Recognition Of Same-sex Relationships Research Articles

‘Dogs Are “Registered”, People Shouldn’t Be’: Legal Consciousness and Lesbian and Gay Rights

In this article I examine lesbians’ and gay men’s attitudes towards the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, using the theoretical framework of legal consciousness. I first provide a brief overview of the legal consciousness literature, before outlining some of the critiques of legal consciousness. Lesbian and gay legal consciousness is then examined through an analysis of qualitative responses to a large-scale online study of perceptions of and attitudes towards same-sex marriage and the legal recognition or regulation of same-sex relationships. Responses are analysed using thematic analysis to elaborate on five main themes within these data: formal equality, the relationship between legal and social change, the naming of legally recognized same-sex relationships, human rights discourse and citizenship claims. I argue that legal consciousness studies can help to interrogate the pervasiveness of discourses around formal equality and discrimination in the ways in which lesbians and gay men think about, use and position themselves in relation to law.

Same-Sex Marriage: The Cultural Politics of Love and Law. By Kathleen E. Hull. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. 294 pages. $75.00 cloth; $29.99 paper.

Same-Sex Marriage: The Cultural Politics of Love and Law. By Kathleen E. Hull. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. 294 pages. $75.00 cloth; $29.99 paper. Same-sex couples today rely on a variety of cultural practices to define their relationships as marriages-from public commitment rituals to private ring exchanges to the use of marriage-related terminology to refer to their partners or relationships. Such practices suggest that many same-sex couples embrace the cultural aspects of marriage even when they cannot obtain the legal status and benefits derived from state recognition. Drawing on data from interviews with more than 70 gays and lesbians in committed relationships, as well as participant-observation of commitment rituals and content analysis of public debates over same-sex marriage in Hawaii and Vermont, Hull provides a compelling analysis of how gays and lesbians understand the relationship between the cultural and legal dimensions of marriage. The book makes two main arguments. First, Hull argues that the case of same-sex marriage highlights law's distinctive cultural power, beyond its capacity to deliver specific rights and protections to individual citizens. In explaining their support for legal recognition of same-sex relationships, virtually all of the gays and lesbians in her study cited the practical benefits of legal marriage-access to health insurance or Social security benefits, tax benefits, and decisionmaking authority in hospitals. But many participants also spoke of the cultural legitimacy that legal marriage would bring to same-sex relationships, articulating the belief that equal legal treatment of their relationships would lead to greater social acceptance of gays and lesbians. Comparing these justifications for legal recognition with the arguments made in public debates over same-sex marriage, Hull makes the striking observation that same-sex couples' interest in the symbolic benefits of legal recognition was better represented in the public discourse of opponents than of supporters of same-sex marriage. Public advocates for same-sex marriage relied heavily on the rhetoric of rights and equality but frequently downplayed the cultural legitimacy effects of legal recognition. By contrast, opponents of legal recognition viewed the relationship between law and culture as obvious - indeed, it was precisely the cultural legitimacy conferred by legal recognition that they feared. In this sense, Hull finds an ironic parallel between the views of public opponents of same-sex marriage and those gays and lesbians who sought legalized marriage for its legitimating effects: both groups viewed the cultural message of state recognition as one of inclusion and acceptance, and while opponents acknowledged and feared this legitimacy effect, many gays and lesbians actively pursued it. That Hull's participants believed in law's perceived symbolic power to legitimize, normali/e, and equalize same-sex relationships is not in itself a novel rinding. This assumed causal relationship between official law and broader social transformation lies at the heart of Scheingold's 1974 articulation of the myth of rights. But where some sociolegal scholars have argued that the cultural belief in the power of rights is something that can be mobilized as a political resource in social reform efforts, Hull's findings suggest that in the case of same-sex marriage, rights discourse alone-stripped of substantive arguments for marriage as a moral or social good-fails to fully resonate with many gays and lesbians. …

United Kingdom: Sisters and inheritance tax

Joyce and Sybil Burden are two sisters who have lived together since birth and currently occupy a UK farmhouse. When one of them dies the other will face a large inheritance tax bill and will have to sell the house to meet the cost. The sisters, Joyce, aged 88, and Sybil, aged 80, want the law changed so that cohabiting siblings have the same rights as married couples, which exempts the surviving half from inheritance duty. After the Civil Partnership Act 2004 granted the same rights to gay and lesbian couples as applied to married couples but not to cohabiting family members, they decided to act. The sisters’ situation is relevant to the use of trusts for holding shared accommodation. Their case was due to be heard before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on 12 September 2006. Julian Washington, private client partner with Mayfair law firm, Forsters LLP, commenting on the situation, writes: This issue was raised during the passage of the civil partnership legislation through Parliament. A number of opposition peers tried to amend the Civil Partnership Bill (as it then was) in the House of Lords to extend the privileged tax treatment of civil partners and spouses to carers and other relatives who live together. The ‘elderly spinster sisters’ is the oft-quoted exemplar of cohabitants who do not qualify for any special tax treatment and who, as a result, may face difficulties when one of them dies. The House of Lords amendments were rightly voted out of the Civil Partnership Bill (because this is a quiet different issue from the legal recognition of same-sex relationships) but, at the time, the Government said it would look at the position of cohabitants like the Burden sisters. In fact, on 31st May the Law Commission published its consultation paper ‘Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown’. This paper specifically excludes blood relatives and carers, concentrating on the position of what are colloquially known as ‘common law’ spouses. In other words, there are no signs of any progress for people like Joyce and Sybil Burden. The only comfort for them may be that the existing law allows inheritance tax attributable to houses and land to be paid in ten annual instalments (plus interest). By contrast, the tax attributable to other assets has to be paid at the time of probate.

Losing the Feminist Voice? Debates on The Legal Recognition of Same Sex Partnerships in Canada

Over the last decade, legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Canada has accelerated. By and large, same-sex cohabitants are now recognised in the same manner as opposite-sex cohabitants, and same-sex marriage was legalised in 2005. Without diminishing the struggle that lesbians and gay men have endured to secure this somewhat revolutionary legal recognition, this article troubles its narrative of progress. In particular, we investigate the terms on which recent legal struggles have advanced, as well as the ways in which resistance to the legal recognition has been expressed and dealt with. We argue that to the extent that feminist critiques of marriage, familial ideology, and the privatisation of economic responsibility are marginalised, conservative and heteronormative discourses on marriage and family are reinforced. Our case studies include two pivotal moments in the quest for legislative recognition of same-sex relationships: the Hearings of the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-23, The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in 2000 and the hearings on Same-Sex Marriage in 2003. We find that the debates operated within a narrow paradigm that bolstered many existing hierarchies and exacerbated conditions for those who are economically disadvantaged.

Sexual Citizenship and the Civil Union Act 2004

This article analyses the parliamentary debates on the Civil Union Act 2004, which provides for legal recognition of same sex relationships, for stories of national identity. A close reading of the parliamentary debates on the Act suggests that although the supporters and opponents of the legislation seemed to be worlds apart, many told similar stories about New Zealand as a nation, and citizens within that nation, emphasising similar values and aspirations. Both sides told stories of citizens, of New Zealanders, as tolerant and fair, as forwarding-looking progressives who value stable long-term, committed relationships, warm loving communities for children, and strong families and family relationships. Both sides generally saw marriage as a positive institution, a cornerstone of society and a building block for society and the nation. While some talked of existing alternatives to marriage, such as de facto relationships, and there was some recognition that not all marriages are good ones, with a few notable exceptions, there was little mention of critiques of marriage as an institution and little or no positive mention of relationships outside of the paradigm of long-term committed, monogamous relationships. Further, while there were arguments, reflecting a privatisation paradigm, that the Civil Union Act 2004 was not necessary since the rights and duties of same sex couples could be structured using the private law of contract and trusts (a claim that was debated), there was no suggestion that state recognition of marriage should be abolished, or that long-term heterosexual relationships should be structured through private law.

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective.

Whether and how civil society should recognize committed relationships between same-sex partners has become a prominent, often divisive, policy issue. The present article reviews relevant behavioral and social science research to assess the validity of key factual claims in this debate. The data indicate that same-sex and heterosexual relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to her or his ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. It is concluded that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships. Trends in public opinion toward greater support for legal recognition of same-sex couples are discussed.

Employer Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States: Legal and Economic Implications

Recognition of same-sex relationships is receiving increasing national attention in the United States. This paper discusses the current availability of employee rights in the United States on the basis of marital status to same-sex couples, and both the direct and indirect economic consequences to organizations of providing such rights. Despite legal recognition in some states and by many employers in the private sector, the availability of marital rights in the workplace for same-sex couples remains tenuous, at most. Although the direct economic consequences of same-sex relationships remain a matter of debate, the indirect economic advantages are several, including being an employer of choice and having a favorable reputation in the consumer, stockholder, and applicant marketplace. Employers should counterbalance indirect economic benefits with opposition to same-sex relationships, including product boycotts. The issue cannot be ignored from a legal or economic perspective.

‘Kerryn and Jackie’

This article claims that the recent sustained publicity of high profile lesbian marriage partners Kerryn Phelps and Jackie Stricker both breaks new ground and is continuous with a long history of female-female coupled relationships in Australia. It places the Phelps/Stricker relationship in the context of recent political campaigns for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, a history of female-female couples and, finally, a history of other disallowed relationships and marriages in Australia. It argues that dominant definitions of marriage depend on the exclusion of these other forms that should not be assessed in the terms of legal heterosexual marriage.

Being Gay

AbstractThe article provides an overview of gay identity politics today. It begins with an introduction to the historical trajectory of the post-1945 period, and then turns to the challenges posed by queer politics and theory to gay identity politics. The related issue of the globalization of being gay is then considered, in terms of the universalizing of identity politics. Finally, the ramifications for gay identity politics of the political and legal recognition of same-sex relationships are discussed, leading to the obvious final question: whether being gay will continue to have a political logic in the years ahead.

Migration of the Same-Sex Family

Although some opponents of decriminalization or legal recognition of same-sex relationships have strategically cast homosexuality as a non-indigenous practice of an invasive external group, same-sex relationships are native to every country. What varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and across time is the legal treatment of such relationships. At various times and places, the law has constructed same-sex relationships as accepted or even expected associations, as criminal activity, as pathological behavior, and, more recently, as families. The legal construction of same-sex relationships does not determine but does affect the experience and behaviors of parties in such relationships. Popular culture and modern information technology have efficiently circulated around the world stories and information about the expansion of the family law regime to include same-sex relationships. Information about foreign laws is also collected in a formal way by law reformers, who routinely undertake comparative analysis to see how other countries, or at least those within their own legal tradition, deal with particular issues. For example, countries dealing with the elimination of discrimination against same-sex couples or with family regulation may look to The Netherlands, the first country to open up civil marriage to same-sex couples, as an example of one law reform possibility. Adoption of the legally constructed same-sex family developed abroad may result from proactive government efforts, when governments resist such reforms, advocates fighting for the importation of the new species of legally constructed family may invoke foreign models in support of their cause. For example, advocates for the opening up of civil marriage to same-sex couples can point to The Netherlands to counter the argument that the definition of marriage as a union for life of one man and one woman is universally accepted by society. Popular culture, information technology and comparative law analysis spread the news of the legally constructed same-sex family very quickly and may support law reform efforts in other countries. Another important driver of the migration of the same-sex family is the movement of people between countries that have different definitions of family. Movement between countries with different legal constructions of the family raises questions about the portability of connected to particular constructions of the family. The portability of these goods can be considered in the context of the opening up of civil marriage to same-sex couples.

A Recipe for Recognition of Same Sex Relationships

A Recipe for Recognition of Same Sex Relationships

Family Values: The Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in International Law

There are currently no international human rights treaties in force that explicitly provide for the recognition and protection of same-sex relationships. The ‘family’ that is safeguarded under human rights treaties has been consistently defined in a heterosexual way. The consequence of non-recognition of same-sex relationships is a considerable degree of suffering and discrimination. This article questions whether it is justifiable for the international law of human rights to deny its protection to those people in same-sex relationships. It points in particular to recent developments that have taken place in many countries towards offering these relationships legal recognition. This article concludes that, given its commitment to equality and tolerance, international human rights law's failure to recognise same-sex relationships is increasingly untenable.

Controversy Over Couples in Canada: The Evolution of Marriage and Other Adult Interdependent Relationships

The issue of how to recognize different types of intimate adult relationships remains a source of controversy in Canada. In this paper, the author surveys the evolution of the current debate surrounding four types of intimate adult relationships that fall outside the traditional definition of marriage: common-law marriage, same-sex partnerships, polygamy, and non-conjugal interdependent relationships. The author begins by examining how Canadian legislatures began in the 1970s to grant spousal rights for a variety of purposes to opposite-sex partners who cohabited in conjugal relationships, and the courts began to recognize property claims using the constructive trust. In Miron v. Trudel (1995), the Supreme Court of Canada held that the failure to grant certain spousal rights to a common-law partner violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the Court held in Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh (2002) that it is not discriminatory to deny opposite-sex partners statutory marital property rights, since they have chosen not to marry. While Walsh appears inconsistent with Miron and is unfair to women, it reflects a desire to give marriage a unique and privileged status, and to recognize that a different legal regime may govern those who choose to live together without marrying.The greatest controversy now concerns the recognition of same-sex relationships. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in M. v. H. (1999) that the failure to give same-sex partners the same rights as opposite-sex unmarried partners violates the Charter. Two appellate courts have recently held that to deny same-sex partners the right to marry violates their human dignity and is therefore unconstitutional. The federal government has formulated a Draft Bill that would give same-sex couples the right to marry, and has made a reference to the Supreme Court asking, among other questions, whether the Bill is consistent with the Charter. The author argues that to deny same-sex partners the right to marry violates the Charter. While judicial activism in this area has been criticized, the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples would represent a failure to respect the rights of a discrete and insular minority. Courts have now made same-sex marriage legal in two provinces, and it seems inevitable that it will soon be recognized everywhere in Canada.Opponents claim that this trend could lead to the legal recognition of polygamous relationships, but the author rejects this argument. As for non-conjugal relationships, the Law Commission of Canada (2001) recommended legal recognition of a range of such relationships. The author argues that there are contexts in which this is appropriate, but that conjugality should remain a central legal concept for determining rights and obligations.

Marriage and same-sex unions: a debate

This book exemplifies the high quality of thoughtful discussion and debate that is possible on the issue of same-sex marriage. Authors are paired to address and respond to a particular topic, one in favor of state recognition of same-sex relationships, and one in favor of limiting state recognition to those relationships that have been traditionally recognized as marriages. Proposals to legalize same-sex marriage evoke strong response from those on both sides of the debate. Much has been written about the legal policy issues over the legal recognition of same-sex unions in the United States, yet there has been little dialogue and exchange between participants in the debate. This book attempts to open that dialogue, and to exemplify the high quality of thoughtful discussion and debate that is possible. Authors are paired to address and respond to a particular topic, one in favor of state recognition of same-sex relationships and one in favor of limiting state recognition to those relationships that have been traditionally recognized as marriages. This ideal introduction is designed to lead the reader through the relevant issues, progressing from the general to the particular. Debates are contextualized, offering comparative, historical, and family-policy perspectives, asking fundamental questions such as what is the purpose of a family, and what interests, if any, that state has in promoting a particular type of family over others. Issues of jurisprudence and political philosophy are examined, addressing the public benefits of marriage and equal treatment before the law, among other items. The constitutionality of same-sex marriage or domestic partnership policies is explored. Finally, this book covers the broad implications when states-such as Vermont-legally recognize same-sex unions, and the impact of international recognition of same-sex marriage rights.

The Defense of Marriage Act and American Exceptionalism: The "Gay Marriage" Panic in the United States

SINCE 1995, when Utah passed the first law of its kind, thirty-seven states and the federal government have moved rapidly to legislate bans against something that does not, in fact, exist in the United States, namely, "gay marriage." 1 Termed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal level, the speed and success of the passage of this law and the "mini-DOMAs" at the state level show many of the earmarks of a moral panic, especially when swept into law through referenda. What is especially noteworthy about this American trend is the degree to which it is exceptional on the world scene. At a time when the legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships has been proceeding apace in advanced industrial nations around the world (most notably, in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Canada, Germany, and Hungary and partially or locally in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), the efforts of U.S. legislators to prohibit legal recognition demand explanation. 2 While none of these countries introduced full legal recognition of same-sex relationships all at once, and few have granted the full range of [End Page 259] rights and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual relationships, legal reform has steadily become more comprehensive in sociopolitical environments that lack comparable DOMA-style countermobilizations.

Gender Gaps in Public Opinion about Lesbians and Gay Men

Using data from a 1999 national RDD survey (N = 1,335), this article examines gender gaps in heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and a variety of topics related to homosexuality. Attitudes toward lesbians differed from attitudes toward gay men in several areas, and significant differences were observed between male and female heterosexual respondents. Survey participants generally were more likely to regard gay men as mentally ill, supported adoption rights for lesbians more than for gay men, and had more negative personal reactions to gay men than to lesbians. Overall, heterosexual women were more supportive than men of employment protection and adoption rights for gay people, more willing to extend employee benefits to same-sex couples, and less likely to hold stereotypical beliefs about gay people. Heterosexual men's negative reactions to gay men were at the root of these gender differences. Of all respondent-by-target combinations, heterosexual men were the least supportive of recognition of same-sex relationships and adoption rights for gay men, most likely to believe that gay men are mentally ill and molest children, and most negative in their affective reactions to gay men. Heterosexual men's response patterns were affected by item order, suggesting possible gender differences in the cognitive organization of attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. The findings demonstrate the importance of differentiating lesbians from gay men as attitude targets in survey research

We are Family (Sometimes): Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships after Fitzpatrick

Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association is offundamental importance as thefirst time that the House of Lords has held that a same-sex couple can he a “family” for certain legal purposes. It consigns the concept of a “pretended family relationship” to the dustbin of history and is one of a line of important decisions from supreme courts around the world which, in different ways, are developing the law in the same direction. This article analyses Fitzpatrick and explores how it relates to international developments in discrimination law. It also identifies Scottish statutes which may now be accessible by same-sex couples in this jurisdiction and explores how similar foreign statutes are already accessible by such couples.

Same-Sex Marriages, Conflict of Laws and Public Policy -- a Modern Commentary

The article is concerned with the policy implications of the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. It is represented by an extrapolation from the decision of Chang J. of the Hawaii Circuit Court in Baehr and Others v. Miike as well as a consideration of the reaction to that case in the United States and of the literature surrounding the policy issues generated by the issue at large in Australia and elsewhere.