recognise physical reality."

The two women, both university professors, claimed they were entitled to have their marriage recognised in the UK because it was legal in Canada. They said that having their marriage downgraded to a civil partnership was an "insulting and discriminatory" alternative and a breach of their human rights.

But Sir Mark ruled that marriage was by "longstanding definition and acceptance" a formal relationship between a man and a woman, primarily (though not exclusively) with the aim of producing and rearing children and therefore to give a same-sex relationship the title and status of marriage would be to fail to recognise physical reality.

"Parliament has not called partnerships between persons of the same-sex marriage, not because they are considered inferior to the institution of marriage but because, as a matter of objective fact and common understanding, they are indeed different," the judge said.

Ms Wilkinson and Ms Kitzinger, who have been together for 16 years, said they had been "stripped of our marriage" by a judge who preferred to uphold the "traditional notion" of a marriage between a man and a woman as primarily for producing children.

"It perpetuates discrimination and sends out the message that gay and lesbian marriages are inferior," Ms Kitzinger said.

In his judgement, Sir Mark said that lasting single-sex relationships were "in no way inferior" and that English law does not suggest they are, recognising them under the name of civil partnership.

The Civil Partnership Act, introduced in December, gives gay and lesbian partners many of the rights enjoyed by married heterosexuals. But it states that same-sex couples who marry overseas in countries where gay and lesbian marriages are lawful "are to be treated as having formed a civil partnership".

Although the two women rejected the offer of a civil partnership as demeaning, lawyers said last year’s laws were a huge step forward for lesbian and gay couples.

Julian Washington, a private client solicitor at Forsters, said: "Although Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson will be disappointed with this outcome, there will be many who will not be sorry about the Court's decision.

The substance of the new law of civil partnership for same-sex couples is virtually identical to marriage and the old injustices which lesbian and gay couples faced (in areas like tax and inheritance) can be solved by registering as civil partners under the new law.

The mere lack of the label 'marriage' seems insignificant compared to this great advance in the law for couples like Celia and Sue."

Richard Hogwood, a family lawyer at Speechly Bircham, said: "The Government will be relieved that the new institution of civil partnership for same-sex couples, into which it had invested considerable time and effort, has emerged from this case unscathed.

"Had Ms Kitzinger and Ms Wilkinson, who eschew the notion of civil partnership, been successful in their claim, the argument for same-sex marriage in the UK would have been invested with a great deal more force and threatened to make civil partnerships redundant."

Despite the judge’s insistence that the couple faced "an insurmountable hurdle" in trying to have a same-sex marriage recognised in English law, they have vowed to continue their fight.

Speaking after the judgement the couple said they are seeking financial help to launch an appeal.

"This judgment will not stand the test of time. We are looking forward to the day when there is full equality of marriage, not just for us but for all same-sex couples," they said.

Times Recommends

• Hacker in final plea to stop extradition
• Lawyers? They're simply riveting . . .
• Companies slash legal spending