Suchergebnisse

In this Essay, I demonstrate that, with the extension of the right to marry to same-sex couples in Iowa, the District of Columbia, and New Hampshire (all states that recognize common law marriage), there now exists the possibility that—for the first time in the United States—a same-sex couple may enter into a legally recognized common law marriage. In the Essay, I first show, as a doctrinal matter, that same-sex couples have the right to enter into common law marriages in these three jurisdictions, and I explain and compare the criteria for entering into common law marriages in each of them. I then address the question whether it makes sense—as a policy matter—to expand the concept of common law marriage to include same-sex couples, including an analysis of whether being a closeted same-sex couple is consistent with being in a common law marriage. I conclude that the lack of consistent access to religious and public officials willing to perform same-sex marriages coupled with the libertarian spirit underlying both same-sex marriage and common law marriage militate in favor of recognizing common law same-sex marriages. I also demonstrate the advantages that common law marriage—with its lack of a paper trail—provides to same-sex couples who need to keep their relationships closeted, such as those in the military or foreign nationals with temporary visas. Finally, on the assumption that the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually hold that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, I examine the criteria for entering into common law marriages in the remaining nine states that recognize common law marriage. With respect to these remaining states—nearly all of which have bans on same-sex marriage enshrined into their state constitutions and that thus will allow same-sex marriage only if ordered to do so by a federal court—I conclude that the policy arguments in favor of recognizing same-sex common law marriage are even more compelling than they are in jurisdictions that currently recognize same-sex common law ...

This Chapter gives a brief analysis of the status of same-sex marriage in the United States prior to the US Supreme Court decisions of 2013 and the current status of litigation and political reforms triggered, in part by the court decisions. It shows that marriage is a central institution in the country's rationale of family law in ways that separate it from other Western countries that have allowed same-sex marriage. ; https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_bk_contributions/1165/thumbnail.jpg

In this Essay I would like to share some reflections on the politics of same-sex marriage politics. In a very short period of time, this issue has moved to the center of the gay and lesbian rights movement as well as larger mainstream political and legal debates. Some have even argued that this issue affected, if not determined, the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. This, I believe, is rather an overstatement, but I must concede that the issue has gained traction in ways that most of us would not have predicted five years ago. The states of Vermont and Connecticut have enacted Civil Union laws for same-sex couples, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts now allows both same and different sex couples to marry, and, in the last year, trial courts have found unconstitutional the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage in New York and California. Spain has now joined some of its fellow EU members in the Rhine Delta by allowing same-sex couples to marry, and the Constitutional Court of South Africa found that the South African Constitution requires that same-sex couples be permitted to marry on terms equal to those made available to different sex couples. At the same time, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the same-sex marriage law in California, courts in Arizona and Indiana rejected constitutional challenges to their marriage laws, an intermediate appellate court in New York reversed a trial court finding that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, and referenda barring same-sex marriage swept the country in 2004 and 2005 and will, no doubt, continue to do so in 2006. Forty-two states have enacted "little DOMAs," limiting the institution of marriage to one man and one woman. This issue, like so many others in American politics at the present moment, is highly polarized-rarely garnering moderate positions.

Populist discourse represents a singular 'people' against 'the elites'. To elucidate such discursive representation in Coalition of Happiness for Our Next Generation's (CHONG, 下一代幸福聯盟) Facebook posts against same-sex marriage (SSM) in Taiwan, this Interactional Sociolinguistic study integrates the 'stance triangle' (evaluation-positioning-alignment) and frame theory. Discourse analysis of texts and images on CHONG's Facebook page (2017-2019) demonstrates how CHONG transformed its anti-SSM stance into populist movements under democratic guise before and after the 2018 referendum. CHONG negatively evaluated SSM to position the government in opposition to 'the people' and deter SSM legislation. The 'referendum' is equated with 'the will of the people', thereby positioning the anti-SSM stance as 'democratically sanctioned'. Subsequently, the object of comment evaluations shifted from marriage-oriented to government-directed, indicating commenters' increasing alignment with CHONG's populist framing of SSM in legal terms. Findings contribute to theorizing online populist movements in Asia. ; Populist discourse represents a singular 'people' against 'the elites'. To elucidate such discursive representation in Coalition of Happiness for Our Next Generation's (CHONG, 下一代幸福聯盟) Facebook posts against same-sex marriage (SSM) in Taiwan, this Interactional Sociolinguistic study integrates the 'stance triangle' (evaluation-positioning-alignment) and frame theory. Discourse analysis of texts and images on CHONG's Facebook page (2017-2019) demonstrates how CHONG transformed its anti-SSM stance into populist movements under democratic guise before and after the 2018 referendum. CHONG negatively evaluated SSM to position the government in opposition to 'the people' and deter SSM legislation. The 'referendum' is equated with 'the will of the people', thereby positioning the anti-SSM stance as 'democratically sanctioned'. Subsequently, the object of comment evaluations shifted from marriage-oriented to government-directed, indicating commenters' increasing alignment with CHONG's populist framing of SSM in legal terms. Findings contribute to theorizing online populist movements in Asia.

This article argues that in the Marriage (Same Sex) Couples Act 2013 applicable in England and Wales should have included non-consummation as grounds for annulment and adultery as a fact of divorce. The absence of these two concepts is representative of a failure by law to fully accept the importance of equality. As such, the legislation will continue to perpetuate formal and substantive inequality resulting in the continued repression of women who marry women. This will have important ramifications for the citizenship of intimacy for such women to which rights, duties and obligations will attach. The legal ability of women who marry women to join the 'marriage club', as it is currently defined, will not queer or radically challenge marriage. Whilst it might have been 'easier' to abandon the concepts of consummation and adultery altogether, only widening the concepts of consummation and adultery to include same sex couples, would offer the potentiality to undertake a queering of marriage. To exclude these concepts risks perpetuating the idea that gay men and lesbians are not sexual beings. Given the heteropatriarchal nature of the concepts of adultery and consummation, this article specifically focuses upon how same sex marriage will affect women who marry women as opposed to what is commonly termed the LGBTQ community.

The saga which led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland offers some important lessons about the processes of law-making for that jurisdiction, together with broader lessons about how the European Convention on Human Rights could be applied in strategic litigation elsewhere. This commentary analyses four episodes in that saga. It begins by evaluating several failed attempts to achieve legalisation at the Northern Ireland Assembly, before considering two legal challenges which also failed in the High of Court of Northern Ireland. The developments which eventually led to legal change through the Parliament of the United Kingdom are assessed thereafter, followed by an appraisal of the most significant legal features in a set of judgments handed down by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland shortly afterwards. It is concluded, in particular, that lessons in connection with how petitions of concern are deployed in the devolved legislature, as well as lessons about how the prohibition on discrimination contained in Article 14 of the Convention has been interpreted, are deserving of wider circulation and appreciation among LGBT rights campaigners in Northern Ireland and beyond.

In this Essay I would like to share some reflections on the politics of same-sex marriage politics. In a very short period of time, this issue has moved to the center of the gay and lesbian rights movement as well as larger mainstream political and legal debates. Some have even argued that this issue affected, if not determined, the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. This, I believe, is rather an overstatement, but I must concede that the issue has gained traction in ways that most of us would not have predicted five years ago. The states of Vermont and Connecticut have enacted Civil Union laws for same-sex couples, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts now allows both same and different sex couples to marry, and, in the last year, trial courts have found unconstitutional the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage in New York and California. Spain has now joined some of its fellow EU members in the Rhine Delta by allowing same-sex couples to marry, and the Constitutional Court of South Africa found that the South African Constitution requires that same-sex couples be permitted to marry on terms equal to those made available to different sex couples. At the same time, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the same-sex marriage law in California, courts in Arizona and Indiana rejected constitutional challenges to their marriage laws, an intermediate appellate court in New York reversed a trial court finding that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, and referenda barring same-sex marriage swept the country in 2004 and 2005 and will, no doubt, continue to do so in 2006. Forty-two states have enacted "little DOMAs," limiting the institution of marriage to one man and one woman. This issue, like so many others in American politics at the present moment, is highly polarized – rarely garnering moderate positions. I would like to reflect on this dynamic political, moral, and legal moment – which, I fear, may have shifted again by the time you finish reading this Essay – by offering some thoughts about how and why this particular issue has emerged as the highest of priorities in the gay community, and what might be the costs of such a strategic choice. Just two years ago, in sweeping language, the U.S. Supreme Court found laws that criminalized same-sex sex unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. This decision has been widely referred to in the lesbian and gay legal community as "our Brown," referring to the landmark 1954 desegregation decision Brown v. Board of Education. By this, of course, it is meant that Lawrence would usher in a civil rights revolution for gay men and lesbians in a fashion equivalent to the civil rights movement inaugurated by Brown.

The summer of 2011 marked an important turning-point in the geography and politics of sex: public sex, previously a domain dominated by the specter of a hypersexualized gay man, became the province of the irresponsible, foolish, and self-destructive heterosexual man, such as Anthony Weiner. Meanwhile, homosexuals were busy domesticating their sexuality in the private domain of the family. Just as hetero-sex shamefully seeped out into the open, homo-sex disappeared from view into the dignified pickets of private kinship. In this essay I examine the panic that unfolded in connection with Representative Weiner's tweets as a kind of afterlife of homophobia; an afterlife that was not unrelated to the success of same-sex couples' demand for marriage equality rights.

Australia has achieved a high degree of equality between the treatment of same-sex and heterosexual relationships with marriage remaining the one significant area of difference. Executive summary Same-sex marriage has been on the political agenda in Australia for several years, as part of the broader debate about the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. While there has been a shift in community and political opinion, the issue of same-sex marriage remains complex and controversial. It has raised human rights and constitutional law issues, as well as a raft of social, religious, moral and political questions. The purpose of this Research Paper is to update a 2012 Parliamentary Library Background Note and to draw more widely on the extensive resources available on this subject. The paper covers a range of topics including: the views of the political parties constitutional issues and the 2013 High Court Same-sex marriage case. In that case the Court found the ACT same-sex marriage law was in conflict with the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 and therefore inoperative and 'of no effect'. Equally significantly, the Court resolved any doubts as to the scope of the 'marriage power' finding that the federal Parliament has the power to legislate about same-sex marriage a comparative analysis of the four private member Bills before the Parliament, introduced by Senator Hanson Young, Senator Leyonhjelm, Mr Shorten MP and a cross party Bill sponsored by Mr Entsch MP. All Bills are similar in that they insert a new identical definition of marriage into the Marriage Act encompassing unions of any two people regardless of sex, and repeal the existing ban on the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnised overseas. The Bills differ in style and substance in relation to the provisions dealing with exemptions for marriage celebrants who may have religious or conscience objections to solemnising gay marriages a short section comparing the differences between a plebiscite and a referendum, included in response to the recent ...

Both the United States and Australia have federal legislation, the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Amendment Act 2004, that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Australia has an express provision in its constitution granting Parliament the authority to pass laws on the subject of marriage. The United States, however, has no such constitutional provision. Consequently, Australia's express constitutional provision may lead the High Court of Australia to rule that the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 is constitutional, which would likely preclude Australia's states and territories from passing local same-sex marriage acts. This is fundamentally different than in the United States, where powers regarding marriage are reserved to the states. Therefore, even if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Defense of Marriage Act, laws that authorize same-sex marriage remain valid in states such as Massachusetts. Passing a law legalizing same-sex marriage in an Australian state, however, may force the issue before the High Court. A ruling upholding the constitutionality of the law may give Parliament the incentive to use its expressly granted constitutional authority to tighten restrictions on marriage and marriage-like entities even further. Therefore, same-sex proponents in Australia should approach the issue more gingerly than same-sex proponents in the United States. Instead of attempting to pass state same-sex marriage provisions and forcing a decision before the Australian High Court, supporters of commonwealth or state same-sex marriage laws should indirectly pressure Parliament to overturn the Marriage Amendment Act. In addition, they should continue to push for domestic-partnership protections at the state and commonwealth level.

We examine whether conservative politicians are less likely to support same-sex marriage when they run for office in safe districts using new data based on a roll-call vote in the national German parliament. The results show that the margin of the majority for the incumbent in the previous election was a strong predictor for supporting same-sex marriage. When the majority increased by one percentage point, the likelihood of voting in favour of same-sex marriage decreased by around 1.3 percentage points. We conjecture that politicians are election-motivated – even when submitting roll-call votes on a matter of conscience.

The present paper takes its point of departure from "McDonough's Logical Argument" (hereafter MLA) that "gays" have traditionally had the same marital rights as "straights", namely to marry one eligible person of the opposite gender. The present paper argues that, although it might not seem so at first glance, MLA is consistent with full legal rights being accorded to "Same Sex Marriage" (SSM). That is, MLA takes no stand on the substantive issue whether SSM should be legalized, but is merely an attempt to make a purely logical point about the "individuation" (the precise specification) of the right to marry. An illuminating social science fiction example is provided to show that MLA is neutral on the legalization of SSM. The paper argues that philosophical argument per se is largely impotent on these kinds of issues, and that the justification for legalizing SSM is to be found, rather, in the democratic process.

The fact of Argentina being one of the first countries to legalize gay marriage has been studied all over the world. A not-so-mentioned cause is that, according to survey data, discriminatory attitudes towards homosexual people decreased noticeable in Argentina since the restoration of democracy in 1983. The evolution of these attitudes, considered as a key indicator of the value of tolerance in any society, suggests that at least some central components of political culture may change as a product of democratic exercise and not only of economic modernization. The article also revises the attitudes towards people suffering from AIDS and people with criminal records. ; Facultad de Periodismo y Comunicación Social

Sexual minorities have had worse than average mental health, which may have to do with actual or perceived discrimination. Same-sex marriage legalization (SSML) is a typical anti-discrimination policy removing marital restrictions for sexual minorities. We study how this legislation affected mental health of sexual minorities in the Netherlands. Conducting a difference-in-differences analysis, we compare changes in mental health following the legalization between sexual minorities and heterosexuals. We find that SSML improved mental health of both married and non-married sexual minorities, which implies that marriage is not the only channel. Examinations of alternative mechanisms combined with literature suggest that the legislation may also take effect by improving societal tolerance as well as stabilizing partnerships and enriching the choice basket of partnership forms for sexual minorities.

Research in advanced industrialized democracies on social attitudes toward same-sex marriage suggests that intergroup social contact and positive media coverage play an important role in promoting tolerance and support for same-sex marriage. Using AmericasBarometer survey data for eighteen countries in 2010, 2012, and 2014, this article examines the ways in which individual-level Internet use interacts with news exposure, country-level quality of democracy, Internet penetration, and their association with support for same-sex marriage. The results suggest that not only is Internet use associated with greater support for same-sex marriage, but that among those who both use the Internet and pay more attention to the news, the positive effects are amplified. In addition, national level of democracy, economic development, and Internet use are also associated with overall higher probabilities of supporting same-sex marriage. We find that Internet use has a strong positive association with the probability of supporting same-sex marriage as the percentage of the national population on the Internet increases. These findings extend our understanding of social and political tolerance of same-sex marriage in Latin America.Investigación en países industrializados sugiere que el contacto entre grupos sociales y la cobertura positiva de los mismos en medios de comunicación juegan un papel importante en la promoción de tolerancia y en aumentar apoyo al matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. Basándonos en las encuestas del AmericasBarometer de 2010, 2012 y 2014, este artículo examina cómo el uso de la Internet interactúa con el consumo de noticias, la calidad de la democracia en el país, el grado nacional de penetración de la Internet, y su asociación con mayor apoyo al matrimonio igualitario. Estos resultados sugieren que no solamente existe una asociación entre el uso de la Internet y apoyo al matrimonio igualitario, pero que esta asociación amplifica los efectos positivos entre las personas que usan la Internet y prestan atención a las noticias. Además, la calidad de la democracia al nivel nacional, niveles de desarrollo económico, así como el uso de la Internet están también asociados con probabilidades mayores de apoyo. Encontramos que existe una fuerte asociación positiva entre el uso de la Internet y probabilidades de mayor apoyo conforme aumenta el porcentaje de la población con acceso a la Internet.