The recognition of rights to same-sex couples: the path towards a pluralistic concept of family

This paper presents the final results of the research project undertaken in 2010 and 2011 by the legal research group “Filius”, affiliated with Corporación Universitaria Empresarial Alexander von Humboldt of Armenia, (Quindío). The project’s general objective is “to establish the concept of family used by the Colombian legal system based on the judgments of the Constitutional Court granting rights to same-sex couples”. To this end, a line of jurisprudence was developed from the Court’s rulings that discussed the rights of same-sex couples, concluding that despite the great progress made in Colombia on the recognition of rights to these couples following Decision C-075/2007, in all these judgments the Court had always refused to recognize their family status, and it was not until 2011, in Decision C-577, that the Court accepted that same-sex couples constitute a family, thereby dramatically changing the constitutional doctrine that had maintained the criteria of heterosexuality as defining family.

EU free movement law and the legal recognition of same-sex relationships: the case for mutual recognition

This article seeks to examine the cross-border legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the EU. Although the Member States maintain an exclusive competence in the field of family law and, thus, it is up to them to determine whether they will provide a legal status to same-sex couples within their territory, they need to exercise their powers in that field in a way that does not violate EU law. This, it is suggested, requires that Member States mutually recognize the legal status of same-sex couples and do not treat same-sex couples worse than opposite-sex couples, if the basis of the differentiation is, merely, the (homosexual) sexual orientation of the two spouses/partners. Nonetheless, the current legal framework does not make it clear that Member States are under such an obligation. The main argument of the article, therefore, is that the EU must adopt a more hands-on approach towards this issue.

Tel Aviv - Mumbai - Tel Aviv: Same-Sex couples seeking parenthood in India

In Israel religious belonging remains a central category of citizenship. Laws concerning reproductive technologies such as the surrogacy law from 1996 are strongly informed by Orthodox rabbis’ kinship concepts (Kahn 2000, Shalev 1998, Weisberg 2005). A set of regulations secures that heterosexual Jewish couples bring into being children who are unequivocally Jewish themselves. The Israeli surrogacy law can therefore be understood as part of a policy seeking to reproduce the boundaries of the Jewish-Israeli collective. Same-sex couples do not fit this narrow definition of family and have no access to surrogacy in Israel. Yet gay couples maintain that parenthood is a universal civil right and bypass their exclusion through surrogacy arrangements abroad. The proposed paper follows these couples to Mumbai, which has become a popular destination for surrogacy in recent years. After their children’s birth the couples spend three to five weeks in India. In this time they not only take on their new tasks as fathers. They are also occupied with the bureaucracy of disconnecting the children from India and turning them into Israeli citizens. The paper elaborates on the bureaucratic processes and the hurdles same-sex couples encounter when seeking recognition of their parenthood and citizenship for their children. It unveils the intricacies and ramifications of Israel’s contradicting surrogacy policy of enforcing narrow definitions of family inside the country and simultaneously outsourcing problematic cases.

An evaluation of the implications of the best interests of the child principle in the context of same-sex parenting in Ireland

Same-sex parenting is by no means a new phenomenon but the legal recognition and acceptance of gay and lesbian couples as parents is a relatively recent development in most countries. Traditionally, such recognition has been opposed on the basis of the claim that the best interests of children could not be met by gay and lesbian parents. This thesis examines the validity of this argument and it explores the true implications of the best interests principle in this context. The objective is to move away from subjective or moral conceptions of the best interests principle to an understanding which is informed by relevant sociological and psychological data and which is guided by reference to the rights contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Using this perspective, the thesis addresses the overarching issue of whether the law should offer legal recognition and protection to gay and lesbian families and the more discrete matter of how legal protection should be provided. It is argued that the best interests principle can be used to demand that same-sex parenting arrangements should be afforded legal recognition and protection. Suggestions are also presented as to the most appropriate manner of providing for this recognition. In this regard, guidance is drawn from the English and South African experience in this area. Overall, the objective is to assess the current laws from the perspective of the best interests principle so as to ensure that the law operates in a manner which adheres to the rights and interests of children.

Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges

Supreme Court precedent establishes that the government may not punish children for matters beyond their control. Same-sex marriage bans and non-recognition laws (“marriage bans”) do precisely this. The states argue that marriage is good for children, yet marriage bans categorically exclude an entire class of children – children of same-sex couples – from the legal, economic and social benefits of marriage. This amicus brief recounts a powerful body of equal protection jurisprudence that prohibits punishing children to reflect moral disapproval of parental conduct or to incentivize adult behavior. We then explain that marriage bans punish children of same-sex couples because they: 1) foreclose their central legal route to family formation; 2) categorically void their existing legal parent-child relationships incident to out-of-state marriages; 3) deny them economic rights and benefits; and 4) inflict psychological and stigmatic harm. States cannot justify marriage bans as good for children and then exclude children of same-sex couples based on moral disapproval of their same-sex parents’ relationships or to incentivize opposite-sex couples to “procreate” within the bounds of marriage. To do so, severs the connection between legal burdens and individual responsibility and creates a permanent class or caste distinction.

“Seismic cultural change?”: British media representations of same-sex ‘marriage’

The legal recognition of same-sex relationships is a contested terrain that has been hotly debated by feminists. This article provides a social constructionist analysis of the UK newspaper media coverage around the time of the introduction of the Civil Partnership Act (2004). In examining the 348 national newspaper coverage over a three month period (November 2005–January 2006) we highlight three prevalent, and conflicting, themes: ‘same-sex marriage becomes legal under the Civil Partnership Act’; ‘couples will not get full legal status’ and ‘marriage is a heterosexual business’. We discuss these media representations and argue that the heteronormativity of the coverage provided little space for more radical constructions of same-sex relationship recognition.

The sexual constitution of political authority: the 'trials' of same sex desire

The Sexual Constitution of Political Authority argues that there are good reasons to suppose that our understandings of state power quiver with erotic undercurrents. Through a series of case studies where a statesman's same sex desire was put on trial (either literally or metaphorically) as a problem for the good exercise of public powers, the book shows the resilience and adaptability of cultural beliefs in the incompatibility between public office and male same-sex desire.

Conflicts of law and the mutual recognition of same-sex unions in the EU

My thesis uses legal arguments to demonstrate a requirement for recognition of same-sex marriages and registered partnerships between EU Member States. I draw on the US experience, where arguments for recognition of marriages void in some states previously arose in relation to interracial marriages. I show how there the issue of recognition today depends on conflicts of law and its interface with US constitutional freedoms against discrimination. I introduce the themes of the importance of domicile, the role of the public policy exception, vested rights, and relevant US constitutional freedoms. Recognition in the EU also depends on managing the tension between private international law and freedoms guaranteed by higher norms, in this case the EU Treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights. I set out the inconsistencies between various private international law systems and the problems this creates. Other difficulties are caused by the use of nationality as a connecting factor to determine personal capacity, and the overuse of the public policy exception. I argue that EU Law can constrain the use of conflicts law or public policy by any Member State where these are used to deny effect to same-sex unions validly formed elsewhere. I address the fact that family law falls only partly within Union competence, that existing EU Directives have had limited success at achieving full equality and that powers to implement new measures have not been used to their full potential. However, Treaty provisions outlawing discrimination on grounds of nationality can be interpreted so as to require recognition in many cases. Treaty citizenship rights can also be interpreted favourably to mandate recognition, once private international law is itself recognised as an obstacle to free movement. Finally, evolving interpretations of the European Convention on Human Rights may also support claims for cross-border recognition of existing relationships.

Client discourses on the process of seeking same-sex couple counselling

How same-sex couples manage the process of seeking help for their relationships is an under-researched area. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 people who had engaged in same-sex couple counselling, and were analysed using discourse analysis. The ways in which the couples positioned themselves as part of a 'minority group', or part of a generic group of couples struggling with relationship issues, impacted on how they discussed seeking help. We conclude that counsellors and psychotherapists need to be aware of the ways in which couples construct their relationships, and mindful of the tricky navigations around similarity to, and difference from, different-sex relationships. The impact of this on couples seeking therapeutic help is considered. © 2013 Taylor & Francis.

Not if but when: Out-group reactions to the timing of disclosure of an individual's same-sex attractions

One factor that research suggests impedes positive contact between outgroup members is the experience of anxiety that can occur when anticipating negative consequences of such interactions. Research examining attitudes and behaviour towards same-sex attracted individuals indicates that this intergroup anxiety is particularly evident when the anticipated interaction involves members of the same gender. The current studies investigate the effect of timing of disclosure of a person’s same-sex attractions in an effort to identify a means of reducing this anxiety. Study 1 uses a hypothetical scenario to gain insight into participants’ stated preferences for early or delayed knowledge of a person’s sexual orientation. Results reveal an association between experiencing close contact with gay individuals of the same gender in real life (but not opposite gender), and a preference for early disclosure. Results from an experimental study concur with these findings. After a face-to-face interaction task with a confederate of the same gender, participants sit further from the confederate for the late disclosure condition when compared with the early disclosure and no disclosure control. Future studies investigating the interaction between timing of disclosure of same-sex attractions and the intimacy of disclosure (casual vs. intimate), are discussed.

'It's a double-edged thing':the paradox of civil partnership and why some couples are choosing not to have one

Since their introduction in 2005, thousands of same-sex couples in the UK have had a civil partnership. However, many other couples have chosen not to have one. This qualitative study explores why some same-sex couples are choosing not to have a civil partnership. Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 people (five couples and two individuals) who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual, and analysed using discourse analysis. Participants' accounts were characterised by ambivalence about civil partnership, and three main paradoxes were identified: the 'good but not good enough' paradox, the 'unwanted prize' paradox and the 'legal rights v. social oppression paradox. A major source of ambivalence was support for rights but resistance to assimilation into dominant heteronormative cultural frameworks. Participants negotiated this ambivalence in a variety of ways, including considering how to have a civil partnership that is different from 'marriage', and adopting a pragmatic position. The analysis highlights the importance of social recognition and support for a range of relationship forms and identities, as well as for an ongoing critical debate about civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. © The Author(s) 2011.

Beyond Racial Precedents: Loving v. Virginia as an Appropriate Legal Model and Strategy for Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

This thesis explores how LGBT marriage activists and lawyers have employed a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection in recent same-sex marriage litigation. Special attention is paid to the Supreme Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. By exploring the use of racial precedent in same-sex marriage litigation and its treatment in state court cases, this thesis critiques the racial interpretation of due process and equal protection that became the basis for LGBT marriage briefs and litigation, and attempts to answer the question of whether a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection is an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation both constitutionally and strategically. The existing scholarly literature fails to explore how this issue has been treated in case briefs, which are very important elements in any legal proceeding. I will argue that through an analysis of recent state court briefs in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Loving acts as logical precedent for the legalization of same-sex marriage. I also find, more significantly, that although this racial interpretation of due process and equal protection represented by Loving can be seen as an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation constitutionally, questions remain about its strategic effectiveness, as LGBT lawyers have moved away from race in some arguments in these briefs. Indeed, a racial interpretation of Due Process and Equal Protection doctrine imposes certain limits on same-sex marriage litigation, of which we are warned by some Critical Race theorists, Latino Critical Legal theorists, and other scholars. In order to fully incorporate a discussion of race into the argument for legalizing same-sex marriage, the dangers posed by the black/white binary of race relations must first be overcome.