Advertisement

Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 303–310 | Cite as

A Break Away from the (Hetero)norm?: Lawrence v Gallagher [2012] 1 FCR 557; [2012] EWCA Civ 394

  • Charlotte Bendall
Case Notes

Abstract

In Lawrence v Gallagher, the issue as to what constitutes an equitable division of assets in the event of civil partnership dissolution arose for the first time. It had been hoped that the case would mark a break away from the heavy reliance upon heteronormativity that had been characteristic of the previous ancillary relief case law. However, it is argued here that what we see within the judgment is the Court of Appeal presenting the problem (and, so, the parties) in Lawrence so as to ‘fit’ within the pre-existing framework. Even at this early stage, it seems that legal actors are approaching civil partnerships on the basis of gendered assumptions and expectations. There is a need to raise awareness of this inability to get past ideas about heteronormativity, and to highlight their possible incompatibility with the lives of lesbian and gay couples, before their radical potential is lost.

Keywords

Ancillary relief Civil partnership Equality Heteronormativity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Rosie Harding and the anonymous reviewer for their comments on earlier drafts of this case note.

References

  1. Adam, Conrad. 2008. Financial provision on dissolution. Family Law Journal 73(2): 2–5.Google Scholar
  2. Arendell, Terry. 1995. Fathers and divorce. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Auchmuty, Rosemary. 2013. With dissolution comes revelation: Civil partners discover the economic basis of marriage. Feminists@law 3/1. http://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/article/view/71/193. Accessed 14 September 2013.
  4. Barker, Nicola. 2012. Not the marrying kind: A feminist critique of same sex marriage. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, Susan. 1999. Family law and sexuality: Feminist engagements. Social & Legal Studies 8(3): 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler, Judith. 1986. Sex and gender in Simone de Beauvoir’s Second sex. Yale French Studies 72: 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, Judith. 1993. Critically queer. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 1(1): 17–32.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, Judith. 1999. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Carrington, Christopher. 1999. No place like home: Relationships and family life among lesbians and gay men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers, Samuel. 2003. Telepistemology of the closet; Or, the queer politics of Six feet under. Journal of American Culture 26(1): 24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan, Winnie. 2013. Cohabitation, civil partnership, marriage and the equal sharing principle. Legal Studies 33(1): 46–65.Google Scholar
  12. Collier, Richard. 1995. Masculinity, law and the family. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunne, Gillian. 1997. Lesbian lifestyles: Women’s work and the politics of sexuality. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Fineman, Martha. 2008. The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
  15. George, Rob. 2012. Lawrence v Gallagher [2012] EWCA Civ 394—Playing a straight bat in civil partnership appeals? Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law 34(3): 357–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herring, Jonathan. 2012. Breaking bonds. New Law Journal 162: 703–704.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, Paul. 2011. Challenging the heteronormativity of marriage: The role of judicial interpretation and authority. Social & Legal Studies 20(3): 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lloyd, Moya. 2007. Judith Butler: From norms to politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Millward, David. 2013. Women delay careers to have children. The Telegraph, 28 July.Google Scholar
  20. Peel, Elizabeth, and Rosie Harding. 2004. Divorcing romance, rights and radicalism: Beyond pro and anti in the lesbian and gay marriage debate. Feminism & Psychology 14(4): 588–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Student at Birmingham Law SchoolUniversity of BirminghamEdgbaston, BirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations