Suchergebnisse

This paper aims to provide an overview of the legal regulation of same sex couples in Spain and Catalonia. It will present how regulations have evolved, from legal disregard of same sex couples to the admission of same sex marriages by the Spanish Law in 2005, upheld by the Spanish Constitutional Court. Reference will be made to Catalan law, as it provided the first comprehensive regulation on same-sex cohabitation. And finally, it will highlight some challenges still faced by same sex couples, as regards assisted reproduction.

When marriages fail, access to judicial divorce is crucial, and typically readily available. When faced with petitions for divorce from same‐sex couples, however, courts in states with Defense of Marriage Acts (DoMAs) are flummoxed; indeed, more often than not, courts in DoMA states refuse access to divorce to same‐sex couples. In this essay, we demonstrate that the courts are wrong. First, the denial of access to divorce is bad policy because it traps couples in defunct relationships and leaves families in a sort of legal limbo—married in some jurisdictions, not married in others, and unable to achieve the finality of divorce. Second, it is constitutionally suspect because the denial of access to divorce violates principles of substantive due process and constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under established equal protection jurisprudence. Finally, the denial of same‐sex divorce is premised on an unnecessarily narrow view of judicial power. State courts, even in DoMA states, have the power to hear and decide divorce petitions—same‐sex or not. In addition, this essay articulates various paths to obtaining same‐sex divorce in DoMA states.Key Points for the Family Court Community:
State courts' refusals to grant a same‐sex divorce is a violation of the petitioners' federal constitutional rights State courts have subject‐matter jurisdiction over same‐sex divorce—even in states with DoMAs that prohibit the court from recognizing same‐sex marriage.
State courts have the power to grant a same‐sex divorce—even in states with DoMAs that prohibit the court from recognizing same‐sex marriage.
State courts can grant a same‐sex divorce by applying their own divorce statutes; by applying the divorce statutes of the marrying state; or through their equitable powers—even in states with DoMAs that prohibit the court from recognizing same‐sex marriage.

This article builds a bridge between research on the queer economy and that on the mixed economy of welfare by developing the 'queer economy of welfare mix' framework. While the two fields are related, there is a lack of discussion about the queer dimensions of the mixed economy of welfare or the mixed strategies employed by lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals to explore the benefits and limitations of the queer economy. The purpose of our framework is to show how local and transnational goods provided by the mixed economy of welfare can enable LGBTQ+ individuals to organise their welfare through the mixed strategies – citizen strategy, consumer strategy, and consumer-citizen strategy. By examining Taiwan's legalised same-sex marriage and its impact on Hong Kong and Mainland China, we demonstrate the empirical significance of the framework, which serves as an analytical tool for examining the government's role in promoting LGBTQ+ individuals' welfare and the challenges involved.

Abstract
The study of international relations by definition deals with interdependencies among countries. One form of interdependence between countries is the diffusion of country-level features, such as policies, political regimes, or conflict. In these studies, the outcome variable tends to be categorical, and the primary concern is the clustering of the outcome variable among connected countries. Statistically, such clustering is studied with spatial econometric models. This article instead proposes the use of a statistical network approach to model diffusion with a binary outcome variable. Using a statistical network instead of spatial econometric models allows for modeling autocorrelation in policy outcomes rather than the corresponding latent variable, and it simplifies the inclusion of temporal dynamics, higher level interdependencies, and interactions between network ties and country-level features. In our simulations, the performance of the Stochastic Actor-Oriented Model (SAOM) estimator is evaluated. Our simulation results show that spatial parameters and coefficients on additional covariates in a static binary spatial autoregressive model are accurately recovered when using SAOM. To demonstrate this model, the paper applies SAOM to original data on the international diffusion of same-sex marriage and gives practical instructions for using such models.

AbstractThis article explores the public discussion in the media where a group of religious activists who call themselves rainbow pastors are constructed as a legitimate actor in terms of the same-sex marriage debate within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (ELCF). Same-sex marriage was legalized in Finland in March 2017. The majority of the population and members of the ELCF support same-sex couples' right to marry. However, it is not officially approved within the ELCF, which causes polarization. This study draws on a neo-institutionalist framework of epistemic governance to identify the discursive representations and justifications presented in the media. The activists aimed to convince the church decision-makers and general public of the need for institutional change regarding the religious understanding of marriage while the media pushed its own agenda. The data for this study consist of news articles in which the issue of the ELCF and same-sex marriage was discussed. Four discursive representations were identified: contesting the authority of the ELCF, creating heroic narratives, drawing on common moral principles, and normalizing same-sex marriage. The findings show that the debate also turned into a battle over authority, in which the rainbow pastors challenged the official power structures of the ELCF.

On November 4, 2008 California voters passed Proposition 8, and accordingly same-sex marriage was banned under the state constitution. Proposition 8 is now being considered by the Supreme Court. The proposition has sparked national debate about the nature of the relationship between the state and citizens' sexuality and corresponding rights; calling into question the practice of allocating rights and privileges on the basis of sexuality and family form. Proponents of the proposition, who can be classified as predominantly socially conservative, want to maintain the status and privileges of marriage for heterosexuals; arguing that allowing same-sex marriage threatens the legitimacy, sanctity and strength of traditional heterosexual marriage. This article examines the extent to which three Californian pro-same-sex marriage organizations (Equality California, Join the Impact, and the Courage Campaign) have challenged and/or appropriated social conservative and neoliberal discourses in their effort to gain access to the rights and privileges that are currently administered through marriage.