Same Sex Marriage

Sáez, Macarena

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2354-2_6

Macarena Sáez³

2574 Accesses

Abstract

Same sex cohabitation is banned or unrecognized in most of the world. In the last 30 years, approximately 20% of countries have granted some rights to same sex couples. Countries have moved from total rejection of same sex relationships to acceptance of some sort. At the center of the debate is the role of marriage, which some claim is essentially heterosexual and the basis for societal structure. Others consider exclusion of same sex marriage unfair discrimination. Apart from the right to marriage, there a complex questions concerning parental rights, dissolution of same sex unions, and other family-law related matters.

This article was originally published in the American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. Macarena Saez, General Report: Same-Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Cohabitation, and Same-Sex Families Around the World: Why “Same” is so Different, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 1 (2011).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 169.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 219.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 219.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
This report is based on national reports submitted for the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay.
2.
The world was reminded again of this disparity after a gay couple in Malawi was sentenced to 14 years of prison for sodomy and indecency. Malawi’s President Bingu wa Mutharika issued a pardon to the couple after a visit of UN President Ban Kimoon but made clear that he condemned the couple’s behavior. See Barry Bearak, Malawi President Pardons Gay Couple (NewYork: Times, May 29, 2010), at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/world/africa/30malawi.html (last visited June 25, 2010).
3.
Polygamy is rejected in many Western world countries and it triggers harsh criticism. Its opponents, however, do not take the position that polygamy is not marriage. The rejection comes out of equality concerns or incompatibility with a liberal state, among others. Adrienne D. Davis, Regulating Polygamy: Intimacy, Default Rules, and Bargaining for Equality, 110 Colulm. L. Rev. 1955 (2010).
4.
Nancy G. Maxwell, “Opening Civil Marriage to Same-Gender Couples: A Netherlands-United States Comparison,” 18 Az. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 141 (2001).
5.
Ian Curry-Sumner, All’s well that ends registered? The Substantive and Private International Law Aspects of Non-Marital Registered Relationships in Europe, European Family Law Series vol. 11 (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2003), 145–147.
6.
Denis Clifford, Frederick Hertz, and Emily Doskow, A Legal Guide for Lesbian & Gay Couples, 15th ed. (Reading: Addison-Wesley, 2010), 113.
7.
Katharina Boele-Woelki, “Registered Partnership and Same-Sex Marriage in The Netherlands,” in Legal Recognition of Same Sex Couples in Europe, ed. Katharina Boele-Woelki and Angelika Fuchs, 44 (2003).
8.
Kees Waaldijk, Others May Follow: The Introduction of Marriage, Quasi-Marriage, and Semi-Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in European Countries, 38 New Eng. L. Rev 549, 576 (2004).
9.
Id.
10.
Wendy W. Schrama, Registered Partnership in the Netherlands, 13 Int’l J. L. Pol’y & Fam. 322 (1999); see also Holland South Local Reference Information, “Same-sex Marriage and Registered Partnerships in the Netherlands,” available at http://hollandsouth.angloinfo.com/countries/holland/gaymarriage.asp (last visited November. 17, 2010).
11.
Frederik Swennen & Yves-Henri Leleu, National Report: Belgium, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 57 (2011) [hereinafter Belgium Report].
12.
Id. at 66.
13.
Id. at 67.
14.
Id. at 65, 70.
15.
Id. at 78.
16.
Professor Swennen explained to me that surrogacy was performed in Belgian hospitals, though there was no current regulation on this matter. Furthermore, some judges may not allow adoption of children born from a surrogate mother and international surrogacy is illegal.
17.
Carlos Martínez de Aguirre Aldaz & Pedro de Pablo Contreras, National Report: Spain, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 289 (2011) [hereinafter Spain Report].
18.
Law 13/2005, (Spain) (B.O.E., 2005, 157), available at http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2005/07/02/pdfs/A23632-23634.pdf. (last visited June 25, 2010).
19.
Spain Report, supra note 18, at 291.
20.
Id.
21.
Id. at 292.
22.
Id. at 294.
23.
Id. at 295.
24.
For an account by the Spanish press, see Reuters, El PP presenta recurso de inconstitucionalidad contra bodas gays, Sep. 30, 2005, at http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/52467/0/ESPANA/GAYS/RECURSO/. The constitutionality claim can be found at http://www.felgtb.org/files/docs/7cef87591594.pdf (last visited June 27, 2010) (Spain).
25.
See Maria Ángeles Rodriguez Vásquez, “Los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo en el derecho internacional privado español,” Boletin Mexicano de Derecho Comparado [B.M.D.C] 41 (2008): 194 (Mex.).
26.
Marie-France Bureau, National Report: Canada, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 85 (2011) [hereinafter Canada Report].
27.
Lois Sur le Mariage Civil [Law on Civil Marriage], R.S.C., ch. 33, Article 2 (2005) (Can.) (“Le mariage est, sur le plan civil, l’union légitime de deux personnes, à l’exclusion de toute autre personne.”), available at http://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/lois/lc-2005-c-33/derniere/lc-2005-c-33.html (last visited October 22, 2010).
28.
Canada Report, supra note 27, at 88.
29.
Id. at 89.
30.
Id.
31.
The Greenwood Encyclopedia of LGBT Issues Worldwide 60 (Chuck Stewart ed., Greenwood Press 2010).
32.
Id.; see also Robert Leckey, ‘Where the Parents are of the Same Sex’: Quebec’s Reforms to Filiation, 23 Int’l J. L. Pol’y & Fam. 62, 66 (2009).
33.
Canada Report, supra note 27, at 91.
34.
François du Toit, National Report: South Africa, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 277 (2011) [hereinafter South Africa Report].
35.
Fourie and Bonthuys v. Minister of Home Affairs, 2006 (3) BCLR 355 (CC) (S. Afr.), available at http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2005/19.pdf (last visited October 22, 2010).
36.
Id. at 47.
37.
Civil Union Act of 2006, BSRSA (S. Afr.), available at http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=67843 (last visited June 28, 2010).
38.
Id. at art. 1.
39.
South Africa Report, supra note 35, at 281.
40.
Id. at 285.
41.
Civil Union Act of 2006 at art. 6.
42.
South Africa Report, supra note 35, at 285.
43.
Torstein Frantzen, National Report: Norway, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 273 (2011) [hereinafter Norway Report].
44.
Marriage Act, § 1 (Nor.) translated in http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/the-marriage-act.html?id=448401 (last visited October 22, 2010).
45.
Norway Report, supra note 44, at 274 (citing Marriage Act § 13).
46.
Ministry of Justice (Swed.), Fact Sheet, Gender Neutral Marriage and Marriage Ceremonies, May 2009, available at http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/12/55/84/ff702a1a.pdf (last visited November 10, 2010).
47.
Yvonne C. L. Lee, “Don’t Ever Take a Fence Down Until You Know the Reason It Was Put up” – Singapore Communitarianism and the Case for Conserving 377A,” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 347 n. 161 (2008) (Sing.).
48.
For media coverage of the Swedish church support of religious same sex marriage, see Same sex marriage suggested by board of Church of Sweden, Stockholm News (Swed.), June 13, 2009, available at http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=3407 (last visited October 22, 2010).
49.
The Report on Portugal was prepared by Professor Jorge Duarte Pinheiro [hereinafter Portugal Report].
50.
In June 10, 2010, the Icelandic Parliament unanimously approved a law that allows marriage between same sex partners. See Michelle Garcia, Iceland Legalizes Gay Marriage, available at http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/06/11/Iceland_Legalizes_Gay_Marriage/ (last visited October 22, 2010).
51.
On July 10, 2010, the Senate approved the bill with amendments to the Argentina Civil Code to redefine marriage as a union between two individuals, regardless of their sex. See Juan Forero, Gay rights activists celebrate Argentine vote for same-sex marriage, Washington Post, July 16, 2010, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071501119.html (last visited October 22, 2010).
52.
Portugal Report, supra note 50, at 2; see also VII Revisão Constitucional [Seventh Revised Constitution] art. 36 (2005), available at http://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx (last visited October 22, 2010).
53.
Id.
54.
Acórdão No. 359/2009, Tribunal Constitucional [Constitutional Court], available at http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20090359.html (last visited October 22, 2010).
55.
Id.
56.
Portugal Report, supra note 50, at 3; see also Diário da República, 1ª Série A – N 105–31 de Maio de 2010, Página 1853. Lei n. 9/2010, art. 2 (“…Casamento é o contrato celebrado entre duas pessoas que pretendem constituir família mediante uma plena comunhão de vida, nos termos das disposições deste Código.”), available at http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/pgdl/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=1249&tabela=leis (last visited November 8, 2010).
57.
Diário da República, 1ª Série A – N 105–31 de Maio de 2010, Página 1853. Lei n. 9/2010, art. 2.
58.
Lei N 9/2010 art. 3 (Port.), available at http://dre.pt/pdfgratis/2010/05/10500.pdf (last visited October 22, 2010).
59.
Unofficial translation by the author. The original text in Spanish states: “Art. 42. Aplicación. Todas las referencias a la institución del matrimonio que contiene nuestro ordenamiento jurídico se entenderán aplicables tanto al matrimonio constituido por dos personas del mismo sexo como al constituido por dos personas de distinto sexo. Los integrantes de las familias cuyo origen sea un matrimonio constituido por dos personas del mismo sexo, así como un matrimonio constituido por dos personas de distinto sexo, tendrán los mismos derechos y obligaciones. Ninguna norma del ordenamiento jurídico argentino podrá ser interpretada ni aplicada en el sentido de limitar, restringir, excluir o suprimir el ejercicio o goce de los mismos derechos y obligaciones, tanto al matrimonio constituido por personas del mismo sexo como al formado por dos personas de distinto sexo” available at http://www.infobae.com/download/55/0345567.pdf.
60.
Report on the United States prepared by Professor David M. Meyer.
61.
Id. at 6.
62.
Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996).
63.
For a detailed account of the current legislation in each state of the United States, see Sonia Bychkov Green, Currency of Love: Customary International Law and the Battle for Same-Sex Marriage in the United States, Appendix I (The John Marshall Law School, Working Paper Series, March 1, 2010), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1562234.
64.
Id.
65.
Lynda Waddington, Same-sex couple sues state for right to appear on daughter’s birth certificate, May 13, 2010, http://iowaindependent.com/33946/same-sex-couple-sues-state-for-right-to-appear-on-daughters-birth-certificate (last visited October 22, 2010).
66.
In the U.S. there are more than one thousand benefits granted by the federal government to married couples. Additional State benefits vary and extend the difference of treatment. See Barbara J. Cox, “The Little Project” From Alternative Families to Domestic Partnerships to Same-Sex Marriage, 15 Wis. Women’s L. J. 90 (2000) (citing Office of the General Counsel, General Accounting Office, Report to the Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, GAO/OCG 97–16 (1997), available at www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf (last visited November 8, 2010)).
67.
Gill v. Off. of Personnel Mgmt., 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010).
68.
H.R. Res. 3567, 111th Cong. (2009), available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3567ih.txt.pdf (last visited October 22, 2010).
69.
Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, Dec. 29, 2009, available at http://www.metrobus.df.gob.mx/transparencia/documentos/marco%20normativo/decreto%20codigo%20procedimientos%20civil.pdf (Article 146 of the Civil Code for the Federal District states: “Matrimonio es la unión libre de dos personas para realizar la comunidad de vida, en donde ambos se procuran respeto, igualdad y ayuda mutua. Debe celebrarse ante el Juez del Registro Civil y con las formalidades que estipule el presente código.”).
70.
Id. at art. 291 (stating that “female concubines and male concubines (“concubinas y concubinos”) have reciprocal rights and obligations). The former article 291 stated that the female concubine and her male concubine (“la concubina y el concubinario”) had reciprocal rights and obligations. http://201.159.134.50/Estatal/DISTRITO%20FEDERAL/Codigos/DFCOD01.pdf (last visited October 18, 2011)
71.
Id. at art. 395.
72.
The Supreme Court decision has not been published yet.
73.
Decreto de Ley de Sociedad de Convivencia para el Distrito Federal [Law of Cohabitation Society for the Federal District] art. 2, 136 Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, 16 de Noviembre de 2006 (Mex.).
74.
See Belgium Report, supra note 12, at 70–71; see also Portugal Report, supra note 50, at 2.
75.
Waaldijk, supra note 9, at 579.
76.
Act on Registered Partnership N. 372 was enacted on June 7, 1989 with § 2.2 stating that “A partnership may only be registered provided that (1) one of the parties is habitually resident in Denmark and a Danish citizen, or (2) both parties have been habitually resident in Denmark the 2 years immediately preceding the registration.” See Boele-Woelki, supra note 8, at 215.
77.
For an account on international private law and same sex couples, see Gerard-René de Groot, “Private International Law Aspects Relating to Homosexual Couples,” Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 13 (2007). Regarding the recognition of Dutch same sex marriage in other countries, see Michael Bogdan, “Some Reflections on the Treatment of Dutch Same-Sex Marriages in Europe and in International Private Law,” in Intercontinental cooperation Through Private International Private Law: Essays in memory of Peter E. Nygh, ed. Tania Einhorn and Kurt Siehr (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2004), 25–35.
78.
Kenneth Norrie, National Report: United Kingdom, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 329 (2011) [hereinafter UK Report].
79.
Id. at 333; see also Civil Partnership Act, 2004, c. 33, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33.
80.
UK Report, supra note 79, at 333.
81.
Id.
82.
Id. at 334.
83.
Id.; see also Civil Partnership Act, 2004, c. 33, Part II, Ch. 2.
84.
UK Report, supra note 79, at 335.
85.
Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, Application no. 30141/04, Eur. Ct. H.R. (June 24, 2010), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Schalk%20|%20Kopf&sessionid=63568865&skin=hudoc-en.
86.
Id. at 31.
87.
UK Report, supra note 79, at 338.
88.
Id. at 339–40; see also Civil Partnership Act, 2004, c. 33, Part V, Ch. 2.
89.
Annette Kronborg & Christina Jeppesen, National Report: Denmark, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 113 (2011) [hereinafter Denmark Report].
90.
Professors Kronborg and Jeppesen point out that although Greenland and the Faroe islands are part of Denmark, they have their own legal systems. Greenland has a registered partnership since 1996 but the Faroe Islands does not have any regulations for same sex couples. See Cece Cox, “To Have and To Hold--or Not: The Influence of the Christian Right on Gay Marriage Laws in the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States,” 4 Law and Sexuality 1, 7 (2005).
91.
Denmark Report, supra note 90, at 118.
92.
Id. at 118–19.
93.
Id. at 119.
94.
Id.; see also Lov 2010-05-26 nr. 537 (Den.), available at https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=10291 (last visited November 9, 2010).
95.
Denmark Report, supra note 90, at 120.
96.
Report on Australia prepared by Dr Normann Witzleb [hereinafter Australia Report]. I want to thank Dr. Witzleb for his edits to this part of the work.
97.
Id. at 9.
98.
Marriage Act, 1961, § 5(1) (Austl.), available at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/05431B4AAF75F0F5CA2576E8000392EA?OpenDocument.
99.
Australia Report, supra note 97, at 8–10.
100.
Id. at 9.
101.
Id.
102.
Id. at 12.
103.
Id. at 11.
104.
Nancy Polikoff, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage 116 (Beacon Press 2008).
105.
Australia Report, supra note 97, at 25.
106.
Adoption Act, 2009, Queensl. Stat. 2009 (Austl.), available at http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2009/09AC029.pdf.
107.
Australia Report, supra note 97, at 24–25.
108.
Id. at 24.
109.
Kenneth Norrie, National Report: New Zealand, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 265 (2011) [hereinafter New Zealand Report].
110.
Id. at 266–67, 268.
111.
Id. at 267–268; see also Yuval Merin, Equality for Same-Sex Couples: The legal recognition of gay partnerships in Europe and the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2002), 175.
112.
New Zealand Report, supra note 110, at 267.
113.
Id. at 268.
114.
Id.
115.
Dr. Jens M. Scherpe, National Report: Germany, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 151, 154 (2011) [hereinafter Germany Report]; see also de Groot, supra note 78, at 6.
116.
Germany Report, supra note 116, at 154.
117.
Id. at 153.
118.
Id. (citing Bundesverfassungsgericht [Constitutional Court], July 7, 2009, 1BvR 1164/07 BVerfGE (Ger.)).
119.
Germany Report, supra note 116, at 153.
120.
Federal Constitutional Court (Ger.), Press Office, Press Release No. 121/2009, Oct. 22, 2009, available at http://www.bverfg.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-121en.html.
121.
Germany Report, supra note 116, at 170
122.
Id.
123.
Id. at 173.
124.
de Groot, supra note 78.
125.
Germany Report, supra note 116, at 173; see also John A Robertson, Reproductive Technology in Germany and the United States: An Essay in comparative Law and Bioethics, 43 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 189, 210 (2004).
126.
Dr. Daphne Aichberger-Beig, “Registered Partnership for Same-Sex Couples,” in Austrian Law – An International Perspective, ed. Bea Verschraegen (Wien: Jan Sramek Verlag, 2010) [hereinafter Austria Report].
127.
Schalk and Kopf, supra note 86, reaffirms this idea.
128.
Aichberger-Beig, supra note 127, at 65.
129.
Id. at 68, (citing Eingetragene Partnerschaft-Gesetz [Registered Partnership Act], available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/lpartg/gesamt.pdf).
130.
Id.
131.
Id. at 71.
132.
Id. at 73.
133.
Id.
134.
Id. at 72–73.
135.
Annelot Peters, National Report: Switzerland, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 309 (2011) [hereinafter Switzerland Report].
136.
Id. at 311 (citing ATF 119 II 264, 3 mars 1993 (Switz.)).
137.
Loi fédérale sur le partenariat enregistré entre personnes du même sexe [Federal law on the partnership recorded between people of the same sex] (Switz.), available at http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2004/2935.pdf.
138.
Switzerland Report, supra note 136, at 311.
139.
A detailed account can be found in the Austria Report, supra note 127, at 5–9.
140.
Switzerland Report, supra note 136, at 312.
141.
Id. at 315.
142.
Id. at 312.
143.
András L. Pap & Zsolt Körtvélyesi, National Report: Hungary, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 211, 212 (2011) [hereinafter Hungary Report].
144.
Id. at 215.
145.
Id. at 212.
146.
Id. at 213.
147.
Id. at 212.
148.
Id. at 212.
149.
Id.
150.
Report on Israel prepared by Dr. Ayelet Blecher-Prigat [hereinafter Israel Report].
151.
Id. at 1–2.
152.
Id.
153.
Id. at 6.
154.
Id. at 6–7.
155.
H.J., 3045/05 Ben-Ari v. The Director of the Population Administration in the Ministry of the Interior (2006) (Isr.) (unpublished decision), translated in http://www.scribd.com/doc/22564351/Ben-Ari-v-%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%94-%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%AA-Director-of-Population-Administration-official-translation (last visited October 22, 2010).
156.
Israel Report, supra note 151, at 8.
157.
Id.
158.
Id. at 17.
159.
Id. at 18.
160.
Id. at 19.
161.
See Talia Einhorn, “Same-sex family unions in Israel law,” Utrecht L. Rev. 4, no. 2 (2008): 225.
162.
Israel Report, supra note 151, at 19–20.
163.
Id. at 24–25.
164.
Id. at 25.
165.
Hugues Fulchiron, National Report: France, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 123 (2011) [hereinafter France Report].
166.
Id. at 124.
167.
Id. at 125, 126.
168.
Stéphane X. v. Procureur Général, Cass. 1e civ. (Fr.), March 3, 2007, No. 511, available at http://www.courdecassation.fr/publications_cour_26/rapport_annuel_36/rapport_2007_2640/quatrieme_partie_jurisprudence_cour_2653/droit_personnes_famille_2655/mariage_11311.html.
169.
France Report, supra note 166, at 126.
170.
Id.
171.
Id. at 126 n.14.
172.
Id. at 132.
173.
Id.
174.
Id. at 125.
175.
Nancy D. Polikoff, Recognizing Partners But Not Parents/Recognizing Parents But Not Partners: Gay and Lesbian Family Law in Europe and the United States, 17 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts. 711, 726 (2000) (citing L-94-653 of 1994, The Bioethics Act (Fr.)).
176.
See decision N. 703 of July 8, 2010 (09–12.623), Cass. 1e civ. (Fr.), available at http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/premiere_chambre_civile_568/703_8_16930.html.
177.
Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, State Regulation of Sexuality in International Human Rights Law and Theory, 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 797, 859 (2008).
178.
Id.
179.
Daniel Bonilla & Natalia Ramirez, National Report: Colombia, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 97 (2011) [hereinafter Colombia Report].
180.
Id. at 100.
181.
Law 54 of 1990, art. 1 (Colom.), available at http://www.dmsjuridica.com/CODIGOS/LEGISLACION/LEYES/L0054de1990.htm (last visited October 22, 2010).
182.
Colombia Report, supra note 180, at 103.
183.
Sentencia C-075/07, Corte Constitucional [Constitutional Court] (2007), available at http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2007/C-075-07.htm (last visited October 22, 2010).
184.
Id. at 103.
185.
Id. at 104–109.
186.
Id.
187.
Id. (citing Sentencia C-814-01, Corte Consitucional [Constitutional Court]), available at http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2001/C-814-01.htm (last visited October 22, 2010)).
188.
Walter Howard, National Report: Uruguay, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 343 (2011) [hereinafter Uruguay Report].
189.
Id. at 362–64.
190.
Uruguay Report (Spanish version) at 13 (on file with autor) (citing L.J.U., T. V, case 1129, and Salvagno Campos, La sociedad de hecho en el concubinato more uxorio, Revista de Derecho, Jurisprudencia y Administración, T. XXXVIII, 221 (1940)).
191.
Uruguay Report, supra note 189, at 348; see also Law N. 18.246 of Dec. 27, 2007, (Uru.), available at http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18246&Anchor=.
192.
Law N. 18.246 of Dec. 27, 2007, (Uru.) at art 2.
193.
Uruguay Report, supra note 189, at 359.
194.
Id. at 349.
195.
Id. at 350.
196.
Id.
197.
Id. at 363.
198.
Id.
199.
Report on Croatia prepared by Professor Nenad Hlača [hereinafter Croatia Report].
200.
Law on Same Sex Civil Unions, OG RC 116/2003 (2003) (Croat.), translated in http://iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/takeaction/resourcecenter/583.html (last visited October 22, 2010).
201.
Constitution of Croatia, art. 61.
202.
Croatia Report, supra note 200, at 2.
203.
Id. at 3 (citing Article 1 of the OG RC 116/2003).
204.
Croatia Report, supra note 200, at 4.
205.
Id.
206.
Report on the Czech Republic prepared by Professor Michaela Zuklínová [hereinafter Czech Report]. I would like to thank Mr. Peter Polasek for his assistance translating into English relevant parts of Czech’s legislation.
207.
Zákon č 115/2006 Sb. (Czech Rep.), available at http://www.epravo.cz/top/zakony/sbirka-zakonu/zakon-ze-dne-26-ledna-2006-o-registrovanem-partnerstvi-a-o-zmene-nekterych-souvisejicich-zakonu-15257.html (last visited October 22, 2010).
208.
Czech Report, supra note 207, at 1.
209.
Id. at 1–2.
210.
Dr. Aisling Parkes, National Report: Ireland, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 221 (2011) [hereinafter Ireland Report].
211.
Constitution of the Republic of Ireland, art. 41 (3.1).
212.
Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners and Others, [2008] 2 IR 417.
213.
Civil Partnership Bill, 2009 (Bill No. 44b/2009) (Ir.), available at http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b44b09d.pdf (last visited July 16, 2010).
214.
Id.
215.
Ireland Report, supra note 211, at 223 (citing McD v. L and Anor. [2009] I.E.S.C. 81 (12th October, 2009) (S.C.)), available at http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/60f9f366f10958d1802572ba003d3f45/a6dc1f1e70fed713802576880031aacb?OpenDocument.
216.
Ireland Report, supra note 211, at 223.
217.
McD. -v- L. & anor at 81(i) (The Court granted visitation rights to the father.).
218.
See, e.g., Council Resolution A3-0028/94, Resolution on equal rights for homosexuals and lesbians in the EC, 1994 O.J. (C 61), Council Resolution 1728, Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, April 29, 2010; Schalk & Kopf v. Austria, supra note 86 (recognizing that same sex couples enjoy family life).
219.
Virginia Zambrano, National Report: Italy, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 225 (2011) [hereinafter Italy Report].
220.
Constituzione [Constitution] art. 29 (Italy) (“La Repubblica riconosce i diritti della famiglia come società naturale fondata sul matrimonio. Il matrimonio è ordinato sull’eguaglianza morale e giuridica dei coniugi, con i limiti stabiliti dalla legge a garanzia dell’unità familiare.”)
221.
Italy Report, supra note 220, at 235.
222.
Id. at 233.
223.
Id.
224.
Constituzione [Constitution] art. 3(Italy) (“Tutti i cittadini hanno pari dignità sociale e sono eguali davanti alla legge, senza distinzione di sesso, di razza, di lingua, di religione, di opinioni politiche, di condizioni personali e sociali. È compito della Repubblica rimuovere gli ostacoli di ordine economico e sociale, che, limitando di fatto la libertà e l’eguaglianza dei cittadini, impediscono il pieno sviluppo della persona umana e l’effettiva partecipazione di tutti i lavoratori all’organizzazione politica, economica e sociale del Paese.”).
225.
Italy Report, supra note 220, at 234 (citing Corte d’assise Turin, sect. I, ord., 19th November 1999 (Italy)).
226.
Matrimoni gay, no della Consulta ai ricorsi “Materia di competenza del Parlamento,” La Republicca (It.), April 14, 2010, available at http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2010/04/14/news/consulta_matrimoni_gay-3344318/ (last visited Nov. 20, 2010).
227.
Italy Report, supra note 220, at 236.
228.
Id.
229.
Id. at 237.
230.
Alexander G. Fessas, National Report: Greece, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 187 (2011) [hereinafter Greece Report].
231.
Id. at 200.
232.
Id. at 191.
233.
Id. at 191–92.
234.
Id at 192.
235.
Report on Romania prepared by Professors Cristiana Craciunescu and Dan Lupascu [hereinafter Romania Report].
236.
Id. at 3–4
237.
Başak Başoğlu & Candan Yasan, National Report: Turkey, 19 AM. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 319 (2011) [hereinafter Turkey Report].
238.
Id. at 320.
239.
Id. at 321.
240.
Id. at 325 (citing decision 355/6349, 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Turk.), April 24, 2006).
241.
Id. at 322.
242.
Teiko Tamaki, National Report: Japan, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 251 (2011) [hereinafter Japan Report].
243.
Kenpō [Constitution] art. 24.
244.
Japan Report, supra note 243, at 255.
245.
Id. at 260.
246.
Id. at 259–60.
247.
Id.
248.
Id. at 259.
249.
Id.
250.
For a description of both adoption and notary deeds by same sex couples in Japan, see Claire Maree, “Same–Sex Partnerships in Japan: Bypasses and Other Alternatives,” Women’s Studies 33,4 (2004): 541–549.
251.
Spain Report, supra note 18, at 295.
252.
Id.
253.
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged) 1186, 1247 (2nd ed. 1982).
254.
Spain Report, supra note 18, at 295.
255.
France Report, supra note 166, at 130.
256.
Id.
257.
See Henry Capitant, Introduction à l’étude du droit civil: Notions générales (Paris: A. Pedone, 1898), 250–251.
258.
Code civil [C. civ.] Article 146 (Fr.) (“Il n’y a pas de mariage lorsqu’il n’y a point de consentement.”).
259.
For a brief account on the theory of the inexistence, see Ricardo Victor Guarinoni, “De lo que no hay. La Inexistencia Jurídica” Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho (Spain), Doxa N. 25, 2002. 637–653. Reference to the use of the theory of inexistence in the context of same sex marriage in Germany can be found in W. Müller-Freienfels, “Family Law and the Law of Succession in Germany,” International and Comparative Law Quaterly 16 (1967): 431.
260.
Spain Report, supra note 18, at 295.
261.
Italy Report, supra note 220, at 247, referring to Trib. Latina (Italy), 10th June 2005.
262.
Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 551.1 (2007) (emphasis added).
263.
Portugal Report, supra note 50, at 2.
264.
Id.
265.
For an overview of such arguments, see John M. Finnis, “Law, Morality, and “Sexual Orientation,”” Notre Dame Law Review 69 (1994), 1062–1063 (“At the heart of the Platonic–Aristotelian and later ancient philosophical rejections of all homosexual conduct, and thus of the modern “gay” ideology, are three fundamental theses: (1) The commitment of a man and woman to each other in the sexual union of marriage is intrinsically good and reasonable, and is incompatible with sexual relations outside marriage. (2) Homosexual acts are radically and peculiarly non-marital, and for that reason intrinsically unreasonable and unnatural. (3) Furthermore, according to Plato, if not Aristotle, homosexual acts have a special similarity to solitary masturbation, and both types of radically non-marital act are manifestly unworthy of the human being and immoral.”).
266.
France Report, supra note 166, at 138.
267.
Id.
268.
Egan v. Canada, (1995) 2 S.C.R. 515 (Can.). Professor Bureau states in the Canada Report that this argument was then abandoned in other decisions such as EGALE Canada Inc. v. Canada, (2003) 13 B.C.L.R.2d 1 (B.C. Ct. App.).
269.
Belgium Report, supra note 12, at 66–67.
270.
France Report, supra note 166, at 131.
271.
In medieval Europe, marriage was “an institution by which men were confirmed as the masters of their wives on religious and legal grounds. But it was also a union intended to provide for the well-being of both parties and eventually their children. At the peasant level marriage was largely an economic arrangement (…). A bride’s dowry consisting of money, goods, animals, or land was essential to the founding of a new household.” Marilyn Yalom, A History of the Wife (New York: HarperCollins 2001), 47.
272.
Portugal Report, supra note 50, at 2.
273.
Austria Report, supra note 127, at 3.
274.
Belgium report, supra note 12, at 69.
275.
Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 8 and 12, Nov. 4, 1950, E.T.S. No. 5, 213 U.N.T.S. 221.
276.
UK Report, supra note 79, at 331.
277.
Belgium Report, supra note 12, at 68.
278.
Id. at n.49.
279.
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged) 1926 (2nd ed. 1982).
280.
Australia Report, supra note 97, at 12.
281.
South Africa Report, supra note 35, at 280–81.
282.
Denmark Report, supra note 90, at 120; Austria Report, supra note 130, at 6–7.
283.
Germany Report, supra note 116, at 167.
284.
Hungary Report, supra note 144, at 212.
285.
Austria Report, supra note 127, at 7.
286.
UK Report, supra note 79, at 333; Australia Report, supra note 97, at 6–7.
287.
See Robert Rowthorn, “Marriage as a signal,” in The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce, ed. Anthony W. Dnes and Robert Rowthorn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 141.
288.
Romania Report, supra note 236, at 5.
289.
P.S. Atiyah and Robert S. Summers, Form and substance in Anglo-American law: a comparative study of legal reasoning, legal theory, and legal institutions, 5 (Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks, 1987).
290.
Id.
291.
Id. at 2.
292.
P.S. Atiyah, Essays on Contract 105 (Clarendon Paperbacks 1986).
293.
Id. at 107.
294.
Id.
295.
This is the case of Denmark. Denmark Report, supra note 90, at 118.
296.
Israel Report, supra note 151, at 19–20.
297.
Germany Report, supra note 116, at 173; see also Belgium Report, supra note 12.
298.
Schalk and Kopf, supra note 86, at 94.
299.
Id. at 105.
300.
Department of Justice of Canada, Discussion Paper, Marriage and Legal Recognition of Same Sex Unions, (November 2002), http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/mar/mar.pdf (last visited October 22, 2010).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Fellow in International Legal Studies, American University, Washington College of Law, Washington, DC, USA
Macarena Sáez

Authors

Macarena Sáez
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Macarena Sáez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Law School, George Washington University, H Street 2000, Washington, 20052, District of Columbia, USA
Karen B. Brown
Washington College of Law, American University, Massachusetts Ave. NW., 4801, Washington, 20016, District of Columbia, USA
David V. Snyder

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sáez, M. (2012). Same Sex Marriage. In: Brown, K., Snyder, D. (eds) General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2354-2_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2354-2_6
Published: 25 November 2011
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2353-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2354-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics