Legal Marriage Report Global Status of Legal Marriage by Demian © May 2, 2008, Demian     Introduction     Types of Legal Recognition     Legal Status by Country     Legal Status for the U.S.     Further Resources ———— Introduction —————— Whether the gay and lesbian community wants it or not, legal marriage for same-sex couples has become a leading issue throughout the United States and in many other parts of the world. Even though legal marriage is only a reality in the U.S. in Massachusetts, the efforts of many U.S. states to resist recognizing out-of-state marriage licenses has taken an unprecedented amount of legislative time and energy. This has become a priority, even as far more pressing bills on the economy, debt, environment, food and product safety, energy, security, poverty, hunger, health care, emergency response, crime, finance reform, and an illegal war have languished.       [See our article: State Legislative Reactions to Suits for Same-Sex Marriage] These anti-gay efforts have been instigated and funded by right-wing, radical, religious organizations who have helped place their adherents in many public offices. Their stated goal is to change America into a Bible-based nation, a theocracy. They have chosen to interpret their Biblical mission as one of purging, rather than inclusion and love. Since the 80s, when domestic partner benefits first came into being, the religious extremists have lambasted such benefits as a stepping stone toward same-sex marriage, which they declare as a symptom of a crumbling civilization. They also claim, inexplicably, that recognizing same-sex marriages will somehow mock, demean, or destroy their opposite-sex marriages. It is unclear how the anti-marriage bans in many states would stand up under legal challenge from same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts and Canada, for instance. Marriages, like other legal contracts, executed in one state are generally recognized in all other states as required by the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution. Despite this fundamental legal principle, some states refused to recognize interracial marriages from other states until the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Loving v. Virginia, in 1967. Gay and lesbian couples may face a similarly long and costly battle. It is also unclear if the U.S. would be willing to create bad relations with other countries by not recognizing the legal marriages of same-sex couples as these marriages become even more widely available in other parts of the world. Because of the influence of the religious extremists, we fully expect to see legal battles regarding recognition of out-of-state marriage licenses in every state — even as great strides in legal recognition of same-sex relationships are made in many state courts and in many other countries. ———— Types of Legal Recognition —————— Legal Marriage The Netherlands is the first nation in the world to offer legal marriage for same-sex couples. On December 19, 2000, the Dutch legislature made a law allowing same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license. It also allows those who have already signed up as domestic partners (which has restrictions regarding adoption) to convert them to full, legal marriage status. Only citizens and legal residents of the Netherlands will be able to marry there. The law took effect in April 1, 2001.       [Please see our article: Netherlands Offers Legal Marriage] Belgium is the second nation in the world to offer legal marriage for same-sex couples. On January 30, 2003, the Belgium legislature made a law allowing same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license.       [Please see: Belgium Offers Legal Marriage] Canada became the third nation to offer legal marriage. On June 28, 2005, the Canadian federal system allowed legal marriage by parliamentary vote. The Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland (includes Labrador), Nova Scotia, Ontario, Québec, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon Territory all offered legal marriage for same-sex couples before the Canadian government voted for it. Unlike the Netherlands and Belgium, it was high court interpretations of the Canadian Constitution that brought about removal of the ban in the provinces.       [See our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage] Massachusetts became the first American state to offer legal marriage on May 17, 2004. While a fully legal marriage licenses, it remains to be seen if other states will honor it. The U.S. federal system, most definitely will not. Marriage here was the result of a suit — Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health       [Please see: Legal Marriage Court Cases — A Timeline]       [Please see: Massachusetts Offers Legal Marriage] On June 29, 2005, Spain became the fourth nation in the world to offer legal marriage to same-sex couples. Marriage in Spain was the result of a campaign promise made by the ruling Socialists’ as part of their aggressive agenda for social reform.       [See: Spain Offers Legal Marriage] On December 1, 2005, South Africa became the fifth nation in the world to offer legal marriage to same-sex couples. The court gave a year for Parlaiment to conform the laws.       [Please see: South Africa Offers Legal Marriage] Registered Partnerships Same-sex citizens in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greenland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden can sign a “Registered Partners” document to claim a status and benefits similar to marriage. By July 1995, about 3,000 gay and lesbian couples had registered in Denmark since it first became possible in October 1989.       [See our article: Scandinavia: Registered Partnership] Czech Republic lawmakers proposed similar laws, in February 2006, however the president vetoed them. on March 15, 2006, “Registered Partnership Bill” finally became law in the Czech Republic. It became effective in July 2006.       [See: Czech Republic: Registered Partnership Bill Spain had a registry in place, however, in June 2005 opted for full legal marriage.       [See: Spain Offers Legal Marriage] Civil Solidarity Pact While not the same as legal marriage, France offers “Civil solidarity pacts”. These provide far more than just symbolic significance, offering some of the tax, welfare, and inheritance rights that married couples enjoy. Registered couples are able to share such things as joint auto insurance, extend their social security coverage to each other, file joint tax returns, and leave each other property in their wills on favorable tax terms.       [See: Civil Solidarity Pact] Cohabitation Union Law On January 1, 2008, Uruguay became the first Latin American country to allow a legal status for same-sex couples. Called “Cohabitation Union Law,” it covers both same- and opposite-sex sex partner who have lived together for five years to receive the same benefits and responsibilities as legal marriage. Common-Law Marriage Common-law marriage is only available in certain states in the United States and has never applied to same-sex couples. It allows for some marriage law to apply to opposite-sex couples who have lived together a certain length of time. The exact laws that apply — and the time necessary to trigger common-law status — vary by state.       [Please see our article: Common-Law Marriage States] Courts outside of the U.S. have periodically used their country’s common-law marriage status to allow certain domestic partner benefits apply to same-sex couples, most notably in Canada (see below). Registrations Many cities in France, Spain, The Netherlands and the U.S. offer registration for same-sex couples. In most cases, the registration carries little or no legal weight or benefits.       [See: Registration for Domestic Partnership] European Union European Union parliament adopted a resolution, on March 16, 2000, urging the 15 EU nations to grant same-sex couples rights equal to those of opposite-sex couples. The non-binding recommendation was included in a human rights report. The resolution stated that EU nations should “guarantee one-parent families, unmarried couples and same-sex couples rights equal to those enjoyed by traditional couples and families, particularly as regards tax law, pecuniary rights and social rights.” It noted that “European citizens continue to suffer discrimination and disadvantages in their personal and professional life as a result of their sexual orientation,” despite specific references in the EU’s basic treaty against such discrimination. Some EU nations, including Denmark, Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands, already grant legal recognition to couples regardless of biological sex. Britain has amended its laws to allow homosexuals to follow military careers. Further, Belgium and the Netherlands offer full legal marriage to same-sex couples. The parliament said it “deplores the fact that some Member States still have a discriminatory age-of-consent provision for homosexual relations in their criminal codes as well as other forms of discrimination, in particular within the army.” The report also called on the 13 nations currently applying for EU membership to ensure equal rights for homosexuals. On January 17, 2003, the European Parliament approved a report asking the 15 member states to give live-in couples, including homosexuals, the same legal rights that marriages enjoy. However, the final vote on amendments to the annual report on rights in the European Union rejected an article urging member states “to permit marriage between persons of the same sex.” The final amended report was approved 277 to 269, with 14 abstentions. The vote isn’t binding on members, but rather constitutes a legal point of reference for them. A vote on February 11, 2003, by the European Union Parliament at Strasbourg, France, called for a recognition of same-sex marriage rights throughout Europe. It also called for the legal acceptance of partnership unions by those same-sex couples who want recognition without actually having a legal marriage. While opposite-sex marriage is recognized throughout the E.U., same-sex relationship laws are different from country-to-country, and are not portable. The E.U. member states are now required to adapt to the stance of it’s Parliament, which is expected to be a lengthy process. During the week of September 22, 2003, EU ministers endorsed a proposed set of rules ensuring that same-sex married couples from the Netherlands and Belgium — the only countries where such unions were legal at that time — are recognized across the EU by countries whose own gay and lesbian populations are still far from receiving the same recognition. Under the new rules, which have yet to be made EU law, gay and lesbian EU citizens and their families will be able to move freely around the EU and obtain permanent residence in any EU state once they have been resident there for at least five years. The European court, on July 24, 2003, ruled that a gay man, who lost his tenancy when his partner died, was the victim of unlawful discrimination. Siegmund Karner was evicted from his Vienna home after his partner died in 1994. His partner had been the official tenant of the flat where the couple had lived for five years. This decision will have significant consequences for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in 45 countries. Currently 32 European countries grant no rights to same-sex partners. All benefits, or rights, granted by governments to opposite-sex cohabiting partners will, in future, have to be granted to same-sex cohabiting partners. But the case may have even wider implications: The Austrian government argued that this discrimination was necessary for the “protection of the family in the traditional sense.” In rejecting this comprehensively, the Court demolished the main argument used around the world by the religious right for continued discrimination against same-sex partners. On March 3, 2004, the European Parliament widened the definition of family, simplifying how lesbian and gay Europeans and their families can move and live within the European Union. The directive cuts down on the bureaucracy same-sex couples face, however, it only applies to countries that honor same-sex relationships. That means, that in 2004, a non-E.U. citizen with a same-sex partner in Denmark could move to Belgium and have automatic residency rights, but not in Spain or Greece. On January 20, 2006 the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution — by a vote of 468-149, with 41 abstentions — which states that European countries that do not recognize same-sex unions are condemned as “homophobic.” Europe April 1, 2005 marked the enforcement of Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights. It prohibits discrimination against individuals and requires public authorities to prohibit discrimination as well. While sexual orientation discrimination is not explicitly listed among the prohibited, European Court of Human Rights case law has found such discrimination to breach the convention. Patricia Prendiville, executive director of the European arm of the International Lesbian and Gay Association: “This is a very significant legal development in European anti-discrimination legislation which has great potential for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Europe who still experience discrimination in many areas of their lives.” As of April, 2005, only 11 of the 46 European countries that are signatories to the convention have ratified Protocol 12: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Georgia, Macedonia, Netherlands, San Marino, and Serbia and Montenegro. ———— Legal Status by Country —————— Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Brazil Cambodia Canada Chile China Colombia Czech Republic Finland France Germany Great Britain Greece Honduras Hungary India Ireland Italy Israel Latvia Liechtenstein Mexico Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Poland Portugal Russia Scotland Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Uganda Uruguay Argentina Since 1997, Argentinean same-sex widow’s or widower’s could claim pension Medical benefits. Since, 1998, a union-run health care program for teachers and flight attendants has extended health coverage to domestic partners. In the Mendoza province of Argentina, in October 1998, Judge Graciela Mastracusa granted a male couple, who have been together for four years, the same social benefits as those enjoyed by opposite-sex partners in a legal or common-law marriage — welfare payments, workers’ compensation and a pension upon the death of one of the partners. The ruling says that the male couple had the same “evident, stable and permanent” living arrangement as a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. The couple, a 35-year-old public employee and 25-year-old machine operator, launched their suit in October 1997. On December 13, 2002, Buenos Aires became the first Latin American city to adopt laws allowing both same- and opposite-sex couples medical insurance, hospital visitation rights, and pension rights. The new law does not give same-sex couples the right to adoption children. The 18-year-old activist group Comunidad Homosexual Argentina led the campaign. The law was approved despite opposition from Argentina’s Catholic Church, which argued city legislators had no authority in defining civil unions. The law went into effect on July 21, 2003. The first couple to sign up: Cesar Cigliutti, 45, and Marcelo Suntheim, 35. Cesar: “Our society has really demonstrated maturity in recognizing our rights.” Marcelo: “Every gay, lesbian, transvestite, and transsexual in Argentina has always fantasized about this moment.” A federal court in Rosario, Argentina, ordered the country’s largest union-operated health-care organization, the Obra Social de Empleados de Comercio y Actividades Civiles (Retail and Store Personnel Union Health Care Organization), to extend coverage to same-sex partners in early October 2005. The ruling was based on the national Constitution, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Judge Sylvia Aramberri stated: “The dynamics of social life require that the laws regulating human conduct adapt to the variations that operate within it to prevent reality from overflowing the legal norms.” Buenos Aires passed a Civil Union style legislation in 2002. Australia — Victoria — Parliament amended language in 14 acts, on October 17, 2001, in accordance with the government’s anti-discrimination legislation, bringing the total amended acts to 43. Attorney General Rob Hulls said the Statute Law Further Amendment (Relationships) Bill ended discrimination against same-sex couples by adopting the terms “spouse,” “domestic partner,” and “partner.” Hulls said, “These amendments will ensure same-sex couples receive the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.” In November 2005, the Australian government announced that same-sex couples will gain the right to claim each other’s superannuation (pension) benefits. The policy also extends to cohabiting elderly siblings, and to adult children caring for elderly parents. Superannuation requires employers to make contributions on behalf of employees (currently 9 percent of the salary package) into funds that are administered by financial institutions and employee/employer groups. Employees are taxed at a lower rate on the contributions than on other income. At retirement, individuals may opt for a one-time payment, or monthly pension. For low income earners, the government matches the savings balance. To determine if there was an “interdependent relationship,” officials will consider the length of the relationship, whether it involved sex, the degree of emotional support, and ownership and use of property. The news reports did not indicate how they will determine the degree of emotional support or sexual activity. In December 2005, the Australian Defence Force policy was changed to recognize the current partners of same-sex service members, and gave them similar entitlements as opposite-sex partners. — Tasmania — In December 2001, a group of parliament members said legal recognition was needed to solve the flaws existing in Tasmanian law. The MP committee members urged amendments to the De Facto Relationship Act to erase the inequality. They did not address issues relating to adoption. The Tasmanian government announced, September 2002, that it would amend 120 pieces of legislation covering property rights, child maintenance, organ donation, guardianship, access to a partner in the hospital, pensions, funerals, wills and various parenting, family and work leave entitlements. Gay sex was illegal in Tasmania until 1997, when the anti-sodomy law was repealed (earlier reports placed the law change in 1994). As of January 1, 2004, Tasmania was the first state in Australia to allow same-sex couples, and many others, to register their relationship. The Relationships Act recognizes a range of “significant relationships,” including that between a person and a long-term care giver, or elderly friends who live together. The Relationships Act provides immediate access to spousal rights in these areas: superannuation, taxation, insurance, health care, hospital visitation, wills, property division, and employment conditions such as carers, parenting, and bereavement leave.       [See: Tasmanian Approach: Relationships Act] The national Australian Parliament passed a law, in 2004, defining marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes. On April 12, 2005, the Greens party proposed, in the Tasmanian Parliament, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. While the 2004 national law defined marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes, states might remain free to choose their own definition. On December 1, 2005, the Greens’ move to give same-sex couples the right to marry was scuttled in the State Parliament. The Government and Liberals opposed the move with Attorney-General Judy Jackson arguing that the state does not have constitutional power to amend marriage laws. Greens justice spokesman, Nick McKim, said he had expert legal advice to the contrary: “The Labor and Liberal parties have unfortunately voted against even discussing laws to allow same sex couples to express their love for each other by getting married. And that is just an outrageous thing to do. Voting against equality, against fairness and voting to entrench discrimination.” As of July 1, 2006, skilled migrants are able to sponsor same-sex partners to migrate to Australia, an ability already offered to citizens and permanent residents. Skilled migrants could include same-sex partners on their visa application. In October 2007, two woman, Grace Abrams and Fiona Power, were officially recognized as married when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal allowed Grace, a transgender woman, to change the sex designation on her passport. Grace had married her long-term female partner using her male birth certificate before undergoing gender reassignment surgery in Thailand in 2005. On her return to Australia, she was denied a passport in her new gender on the basis that she was married to a woman. She appealed this decision, maintaining that without a female passport she was unable to travel, contradicting both the Australian Passports Act, which states that every Australian citizen is entitled to a passport, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that everyone has the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence. Austria An early July 2006 ruling by Austria’s highest court has resulted in the country’s first same-sex marriage. After a man married a woman, he later became a transsexual. Neither party wanted to divorce. The transsexual spouse was turned down by the Interior Ministry when she requested to have her birth records and other official documents amended to reflect her current sex. They rejected the request based on the fact that same-sex marriage is not allowed in Austria. The Constitutional Court agreed to the name change, noted that amending records for transsexuals is commonly done in Austria and said that the very fact the woman was married should have no bearing on the case. The ruling did not specifically address the issue of same-sex marriage leaving open a possible government challenge to the marriage. Belgium The Flemish regional government, in 1998, allowed a reduction in the inheritance tax. Opposite-sex spouses pay two percent, while unrelated heirs pay up to 45 percent. Under the new regulation, surviving same-sex partners will pay 10 percent. A male-to-female transsexual, Priscilla (formerly Rony) Van Sandt, and her wife of 25 years, Jeannine Van Sandt, in January 1999, contested a Belgian court order requiring that they divorce because the country’s laws do not recognize same-sex marriages. Priscilla adamantly refuses to abandon her marriage, saying, “Why should I? My partner has supported me during this difficult period. Should I just throw her away saying thank you for the service given? It’s not possible.” Jeanine stated, “I love this person, whether he’s a man or a woman. That may seem bizarre, but that’s how it is.” As of January 1, 2000, same-sex couples were able to to sign up for limited registration. Not included were matters such as inheritance and adoption. Belgium considered offering legal marriage to same-sex couples, according to a report from Reuters on April 2, 2001. Health Minister Magda Alvoet, a member of the leftist Green Agalev party, said legalizing same-sex marriages was an important step in eliminating discrimination against gay men and lesbians. According to Alvoet, “The government considers the right to marry a constitutional right, and the chance to marry the sole true opportunity to see that homosexual and heterosexual couples are treated in the same way.” The report says that the proposal would be presented to the core cabinet later in April, and that agreement was likely: A source at the office of Liberal party prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said, “There are no objections on principle for the moment.” Belgium’s core cabinet approved a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry, which would make it the second country in the world — after The Netherlands — to legalize such marriages. The bill, approved on June 22, 2001, would amend Belgium’s civil code to grant same-sex couples virtually the same legal status as opposite-sex couples. However, it does not allow simultaneous adoption of children. The bill follows a trend-setting 1998 law recognizing cohabiting same-sex couples as households with some of the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. The Belgium Senate Justice Commission on October 23, 2002, voted 11-4 in favor of allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples. Before the bill became law, it had to pass both parliament houses. Belgium became the second nation in the world to offer legal marriage for same-sex couples. On January 30, 2003, the Belgium legislature made a law allowing same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license.       [Please see: Belgium Offers Legal Marriage] On April 20, 2006, Belgium became the fifth member of the European Union to allow same-sex couples equal rights in adoption. Senators in the upper house backed the proposal by a 34-33 vote with two abstentions. Brazil Two groups in Brazil (Atoba Group of Rio de Janeiro and the Gay Group of Bahia state) demanded legal marriage on May 7, 1995, threatening to name 18 gay people in Congress and 50 in the local Catholic Church if they are denied. A bill was drafted in 1995 by congresswoman Marta Suplicy that would have created a domestic partner status to extend benefits such as social security and health plans, as well as provide for property transfers. No action on the bill was forthcoming. Suplicy, now mayor of Sao Paulo, again supported the bill in May 2001. Brazil’s Congress has periodically looked at the bill, watering it down to include any kind of relationship such as sisters or a grandfather sharing a household. In May 2002, Brazil’s president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, endorsed a proposal to legalize same-sex unions. He urged the Brazilian congress to pass legislation that had become bogged down in committees. The legislation would permit the property transfer and extend pension and medical benefits to same-sex couples. The Brazilian High Court unanimously decided, February 11, 1998 to grant property rights to the surviving partner of a same-sex relationship. Businessman Milton Alves Pedrosa, from Belo Horizonte, capital of Minas Gerais, won the right to half of the estate of his deceased partner. The Brazilian government, on June 8, 2000, extended de facto legal recognition to same-sex relationships by granting such couples the right to inherit each other’s pension and social security benefits. Applicants who can prove that theirs is a “stable union” will be treated by the National Social Security Institute no differently than a married couple in cases of retirement or death. The policy, which resulted from a recent court decision, also allows people in same-sex relationships to declare their partners as dependents on income tax returns. Following recording rock artist Cassia Eller’s death in December 2001, Eugenia Vieira, her partner for 14 years, received temporary, six-month custody of Eller’s 8-year-old son, Francisco Ribeiro Eller (nicknamed Chicao). The Rio de Janeiro court also ruled on January 9, 2002 that Vieira had the right to inherit the her estate and copyrights. According to Vieira’s lawyer, it is the first time in Brazil that a female partner of a mother received custody. Vieira has since received permanent custody of their son Chicao. He was fathered by Tavinho Fialho, a friend and fellow musician of Eller’s who died in a car crash before the boy’s birth. Civil Unions style registrations between same-sex couples were offered in the southern, border state of Rio Grande do Sul in 2004. A Brazilian court, on October 1, 2004, barred the lesbian partner of the outgoing mayor of an Amazon town from trying to succeed her, citing a ban on political office passing between family members. Eulina Rabelo was forced to quit the mayoral race in Viseu, in the state of Para, when judges ruled that her relationship with incumbent mayor Astrid Maria Cunha e Silva would violate a constitutional article that prevents executive posts in local government being transferred between members of the same family. The unanimous ruling by the country’s top electoral court effectively recognized the two women as being married, even though Brazil’s constitution does not allow same-sex marriage. The laws on same-sex couples are muddled. The federal social security system recognizes same-sex unions and one state, Rio Grande do Sul, has performed same-sex civil marriages. In February 2005, federal prosecutor João Gilberto Gonçalves in the Brazilian farming and factory town of Taubaté has begun a case aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage. It could face repeated challenges and appeals, travel through three federal courts, and end up at the Supreme Court, all of which could take 10 years. Says Gonçalves: “Gays deserve equal rights, not more rights or less rights. This is something that should be discussed objectively, without interference by the church’s moral standard of marriage. A long time ago it was considered inappropriate to talk about equal rights for women and blacks. The church used to teach that blacks didn’t have souls. We now know that’s an entirely absurd idea. I think in the future we will look back and be shocked by how poorly we treated homosexuals.” In early July 2005, a Sao Paulo judge ruled that there is no valid reason for denying a same-sex couple the right to adopt children. While single gay men or lesbians have been allowed to adopt in the past, it is the first time a court has permitted a couple to jointly adopt. Cambodia Two Cambodian women were married on March 12, 1995, according to a Reuters news service report from the Cambodian Daily newspaper. Originally reported as a legal marriage, it was, in fact, a ceremony not recognized by the state. It took place in Kro Bao Ach Kok village in Kandal province. The couple, Khav Sokha and Pum Eth, received the well-wishes of their families and hundreds friends. King Norodom Sihanouk backs lesbian and gay rights, and has even expressed his wishes for his country to accept and legalize same-sex marriages. According to his Web site, the 81-year-old King came to the conclusion that these rights are important after watching television footage of the San Francisco weddings taking place in February 2004. The U.S. city allowed same-sex couples to apply for civil marriage licenses. Despite the fact that the licenses were not legal, and there would be court challenges from radical, right-wing groups, more than 3,000 couples married. “It is the good Lord who loves diversity of taste, of colors and of different humans, etc.,” said King Sihanouk. King Sihanouk was so moved by the couples that he posted the comment calling for his country to allow marriage for “man and man or woman and woman” and for more acceptance of diversity. Although he has no power to introduce legislation, he is well respected by the public, and his opinions could lead to a more tolerant attitude toward lesbians and gays. Canada Canadian Federal Alberta British Columbia Manitoba New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador Nova Scotia Ontario Québec Saskatchewan Yukon Territory — Canadian Federal — A human rights tribunal ordered, in 1996, the Federal government to extend health and relocation benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, although pension benefits remained tied up in the courts. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide anti-discrimination protections to same-sex couples. Federal Justice Andrew MacKay ruled, in 1998, that the federal government discriminates against gay employees with its “separate but equal” benefits program for “same-sex partner relationships.” Instead, the word “spouse” must be redefined so that gay employees and their partners are included in the regular benefits program. MacKay’s ruling also granted human rights officials the power to order the Federal Government to rework all laws, regulations and directives that discriminate against same-sex couples in the area of job benefits. The Canadian Supreme Court altered the way “family” is defined when it ruled, on May 20, 1999 in M v. H & Ontario, that the term “spouse” includes same-sex partners. Striking down a key section of Ontario family law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, the ruling has forced Ontario to rewrite hundreds of laws governing family relationships. Moreover, it has forced governments across Canada to rewrite laws that previously recognized only opposite-sex relationships. The Canadian Senate gave its final approval to Bill C-23, on June 14, 2000, the Government’s omnibus bill to give same-sex couples the same legal standing as unmarried opposite-sex couples. The bill, called “The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Bill,” was introduced on June 13, 2000 by Senator Lucie Pepin (Liberal-Quebec), who said, “We must pass Bill C-23 for reasons of justice, equality among people, tolerance and openness to diversity, as well as respect for each other. This is what fairness is all about. … Bill C-23 must be passed in a society that values equality, a value inscribed in the heart of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an inescapable fact of Canada’s political culture.” Bill C-23 amends 68 federal statutes. It also contains clause 1.1 or “the rule of interpretation,” which states “For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word ‘marriage,’ that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” The bill uses the undefined phrase “relationships of a conjugal nature” to distinguish the relationships subject to the benefits and obligations of the bill. It does not employ any sort of registry. On February 14, 2001, New Democrat MP Svend Robinson introduced a private member’s bill that would explicitly allow same-sex couples to marry. He was supported by Liberal MPs Bill Graham and Carolyn Bennett, Tory MP Scott Brison, Bloc Quebecois MP Real Menard, and Libby Davies. By the end of October 2001, however, the bill was denied the required unanimous consent to send it to committee, and it effectively died. In November 27, 2001, probably the first Canadian class-action lawsuit was filed to redress discrimination against gay men and lesbians. The suit against the government of Canada, as well as against Canada’s Attorney General, seeks survivor benefits for about 10,000 gay men and lesbians. The suit charges arbitrarily exclusion of those who lost their partners between 1985 and 1998. In 2000, the federal government granted same-sex couples partner rights through a law [C-23, mentioned above] that, in part, amended the Canada Pension Plan Act. The revision allows survivor benefits, but only covered cases after 1998. The suit wants the government to post-date benefits to 1985, when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution came into effect, thereby guaranteeing equal treatment. Lawyer Patricia LeFebour stated that many of the survivors who have joined the suit are aged, many are sick, and they are in desperate need of the money, which could amount to $4,000 a year per survivor. The suit was launched by longtime Toronto activist George Hislop, 75, whose partner Ronnie Shearer died in 1986. He could collect $85,000 if the suit is successful. Early in December 2002, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity allowed an others to join in the suit. The suit expanded to include 6,000 other same-sex surviving partners in Ontario and several other provinces. A British Columbia suit also joined, represented 2,000 more surviving partners. Quebec is the only province not represented in the lawsuit, because it operates a separate pension plan and has already settled with gay and lesbian pensioners. On December 19, 2003, an Ontario court ruled that the federal government had discriminated against same-sex couples by denying pension benefits to survivors whose partners died before 1998. Such benefits will now be retroactive to April 17, 1985, when equality guarantees were included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Crown had contended that providing benefits retroactive to January 1, 1998, was generous, and in step with the evolving legal status of same-sex relationships. But in the ruling by Justice Ellen Macdonald, she said, “I can find nothing generous in codifying a mechanism for discrimination.” It was estimated that the ruling will affect 1,500 gay men and lesbians, with survivor benefits worth $100 million. The Law Commission of Canada — an independent, government-funded group that advises Parliament on law reform — has called on the federal government to legalize marriage for same-sex couples. The Commission released a study in Ottawa in February 2002 which said: “There is no justification for maintaining the current distinctions between same-sex and heterosexual conjugal unions in the light of current understandings of the state’s interests in marriage.” The study said marriage should provide a framework in which people can express their commitment to each other regardless of sexual orientation. It noted that, two years ago, Parliament recognized same-sex couples, giving many of the same benefits and obligations as other common-law couples, but it excluded same-sex couples from legal marriages. The Commission’s president, Nathalie Des Rosiers, said that denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, “amounts to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” and is illegal under the equal protections section of the Constitution. Des Rosiers chastised Parliament for not having the courage to legitimize same-sex marriage. “If governments are to continue to maintain an institution called marriage, they cannot do so in a discriminatory fashion,” stated the law report. The study suggests that if the government is not prepared to go all the way in one piece of legislation, it should do so in stages. Des Rosiers said the first step might be introducing a national partnership union registry. Nova Scotia has a registry, and Quebec is studying a plan to have one. On February 13, 2003, New Democrat MP Svend Robinson introduced, for the second time, a private member’s bill that would explicitly allow same-sex couples to marry. Earlier in 2002 courts in Ontario and Quebec ruled the definition and the subsequent ban on same-sex legal marriage to be unconstitutional. The decisions are under appeal. In British Columbia, another challenge to the federal ban is underway. Private member’s bills seldom pass without the support of the government, which has been more than sluggish on this issue. In July 2002, a three judge panel of the Ontario Superior Court unanimously ruled that the legal definition of marriage of one man and one woman was “constitutionally invalid and inoperative.” The ruling was suspended for two years, giving Parliament time to redefine the term “marriage.” The Canadian federal government appealed this ruling, and, at the same time, released a policy discussion paper on same-sex marriages. This paper, “Marriage and the Legal Recognition of Same-sex Unions,” was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice for public consultation, which will later report back to the House of Commons with recommendations regarding the four options contained in the paper. The four options are: - Leave marriage the way it is - Change the definition to include same-sex marriages - Get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches - Establish civil registries that allow same-sex marriages to be recognized without a ceremony On June 10, 2003, Ontario’s court of appeals ruled that the Canadian government must allow same-sex couples the right to marry. The court upheld the lower court decision, and it removed the court’s deadline of July 2004, instructing the federal government to allow same-sex marriage immediately. The federal government is not appealing the ruling to Canada’s supreme court, and is making plans to offer legal marriage for same-sex couples in all nine provinces. On July 8, 2003, the British Columbia court ruled that the waiting period for allowing legal marriage was no longer valid and proclaimed legal marriage for same-sex couples available immediately in that province. Since then, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Québec, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon Territory have offered legal marriage for same-sex couples. On December 9, 2004, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that, firstly, the government has the authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, and secondly, religious officials cannot be forced to perform unions against their beliefs. The judgement was in favor of lower court findings from six provinces and one territory affirming same-sex marriages. The nine Supreme Court justices join 19 other judges across Canada that have found in favour of equal marriage for all Canadians, regardless of their orientation. The ruling did not call the traditional definition of marriage “unconstitutional,” however, it removed the possibility that Alberta, the only province interested in upholding that definition through the use of the “notwithstanding” clause. “Several centuries ago, it would have been understood that marriage be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today.” — Supreme Court of Canada, December 9, 2004 Court ruling allowing the Canadian government to proceed with legal marriage On June 28, 2005, the Canadian federal system allowed legal marriage by parliamentary vote.       Please see our articles:       Canada Offers Legal Marriage       Canadian Suits for Legal Marriage — Alberta — Alberta’s government announced on April 3, 2001 that it will review provincial legislation to ensure gay men and lesbians are afforded equal protection under the law. This follows a previous day’s ruling by Justice Del Perras who called provisions of the provincial Act discriminatory and inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Perras wrote in his decision: “There is differential treatment, as the claimant is denied the right to access the [Act] based on his sexual orientation.” Although Judge Perras declared the law unconstitutional, he refused an application to “read in,” or specifically include, same-sex couples and, instead, suspended the law for nine months. The case was brought to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, by Brent Johnson, a gay man, who contested the Intestate Succession Act, a statute governing the disbursement of estate property when there is no will. A review of family law was released, January 10, 2002, by Justice Minister Dave Hancock. In it was the recommendation that Alberta should extend the same legal benefits to same-sex relationships as married couples. The Adult Interdependent Relationship Act (AIRA) in Alberta, in effect since April 2003, changed the wording of all family legislation in the province to include common law couples. These were defined as both same-and- opposite-sex, as well as other relationships that comprise emotional and financial commitment. This new status requires no waiting period. Same-sex couple may declare themselves as an AIR as soon as they wish, and have all the rights and responsibilities of legally married couples. — British Columbia — British Columbia has extended some spousal rights to same-sex couples, recognizing them as common-law relationships. British Columbia legislation in 1997 recognized gay and lesbian couples as legal spouses for purposes of child custody, maintenance and access. Same-sex adoption was also granted. Same-sex couples in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario sought to challenge the federal “Marriage Act” by applying for marriage licenses across Canada, during May 2000. When Michael Leshner and Michael Stark applied for their license in Toronto, the city’s director of legal services, Paul Jones, sought an opinion from an Ontario court as to how to proceed. It could be the first time that a Canadian government moved proactively on the status of same-sex couples, rather than waiting for activists to file lawsuits. When Cynthia Callahan and Judy Lightwater applied for a marriage license in Victoria, British Columbia, instead of it being rejected, their application was sent on for review by the British Columbia Attorney General Andrew Petter (New Democratic Party). He quickly issued a written statement urging legal marriage for same-sex couples: “Earlier today, a same-sex couple made application to the B.C. Executive Director of Vital Statistics for a marriage license. “The Executive Director deferred his decision and asked for a legal opinion from the Ministry of Attorney General. “My Ministry will provide that opinion as soon as possible. “It is unfortunate that the law in this area is uncertain. “The federal Marriage Act is ambiguous but has traditionally been interpreted in light of common law principles that have not allowed same-sex marriages. “Recently, however, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that equality rights under section 15 of the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. “As yet, there has not been a definitive court determination on the application of section 15 with respect to the Marriage Act. “This area of the law requires clarity. This is a question of dignity and fundamental human rights for a number of Canadians, and an issue of fairness for all. “While it is possible to leave the issue of same-sex marriages to be determined through years of litigation, it would be far better in my view for the federal government to resolve the matter by clarifying its legislation and offering same-sex couples the same opportunity to marry as is available to heterosexual couples. “In a modern society there is no justification for denying same-sex couples the same option to form marital bonds as are afforded to opposite-sex couples. “Rather than waiting for the courts to determine this issue, the federal government should change the federal law to allow for equality for all couples who are in a committed relationship. “As a province, we have taken action to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation within our areas of competence. We are continuing to remove legislative barriers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. “Over the past five years we have amended more than 20 pieces of provincial legislation to eliminate this form of discrimination, and we will continue with our legislative initiatives in the near future. “We have taken these steps because it is the right and the fair thing to do.” — British Columbia Attorney General Andrew Petter, May 26, 2000 Eight same-sex couples launched a court action in British Columbia, and began arguing their case on July 23, 2001. Their suit posits that the refusal to issue a marriage licence to same-sex couples violates their rights under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The couples (and the number of years they had been together in 2001): = Jane Hamilton and Dr. Joy Masuhara (eight years)         (and their children Sarah Hamilton and Meghann Hamilton)         [second parent adoption by Joy in 1997] = Dawn Barbeau and Elizabeth Barbeau = Murray Warren and Peter Cook (30 years)         (and adopted son, Brent Power) = Bob Peacock and Lloyd Thornhill (32 years) = Robin Roberts and Diana Denny (17 years)         (and their four children) = Melinda Roy and Tanya Chambers = Shane McCloskey and David Shortt = Tess Healy and Wendy Young The B.C. Supreme Court rejected their constitutional challenge to Canada’s definition of marriage, on October 4, 2001. In its ruling, the court claimed it did not have jurisdiction to strike down the law. The judgment stated, “The change would have broad legal ramifications and would require, at the least, rules to govern the formation and dissolution of same-sex unions. Any permitted changes to the common law of marriage must be made by legislation.” In response, one of the litigants wrote to us (Partners Task Force): “It was clear to me when we were sitting through long days in court this summer that this landmark case wasn’t just about the right for Canadian homosexuals to marry. It was the Canadian courts passing judgement on all gay and lesbian couples, and about our right to visibility. Did we lose something with Justice Ian Pitfield’s October 2nd. decision? We lost the fantasy that all of us count equally under the law.” — Jane Eaton Hamilton, December 2001 The litigants took the next step and petitioned the B.C. Court of Appeals. And on May 1, 2003, the B.C. Court of Appeals agreed with the litigants, as well as with the courts in Ontario and Quebec, which have ruled that the prohibition on same-sex marriage violates equality guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights. In its decision, the Court gave the federal government until July 12, 2004, to reform the law and allow same-sex marriage. The federal government decided not to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to review the B.C. decision. Instead, it introduced a bill that will confirm the Ontario ruling, changing federal law that applies across Canada, and allow same-sex marriage to become legal in all nine provinces. On July 8, 2003, the British Columbia court ruled that the waiting period for allowing legal marriage was no longer valid and proclaimed legal marriage for same-sex couples available immediately in that province.       [See our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage] — Manitoba — The Manitoba Human Rights Commission in 1997 ruled that the provincial Government must offer medical, dental, and optical benefits to gay and lesbian employees’ partners. Manitoba, in May 2001, is proposing to change legislation giving same-sex couples many of the same benefits as opposite-sex couples. The legislation would change 10 provincial acts dealing with such things as pension, spousal support, and survivor benefits. Notably missing is the ability to adopt as a couple. As gay or lesbian individuals may adopt, not allowing couples to adopt only prevents the children from being protected. The changes are required to bring provincial laws in line with the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada ruling requiring provincial governments to give unmarried, opposite-and same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples. On September 16, 2004, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Douglas Yard ruled that the provincial marriage law definition was unconstitutional, and allowed same-sex couples access to legal marriage. Justice Yard: “The traditional definition of marriage in Manitoba is reformulated to mean a voluntary union for life of two persons at the exclusion of all others.”       [See our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage] — New Brunswick — Fed up with the long wait for the federal system to universally allow legal marriage, four same-sex couples filed suit in New Brunswick on April 25, 2005. On June 23, 2005, New Brunswick Judge Judy Clendenning ruled in favor of the four same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. In her ruling, she agreed that the refusal to grant them marriage licenses is a violation of the Canadian Constitution, and changed the definition of civil marriage from a lawful union between a man and a woman, to a lawful union “between two persons.”       [See our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage] — Newfoundland and Labrador — The right for same-sex couples to adopt, becomes effective June 2002. The legislation, created in April 2002, provides for co-parenting, and also gives adoptive children more rights. Adoption records can be opened if all parties agree, new medical facts can be shared, and children as young as five will be counseled about adoption. On December 21, 2004, Newfoundland and Labrador same-sex couples gained the right to marry.       [See our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage] — Nova Scotia — Same-sex couples may register with the Department of Vital Statistics for $15 and obtain some of the rights formerly reserved for married couples. In a domestic partnership bill passed on June 1, 2001, there are now three classifications for relationships: common-law, registered domestic partners, and married couples. Common-law partners include any two people living in a conjugal relationship for over two years. They are entitled to rights under income tax legislation, as well as pension and insurance plans. Domestic partners now have additional entitlements such as spousal and child support, joint property, alimony, protection under the Matrimonial Property Act and the right to see their partners’ medical records, as well as make medical decisions in an emergency. Until this new law, a partner could be challenged by blood relatives and left completely out of any medical emergency process. The law still denies same-sex couples a legal marriage license, or the ability to adopt children as a couple. During the first week of July 2001, Nova Scotia’s highest court struck down a law preventing gay men and lesbians from adopting. Justice Deborah Gass ruled the law unconstitutional. An unidentified Halifax female couple brought the suit. The couple has several children. Gass’s ruling means unmarried same-and opposite-sex couples will be permitted to adopt children. Her ruling also means children of common-law couples can register their relationships with both parents, inherit under the Interstate Succession Act, and receive maintenance from both parents. Nova Scotia now joins British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, in allowing same-sex couples to adopt. On September 24, 2004, Nova Scotia allowed same-sex couples access to legal marriage.       [See our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage] — Ontario — A provincial court judge in Ontario, Canada, in May 1995, ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to adopt children. He declared that Ontario’s legal definition of spouse violates the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms and granted adoption orders to four lesbian couples in Toronto. The judge also struck down regulations in the Child and Family Services Act that prevent same-sex couples from jointly adopting. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in 1996 that same-sex couples must be treated as common law couples under Ontario’s Family Law Act. In 1999, Ontario changed legislation giving same-sex couples the same benefits as opposite-sex couples. The changes are required to bring provincial laws in line with the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada ruling requiring provincial governments to give unmarried, opposite-and same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples. On January 14, 2001, two same-sex couples legally married in a joint service before 1,000 people at Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) of Toronto. The ancient Christian tradition of the banns was used by Rev. Brent Hawkes to unite the couples. Elaine Vautour, 43, married Anne Vautour, 38, who legally changed her last name to Elaine’s. And Kevin Bourassa, 42, married Joe Varnell, 31. They have been partners for three years. The publication of banns for two couples were posted on Sunday, December 10, 2000, International Human Rights Day. The form of banns was based on one used by the Anglican Church. The banns were published on the two following Sundays, with no legal objections. Objections were stated on the two following Sundays, however, they were based on objections to the couple’s perceived sexual orientation. The underlying objection being that these were same-sex marriages. This was invalid under Ontario law because objections can only be raised if a couple was related by blood, under age, mentally unable to make such a decision, or had been married before. Marriage banns are enacted by announcing at three consecutive church services, or in weekly bulletins, that a couple intends marriage, and asking “if any know any cause or just impediment why these two should not be joined in holy matrimony, you are to declare it.” This allows churches to issue a marriage license, according to centuries-old common law that is recognized in Ontario. The Ontario government has refused to register the couple’s marriages. MCC’s lawyer, Douglas Elliott, said that doesn’t mean the couples weren’t legally married. Only the registering, or recording, of it will be held up by that action. On January 19, 2001, the province was sued by MCC for it’s refusal to register the marriages. On June 10, 2003, Ontario’s court of appeals ruled that the Canadian government must allow same-sex couples the right to marry. The court upheld the lower court decision, and it removed the lower court’s deadline of July 2004, instructing the federal government to allow same-sex marriage immediately. The federal government had 30 days to appeal the ruling to Canada’s supreme court. It chose instead to introduce a bill that confirms the Ontario ruling, thereby change federal law that applies across Canada, and will allow same-sex marriage to become legal in all nine provinces. Partners for 19 years, Michael Leshner, 53, and Michael Stark, 43, sued Ontario for legal marriage in May 2000 along with five other couples. When they first applied for their license in Toronto, the city’s director of legal services, Paul Jones, sought an opinion from an Ontario court as to how to proceed. It could have been the first time that a Canadian government moved proactively on the status of same-sex couples, rather than waiting for activists to file lawsuits. However, two years later, on July 12, 2002, a three judge panel of the Ontario Superior Court decided that granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Current federal law defines legal marriage as “a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” The court also ordered the federal Parliament to officially redefine “marriage” within the next two years. If not, the courts would likely declare the marriages valid on July 12, 2004. From the Court Ruling: “There is thus a short answer to the question posed by the Applicants in these two proceedings. It is this: the constitutional and Charter-inspired values which underlie Canadian society today dictate that the status and incidents inherent in the foundational institution of marriage must be open to same-sex couples who live in long-term, committed, relationships — marriage-like in everything but name — just as it is to heterosexual couples. Each is entitled to full and equal recognition, and the law must therefore be adapted accordingly.” (p.20) — Justice Blair “The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offense to the dignity of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them. The result is they are denied the autonomy to choose whether they wish to marry. This is turn conveys the ominous message that they are unworthy of marriage. For those same-sex couples who do wish to marry, impugned restriction represents a rejection of their personal aspirations and the denial of their dreams.” (p.118) “Further, I find that there is no merit to the argument that the rights and interests of heterosexuals would be affected by granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry. … I cannot conclude that freedom of religion would be threatened or jeopardized by legally sanctioning same-sex marriage.” (p.118) “[T]he denial of equal marriage can — and no doubt does — reflect and reinforce existing, inaccurate understandings of the merits, capabilities and worth of lesbian and gay relationships within Canadian society. … Excluding gays and lesbians from marriage disregards the needs, capacities, and circumstances of same-sex spouses and their children. It declares an entire class of persons unworthy of the recognition and support of state sanction for their marriages.” (p.204) “I do not accept that the objective of procreation is a basis that can support the restriction against same-sex marriage. Rather, it could reasonably be argued … that it appears to be a mere pretext used to rationalize discrimination against lesbians and gays.” (p.114) — Justice LaForme Ontario Superior Court rulings, July 12, 2002 The provincial government was expected to appeal the decision, however, Ontario premier Ernie Eves said on July 12, 2002, that the government will not appeal. He also said, “If two people decide that they want to be in a union, why would I interfere with that?” Eves further called on the government to abandon any consideration of appealing the decision and enact legislation to make same-sex marriages legal. While marriage is registered by the provinces, marriage is federally regulated. In spite of Eve’s sensible response, it has been reported that the ruling was appealed by Ontario. Paula Barrero, 27, and Blanca Mejias, 32, were married, by banns on September 29, 2001 in Toronto. The officiant, Rev. Dr. Cheri DiNovo, sent the proper forms for processing to the government and a marriage license was issued. The form did not have a place for “female and male,” only asking for the name of the “bride and groom.” On the following Valentine’s Day, the couple received a government issued marriage certificate. As of March 2003, Paula and Blanca’s marriage remains legal. It may very well be the first registered same-sex marriage in Canada. While the government of Ontario has threatened to revoke Rev. Dr. DiNovo’s license to officiate legal marriages, the Registrar General has allowed the license to stand. Even though the marriage is registered, the couple is unable to exercise their marital rights with the government and they do not have legal standing. On June 10, 2003, Ontario became the third government in the world to offer legal marriage to same-sex couples.       [See our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage] — Québec — Québec allows same-sex couples to adopt. After a suit running nearly three years ago, Québec Superior Court judge awarded survivors’ benefits to Rejean Lebeau, David Brody, Yves-Bernard Bleau and Andre Crispin in November 1998. Their partners had been of the same sex. In a rather mean-spirited move, the provincial Justice Department appealed the court order in December 1998. Québec’s legislature unanimously approved Law 32, on June 10, 1999, making it the first Canadian province to amend all its relevant laws giving same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as unmarried opposite-sex couples. The bill modifies 28 laws to a gender-neutral definition of de facto couples. Some areas covered include social benefits, tax deductions and pension benefits. However, common-law opposite-sex couples are not as strongly defined under Québec law as in some other provinces. For example, they do not qualify for support payments after a relationship dissolution. Québec announced legislation to create a domestic partnership registry on November 9, 2001. The surprise announcement stated that the government hopes to have the legislation introduced by the end of the year with hearings in 2002. The registry would be open to all unmarried couples, same-sex as well as opposite-sex. The announcement was seen as an attempt to draw attention from a Constitutional challenge to Québec and Canadian definitions of marriage. Québec is the only Canadian province that defines legal marriage, part of its unique legal system, the Civil Code. Legislation was proposed on December 7, 2001, by the Québec National Assembly that allows same-sex couples to enter “civil unions”. The status would offer many legal benefits, including division of assets after a breakup, the right to see a partner’s medical records, and automatic status as a beneficiary when a partner dies. The draft bill did not allow for co-adoption by couples. On June 7, 2002, Bill 84 passed, same-sex couples will be able to enter a civil union and co-adopt children in July 2002. It puts Québec on par with more than half of Canadian provinces in granting adoption rights to same-sex couples. Provinces with similar laws include Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. At the time, Nova Scotia was the only other province to extend legal protections for same-sex unions. While a big step forward, the bill also codifies a second-class status, as legal marriage is still denied same-sex couples. In March, 2002, four Québec gay men won a decisive victory in a suit over the date when partners are eligible to receive Widows Pensions from the government. The court has ordered the government to roll back the date at which surviving partners could be considered “widows“ to coincide with constitutional protections, 1977, the date gay men and lesbians were given civil rights in Canada. The pensions are worth about $400 a month. The money is in addition to the survivor’s own government pension. The back pensions owed, plus interest, could be over $100,000 for each of the survivors. The pensions were originally created by the federal government to assist widows in dire need. The plan was then extended to all widows in Canada, and finally to include men. Québec and Canada have separate (though virtually identical) pension plans for citizens. In 1998, both were amended to include surviving partners in same-sex relationships. However, both the federal and Québec governments paid only those gay and lesbian survivors whose partners died after the law went into effect in 1998. The partners of the four Québec gay men had died before 1998, which prompted the suit. A similar suit, against the Canadian government, has been launched by gay and lesbian surviving partners in the rest of the country, and is still before the courts. The class action suit seeks $440 million on behalf of an estimated 10,000 gays and lesbians whose partners died before the Canada Pension Plan began recognizing same-sex couples. A challenge to the marriage ban was filed in January, 1998, but the case’s couple, Martin Dube and his Mexican national partner, Manual Gambora, decided not to proceed. A male couple since 1973, Michael Hendricks, 57, and Rene Leboeuf, 43, filed a similar suit in Québec Superior Court for the right to marry on September 14, 1998. The suit hinged on the fact that the Québec Civil Code — which states that a marriage license is granted only to a man and a woman — violates the province’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has forbidden discrimination against gay men and lesbians since 1967. It also challenged Québec’s right to decide who can get married, which it claimed is a federal jurisdiction. Apparently, there are no federal laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Québec Superior Court judge Louise Lemelin declared, on September 6, 2002, that the definition of marriage for opposite-sex only was unconstitutional. The judge stated, “the definition of marriage imposes a discriminatory distinction in excluding couples of the same sex.” This is the second high court, after Ontario’s July 12, 2002 judgement, to demand that the Canadian government start treating all citizens equally. On March 18, 2004, Québec became the fifth government in the world to offer legal marriage to same-sex couples       [See our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage] — Saskatchewan — Saskatchewan was one of the first provinces in Canada to allow gay couples to adopt, but the changes in 1990 did not extend to gay couples applying for parental status of stepchildren. The Saskatchewan government, in July 6, 2001, finally amended 24 different provincial laws that will allow same-sex couples such things as the right to adopt stepchildren, and give them easy access to public pensions. The changes come two years after a Supreme Court decision requiring provincial governments to give unmarried, opposite-and same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples. On November 5, 2004, Saskatchewan offered legal marriage to same-sex couples.       [See our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage] — Yukon Territory — On July 14, 2004, the Yukon Territory offered legal marriage to same-sex couples.       [See our article: Canada Offers Legal Marriage] Chile The Chile Supreme Court repealed a decision to grant a lesbian mother full custody of her children, claiming her sexuality would have a damaging impact on the lives of the children. Karen Atala had been awarded custody of her three children by a lower appeals court. Her former husband appealed again, pushing the case to the highest court. The May 31, 2004, 3-2 decision grants custody to the father, maintaining that Atala’s lesbian relationships disqualified her from any custody rights. The panel of judges opposed to the custody order said the children could be emotionally and sexually stunted by the “replacement [of a father figure] by another person of the female gender.” They also claimed that the children would be subjected to rejection because their family unit was “significantly different” to the norm. The decision has been slammed by the international Human Rights Watch group, which accused the court of punishing Atala for her honesty. Although homosexuality was decriminalized in 1999, anti-gay and lesbian sentiment appears to be rife. Those judges who voted against barring the mother from custody said they objected to the decision because it was discriminatory. They argued that Atala’s lesbianism was not a ground for depriving her of the custody she would normally enjoy as a separated mother under Chilean law. Under Chilean law, separated mothers are given full custody of their children, unless in exceptional circumstances. Because it was from the Supreme Court, this decision is final, no appeal is possible. China On March 15, 2004, a marriage certificate was issued to Zhang Lin, a transsexual from Peng Township, Shuangliu County in Southwest China's Sichuan Province. She obtained the certificate after being officially recognized by the state with a new ID card. Zhang Lin, 37, and her husband, Yang Qicheng, will hold a marriage ceremony with 500 guests on May 1. Zhang had previously been married to a woman before her sex reassignment surgery, and has a 12-year-old daughter from that marriage. Colombia Apparently a first for Colombian family courts, in March 2000 a judge overruled the claim of the father and nephews of “Dagoberto,” awarding the entire estate to his same-sex partner “Cristian.” The Santafe de Bogota family court judge stated that Cristian “had been the man’s partner by default after having lived in a gay relationship that had lasted more than four years.” Cristian had cared for Dagoberto throughout his struggle with AIDS without any assistance from the dying man’s family. Before the court ruling — immediately following Dagoberto’s cremation — the family had taken possession of the couple’s apartment and everything in it, and had told Cristian to leave. On Oct. 11, 2001, the Colombian Supreme Court granted conjugal rights to a lesbian prisoner, ordering the director of the Risaralda Women’s Prison to put Alba Nelly Montoya and her partner on an equal footing with the facility’s married women. The Montoya decision is now expected to set national policy and lead to a settlement on behalf of another lesbian, Marta Alvarez, who has been petitioning for conjugal rights since the mid-1990s. After years of dismissal by the courts, Alvarez asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to consider the issue, which they did in October 1999. Alvarez’s hearing marked the first time that the commission had broached the subject of sexual orientation discrimination. However, their request for Alvarez and the government to come to reach a “friendly settlement” came to naught, as two years went by. Her case has been supported by The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Both Alvarez and Montoya were represented by attorney Marta Lucia Tamayo, who called the recent ruling a “great triumph.” Tamayo gave credit for the victory to both her clients, “who had the courage to show their faces and fight publicly for love.” The Colombian First Commission of the Senate agreed to a law proposal, on November 21, 2001, that the unions made by same-sex couples should be recognized and protected by the nation. The proposed law would give couples access to social security, the “right to mutual nourishment, ” and to merge their patrimonial belongings. It would also allow a registered partner to inherit half of the assets accrued by the other partner during the relationship, and it extends spousal health, pension, and alimony benefits. Same-sex partnerships would be recognized, as long as they are made up of stable and free unions between two adults that have lived together for at least two years, and that have registered their partnership. Six articles were withdrawn from the original draft presented by Senator Piedad Cordoba, including one that asked for the elimination of all content that was found to be sexually discriminatory from scholastic texts and programs, giving couples the right to inherit from their partners, as well as criminalizing discrimination against gay men and lesbians with sentences of one-to-three years. An editorial in Bogotá’s El Tiempo supported the proposed legislation: “There are reports that in zones controlled by paramilitary and guerrilla forces, homosexuals are forced to leave or are harshly persecuted. But armed groups are not the only ones that act against them. Under the antiquated morality that reigns among important levels in our society, they are tolerated as long as they remain hidden, but when they come out, they are discriminated without a second thought. “Blinding ourselves to the reality represented by nearly two million homosexuals is akin to covering the sun with our hands. Even if each person, as an individual, can think whatever they want regarding homosexuality, in a modern democratic nation, the law has the obligation to protect their rights. Even more so if in Colombian society — where ‘machismo’ and ‘pacatería’ prevails — we are dealing with a minority that still lives under unacceptable levels of discrimination. This is why Senator Cordoba’s project aims to address an oversight that has gone on for many years. “The Constitution can state that all Colombians are free and equal under the law. But as long as it does not extend that equality to homosexual couples, it, in fact, sanctions the discrimination it condemns in written words.” - translated from Bogotá’s El Tiempo, November 26, 2001 In late August 2003, Colombia decided to abandon its plans to legalize same-sex relationships, likely a direct result of the Vatican’s recent anti-gay declaration, which called on Catholic politicians and members of the public to loudly oppose any laws that would lead to the recognition of same-sex committed relationships as being similar to marriage. The country had planned to introduce the new laws, which would have given same-sex couples similar rights to opposite-sex married couples. Support for the legislation came from three previous presidents, and had been expected to pass easily through the country’s legal system. In February 2007, Colombia’s Constitutional Court ruled that spousal property and inheritance rights must be extended to same-sex couples. On October 4, 2007, Colombia’s Constitutional Court ruled 7-2 that, effective immediately, same-sex couples can add their partner to their medical insurance plans, as do married couples. They are required to register with a notary. The ruling applies to both private and governmental plans. The court said that denying benefits to same-sex partners violated their right to a dignified life and promoted an “absolute lack of protection for couples of the same sex.” Czech Republic The Republic’s cabinet approved, and sent to parliament, legislation to recognize same-sex partnerships on September 17, 2001. The law was designed to clear the way for a surviving partner to inherit, as well as gain other legal rights. It would allow same-sex couples to register at local government offices, and requires a court-approved, divorce-like process to leave a relationship. It would not allow same-sex couples to adopt children. On October 26, 2001, the Czech parliament lower chamber rejected a draft of the law, returning it to the government for revision. Gay rights groups have lobbied for such a legislation for years, this being the third time such a law has been rejected. As expected, some lawmakers and the Catholic Church were staunchly opposed to the proposal. The Church had organized a petition drive against the bill. Yet another bill for limited spousal right for same-sex couples was approved by the parliament’s lower chamber in December 2005, however, it needed approval by the upper chamber, the Senate, as well as the unlikely approval of president Vaclav Klaus. Protest to such a law was launched from 10 Christian church groups. They claim, in a letter published on January 16, 2006, on the Czech Bishops Conference Web site that same-sex couples have the power to weaken opposite-sex couples’ family life and cause values chaos: “We think that the adoption of a law on same-sex partnership will further weaken family life and will cause chaos in values, mainly in the young generation.” Signed by representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and eight Protestant churches. President Klaus stated that the registered partnership was a “tragic illusion,” adding that laws grant privilege to opposite-sex marriage, given the fact that one of the outmost objectives of such marriage is to create a family and raise children. He has chosen to ignore the fact that same-sex couples constitute a family, and that some same-sex couples also raise children. Pres. Vaclav Klaus: “One cannot create a family in same-sex marriage. I repeat, there is no single reason for the state to grant homosexual marriage a privilege” In early February 2006, the registered partnership bill won a legislative vote — 86-78 — slightly above the required threshold. On February 16, 2006, the president announced his refusal to sign the bill. However, the “Life Partnership Bill” was instituted in the Czech Republic on March 15, 2006. The Chamber of Deputies passed the law allowing a registered partnership of same-sex couples, overriding the veto of President Vaclav Klaus.       [Please see our article: Czech Republic: Registered Partnership Bill] Finland Finland offered domestic partnership status to same-sex couples in September 2001. The Finish Supreme Court ruled, October 19, 2001, that custody of two children would go to their deceased mother’s female partner instead of to their biological father. Lower courts had ruled that the children should go to the father, but the Supreme Court based its decision on the will of the children. It was the first Supreme Court ruling in which the custody of children was given to a person who was not related to them, rather than a biological family member. The children, 12 and 14, had been in the sole custody of their mother. The children’s father lived abroad, and they had been living with their mother and her partner since 1993. The court stated, “The Court came to the conclusion that it was in the best interest of the children that custody be awarded to the person with whom the children were living.” France While not the same as legal marriage, France offers “Civil solidarity pacts”. These provide far more than just symbolic significance, offering some of the tax, welfare, and inheritance rights that married couples enjoy. Registered couples are able to share such things as joint auto insurance, extend their social security coverage to each other, file joint tax returns, and leave each other property in their wills on favorable tax terms.       [See: Civil Solidarity Pact] Noel Mamere, mayor of Begles in southwest France, said in April 2004, that he will conduct a wedding ceremony for two men in June 2004. He said that he found no French laws that could block it. It was reported that Mamere found it “unacceptable” that lesbians and gay men do not have full equality when it comes to marriage, saying that in the European Union there is “nothing extraordinary” about same-sex marriages. In July 2004, a French court recognized, for the first time, joint parental authority of a lesbian couple who had given birth to three girls. The court decision opened new opportunities for homosexual couples to be recognized as parents, however, it did not recognize their right to bear children. At this time, adoption is only legal for opposite-sex couples. France forbids un-wed women the right to insemination, resulting in tens of thousands of French lesbian couples seeking children outside of France. Some go to Belgium, while others inseminate at home. On February 24, 2006, France’s high court, the Cour de Cassation, ruled that both partners in a same-sex couple can exercise parental authority over a child, rather than just the biological parent. The court decides how to interpret French law, however, does not hear trials. The ruling could open the way for further debate in France on same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples, which remains illegal. Germany The German military is contemplating exempting both married men and those in gay relationships from military service, according to Die Welt, October 23, 2000. And, according to Agence France Presse, the government issued a statement that this is still under study, and that gay men would qualify for such an exemption only if their partnerships were registered. A registered partnership law for same-sex couples, called “Life Partnerships,” was enacted in Germany in March 2001. The first registrations took place on August 1, 2001. The legal recognition of lesbian and gay partnerships have often been mistakenly called “same-sex marriages” by the public. The provincial governments of Bavaria, Thuringia, and Saxonia announced that they opposed the new law. The Bavarian Minister of Justice asked the court to grant a legal injunction, to suspension the partnership law taking effect while their suit is pending. He claimed that the registered partnership law would somehow undermine the constitution and disregard family values. The courts refused to stop the law in July 2001. The Bavarian state assembly finally approved the measure on October 25, 2001, and it will take effect in that state on November 1, 2001.       [For more information on the German domestic partnership law, please see: “Life Partnerships” In early May 2004, Germany expanded its civil union legislation to ensure the financial benefits received by same-sex couples are the same as opposite-sex couples. The country’s labor court ruled in the case of a male nurse filing for equal benefits. Now, location allowances and other financial issues will be equalized throughout the country’s civil service and governmental agencies. Additionally, the judges ruled there should be no difference between opposite-sex couples who wish to get married and same-sex couples who wish to sign a register, further strengthening the law. Berlin’s Administrative Court ruled, on June 24 2005, that people united under Germany’s same-sex partnership law are entitled to each other’s pension when one of them dies. The court redefined the word “spouse” in pension benefit plans. Great Britain While civil marriage is not legal in England, it is interesting to note that a network of 60 Church of England priests perform clandestine same-sex weddings in Anglican Churches. Reports the Sunday Times of London, “They have ushered hundreds of homosexuals up the aisles in services that could lead to their dismissal if discovered by bishops.” The secret ceremonies reportedly are arranged by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. England may have had its first same-sex legal marriage. On March 18, 2000, two women, Diane Maddox, 43, and Clair Ward-Jackson, 23, were legally married in Aldershot, southern England. The marriage was allowed because Maddox, who underwent a sex change operation several years ago, was able to provide a certificate proving she had been born a man. In Britain, a person’s sex is officially determined by what is written on their birth certificate, not by any further sex reassignment surgery. While they are in fact a same-sex couple, they are legally an opposite-sex couple, and hence satisfy the major requirement for legal marriage. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, set aside £100,000 of council taxpayers’ money for a register to formally recognize same-sex relationships on February 27, 2001. The registry has no legal standing, only symbolic value, however, it could result in some insurance companies recognizing same-sex partners for the first time. There has been a huge increase in support within London for the introduction of such a register. An April 2001 poll showed that 43 percent of Londoners gave their support to Livingstone’s proposal for the creation of a register. Livingstone called the move a “step on the road to equality,” adding he hoped other cities and organizations would follow suit. Political supporters see the register as a first step towards introducing a civil partnership law, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, and introduced in many other European countries. The “London Partnerships Register,” was implemented on September 5, 2001. It made the Greater London Authority the first public organization in Britain to offer recognition to same-sex couples. While the Register does not confer any of the rights of legal marriage, but it is expected to prove the existence of an intimate relationship should there be legal dispute concerning issues such as tenancy, pensions, and immigration. Registered couples may also have a ceremony, which is presided by a city official at the visitors’ center of the Greater London Authority. Applicants are offered two options, a 10-minute event in which they sign the register, or a more elaborate 30-minute version which can involve readings and music. The cost is £85, and up to 25 guests are allowed. Registrations are only held on Wednesdays and Saturdays. As of September 5, 2002, approximately 305 couples registered, the majority are same-sex couples. Also during this time there were five couples who de-registered; three female and two male couples. During the this same period, other U.K. cities introduced or announced plans for their own versions of the register, including Manchester and Brighton. By December 2002, more than 350 same-or opposite-sex couples have signed the London Partnerships Register, in spite of the fact that it does not confer any legal benefits. Britain’s Minister for Women, Baroness Sally Morgan was interview at the end of October 2001, and said that the Blair government is interested in setting up a national registry for partnership unions. According to the interview, the government is examining a formula similar to the London Registry created by Mayor Ken Livingstone. Under consideration were pension and tenancy rights, however, it is not considering legal marriage for same-sex couples. Stakeholder pension legislation, introduced in 2001, has made it possible for unmarried couples — same-and opposite-sex — to inherit each other’s personal pension funds for the first time. The old rules were junked that required personal pension trustees to pay only to a surviving spouse, or financial dependents. Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, the Liberal Democrat peer, brought a Private Member’s Bill to the Lords on January 9, 2002. The “Civil Partnerships” Bill would have allow unmarried same-and opposite-sex partners, in mutually supportive relationships, to legally protect each other in the areas of health, social security and property issues. Lord Lester has been working closely with Stonewall, a gay lobby group, on the bill. The legislation sailed through Second Reading in the Lords on January 25, and was slated for committee scrutiny. But, Lester withdrew it on February 11, saying he will not press for passage in this session of Parliament. Despite support in the Lords during second reading, private member’s bills seldom pass. Lord Lester said he was instead recommending the creation of a select committee to examine the whole issue of partnership unions. The government did not support Lord Lester’s bill, but is looking to write its own legislation. If Lord Lester’s bill had been defeated in the Lords, it would make it more difficult to pass a future government bill. Same-and opposite-sex unmarried partners of MPs and civil servants are to be given the same pension rights as married couples. The move follows an MP vote in 2001, and will be introduced by October 2002. Same-sex and other unmarried couples should have the right to adopt children, a representative of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government said on May 7, 2002. The government will now support such an amendment to an adoption bill now in Parliament, Health Secretary Alan Milburn said in an Associated Press report. Single people of any orientation are currently allowed to adopt children under British law. The new bill would allow unmarried couples, including same-sex partners, to jointly adopt and share custody. “The government’s objective is to increase the number of children to have the opportunity, through adoption, to grow up as part of a loving, stable and permanent family,” Milburn said. He added that candidate couples would have to demonstrate long-term stability. In May 2002, prison rules were reformed in England and Wales allowing same-sex partners to be classified as close relatives. In addition, an inmate who is in a relationship with another inmate at a different prison will be allowed to apply for an “inter-prison visit.” Martin Narey, the Prison Service director general said that the hope is the change will encourage stability in the lives of gay prisoners, an important factor preventing recidivism. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) said on September 15, 2003, that it will increase its pension and compensation payments, and, for the first time, include surviving partners of gay and lesbian personnel. It is completely rejuvenating its systems after increasing pressure from civil rights groups. Couples will receive payments if there was a “substantial relationship.“ Partners left behind when a soldier dies in combat will now receive four times pension pay, instead of just 1.5 times. The increase in payment follows media concern following war in Iraq, where it became known that American soldiers’ partners received substantially more compensation (though not given to surviving same-sex partners). It is possible that the new system may include a registration of non-married couples to ensure inclusion. In 2000, the military was forced to overturn its ban on lesbian and gay members after it was taken to the European Courts of Human Rights. Since then it has introduced a new code of sexual conduct without any reported problems. A domestic partner registration was established on November 19, 2004. It is called “Civil Partnerships.”       [See: Civil Partnerships: The Great Britain Approach] A British lesbian has won the right to visit her former partner’s biological children. The deputy head of the Family Division reversed a ruling on April 7, 2005, made at Telford County Court the previous November, when it denied a joint residence order to the first partner. The deputy stated: “What has been said about the importance of fathers is of equal application in same-sex parents.” By winning a “joint residence,” the 46-year-old woman gained shared parental responsibility for the girls, now aged 3 and 6. The woman, who has a 16-year-old biological son, had lived with the 31-year-old mother of the girls, conceived by donor insemination, since 1995. Their relationship ended in May 2003 and the mother now has a new partner. Greece On February 25, 2005, Greece’s National Human Rights Committee (EEDA) called for same-sex civil unions so that homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal social benefits, such as filing tax forms, and receiving pensions. EEDA, which advises the prime minister and government, proposed laws be amended for “the legal recognition of a real symbiotic relationship between homosexuals.” After being asked whether she expected a reaction from the Catholic Church, the scientific adviser to EEDA, Christina Papadopoulou said: “We are dealing with this only as a state issue. We do not care if the Church agrees or not.” Greek gay groups said the proposal was a good start, but needed to go further. Honduras The Honduras National Congress unanimously amended the constitution, on March 29, 2005, to ban same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples. The amendment also forbids recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions from other nations. Hungary Same-sex couples in Hungary are now covered by the legal protection of common-law marriage, which carries some of the same rights as legal marriage. The court action was initiated by Homeros Lambda and was ruled on by the Constitutional Court of Hungary on March 8, 1995. The ruling does not, however, make same-sex couples eligible for legal marriage registration. India Lesbian couple, Jaya Verma and Tanuja Chauhan, held a Hindu marriage ceremony at their home in the small township of Ambikapur in the central state of Chattisgarh in May 2001. They are pressing the local registrar to grant them a marriage license. In the meantime, their landlord asked them to leave their home. Ireland On February 6, 2006, same-sex couple Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan, sued for legal marriage recognition. A couple for more than 20 years, they had a Canadian legal marriage in 2003. The suit is against Ireland’s tax service because it refuses to acknowledge them as a married couple. Case outcome could go beyond just the tax codes. Same-sex couples have no legal recognition in Ireland, although senior government officials have recently called for a similar system to the U.K. civil partnership registration. Italy On December 4, 2006, Padua has become the first Italian city to legally recognize same-sex couples. Padua’s city council decided to recognize unmarried cohabiting couples, including gay men and lesbians, allowing the statistics office to issue certificates to domestic partners recognizing them as “a family founded on bonds of affection.” The measure was sponsored by Alessandro Zan, a city councilman from the Democratic Party of the Left, who is also the regional president of the gay rights group Arcigay. Zan said the measure wasn’t intended as a precursor to gay unions but rather as official recognition of a legal status. La Repubblica quoted Alessandro Zan: “It will be a very important instrument because it grants power to obtain all the rights and benefits that many laws and rules give to domestic partners, but which you can’t enjoy without an official certificate from the statistics office.” Such a certificate could be useful, for example, in obtaining a joint bank account or protecting the rights of a partner in the case of death. On December 7, 2006, the Italian government announced it will draft legislation giving legal rights to civil unions including homosexual couples by the beginning of 2007. The decision was announced by the Senate speaker of the Union, the largest political faction in the center-left cabinet majority, Anna Finocchiaro. Israel The Supreme Court ruled that the airline El Al must provide equal benefits to both the married partners and the same-sex partners of its employees. (Section 2a of Israel’s Equal Employment Opportunities Law, as amended in 1992, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their orientation.) A court ruled in 1997 that the Israeli Defense Force must provide pension benefits to the gay male partner of a deceased officer. It was expected that the IDF would appeal this decision. We have no follow-up information. Tel Aviv passed a law on October 3, 2002, that makes same-sex couples eligible for discounts and benefits at cultural facilities, libraries, swimming pools and various city events. Under the regulations, “the Tel Aviv municipality will not discriminate against a person in the conferral of services due to his personal status. The municipality will treat couples known to the public, including single sex couples, as couples in every sense, and will confer to them the same discounts and benefits in public services which are provided to married couples.” To be eligible, couples submit an affidavit signed by an attorney. They then receive municipality benefits vouchers, similar to ones received by single parent families. On November 13, 2004, a Nazareth District Court ruled that gay men and lesbians will automatically inherit a deceased partner’s estate, unless it is willed to someone else. Same-sex couples in Israel will now have the same rights as common law spouses regarding matters of property, taxation, and inheritance. The suit was brought by “I.M.” who sought ownership of the house he shared with his late partner for 40 years. Israel’s attorney general, Menachem Mazuz, decided not to appeal the decision, so the finding stands as law. The former attorney general, Elyakim Rubinstein, had declared in 2003 that Israel would not recognize same-sex couples. The Tel Aviv District Court ruled, on December 29, 2005, that Israel’s Interior Ministry cannot deport a Colombian gay man with an expired visa as long as he remains coupled with his partner, who is an Israeli Defense Forces soldier. Judge Uzi Vogelman said common-law, same-sex couples have the same right to stay together as married couples. The case was brought on the couple’s behalf by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on January 10, 2005, that a female couple, together for 15 years, would be allowed to adopt each other’s children. The women, Tal and Avital Yaros-Hak, have three children. In 1997, they petitioned the Ramat Gan Family Court seeking the right to adopt each other’s children, and court recognition of their joint parenthood. While the court rejected the petition, it granted them guardianship of each other’s children, a precedent that has since become customary. Their appeal to Tel Aviv District Court was also rejected in a two-justice majority over a minority opinion by Saviona Rotlevi, who wrote: “The need to provide the children and the family unit in which they are growing up a legal framework, fits the court’s obligation to create social norms and stand strongly against the intolerance of parts of society toward those who are different.” The adoption is good for the children because it provides better protection and more rights for them than custodianship should their natural mother die, as well as greater emotional and psychological stability for them as they grow up. On March 15, 2005, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz ordered the National Insurance Institute to begin paying survivor benefits to same-sex partners. This was in response to a lawsuit filed by Giora Raz who quit working to care for his cancer-stricken partner of 23 years, who had worked for El Al Israel Airlines. The ruling will also apply to areas such as work accident insurance, childbirth allowances, and disability pensions. On June 7, 2005, the Knesset passed a bill allowing same-sex partners to inherit from the deceased partner, if they died intestate. The law stipulates that customary alimony arrangement of “common-law spouses” applies to homosexual couples. On November 15, 2005, the Be’er Sheva Family Court ruled that a woman can adopt her female partner’s daughter. The biological mother had the child through donor insemination, and had since sued in an effort to force the state to recognize both her and her partner as the child’s parents. Judge Pinhas Asulin based his decision on supportive testimonies describing the two women as a family in every way. He ruled that responsibility for the child should be placed equally on both parents, similarly to the way most families function. The two women, both in their 30s, are also raising a second child, whose testimony was also heard by the court. The court legally recognized the women as a couple three years ago, setting a precedent as the first legally recognized same-sex couple in Israel. The High Court of Justice set an additional precedent in January 2005, ruling that a same-sex couple could adopt each other’s children. Reported on May 9, 2006: A government appointed commission on inheritance law reform recommended to allow same-sex partners to inherit each other’s property without having to go to court. On November 21, 2006, the High Court of Justice ruled 6-1 that five same-sex couples wedded outside of Israel can be registered as married couples. The marriages were obtained in Toronto, Canada, and can listed as married on the Israeli population registry. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, that filed the petition on the behalf of the couples, argued that the Interior Ministry’s refusal to register them as married compromises their right to equality and to hold family life, and was based on homophobic social perceptions. The State Attorney had argued that states recognizing same-sex marriages cannot expect Israel to recognize such nuptial agreements drawn in those countries. He also presented the circular argument that “Israel lacks the appropriate legal framework for such marriages,” and therefore it cannot register them. The Court held that the registration clerk must register the couples as married, in accordance with the public record presented to him. Because the petition was only for registering and not recognition, the Court did not take a position regarding recognition of same-sex marriage by Israel. The Court hoped that the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament) would address the issue of recognition. Right-wing reactions were as vicious, ignorant, and specious as could be expected, claiming — without any sort of proof — that the court action would bring about the “destruction of the family unit in the State of Israel.” Latvia On December 15, 2005, Latvia’s parliament, The Saeima, approved of amendments to the Constitution which effectively ban same-sex marriages. The amendments were initiated by Latvia’s First Party. The amended, Article 110 of the Latvian Constitution, reads, “The state shall protect and support the institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman, the family and the rights of parents and children.” The amendments were supported by 65 members of parliament, with six nays and nine abstentions. It does nothing to “protect marriage,” and nothing to support same-sex couples or those couples who have children. Liechtenstein Liechtenstein, a principality, has approved draft legislation that would give same-sex couples many of the rights associated with legal marriage. The December 2001 bill awaits approval by the parliament. The benefits of the legislation including tax, inheritance, and health benefits. Like many of the other countries offering some sort of second-class, domestic partner status, the bill excludes same-sex couples from the right to adopt children. Mexico A proposal for legal marriage was made in the fall of 2000. It was not widely accepted by Mexican activists. Instead they have focused on establishing a legal framework for nontraditional unions, which they said would go far toward protecting same-sex couples against discrimination. In the winter of 2001, a proposal was made that would grant legal recognition to same-sex unions, though only in Mexico City. It would create a version of common law marriage, extending inheritance rights and social security to couples who currently lack legal recognition in Mexico. The bill would also apply to the elderly and their care givers. Mexico never outlawed homosexual acts. However, police regularly raid areas in which gay men congregate, invoking an ill-defined statute known as crimes against morality, largely as a means of extortion. Effective in March 2007, Mexico City, Mexico, offered a Registration for same-sex couples. The municipal assembly, controlled by left-wing legislators, voted for the measure 43-17, on November 9, 2006. The law was signed by the mayor on November 13, 2006. The measure offers the same financial and legal rights to an array of platonic relationships: between two longtime roommates, for instance, or between a person of age and a devoted caregiver. Religious workers without children, such as nuns, also could benefit. The measure was modeled on France’s civil code and provides property, pension, inheritance and even co-parenting rights. However, it does not allow full civil marriage, or adoption of children. In January 11, 2007, Coahuila, a mining and ranching region south of Texas, approved a registration process for same-sex couples, becoming the second area in Mexico to offer a legal status. Legislators in the state Congress voted 20-13 for the bill which gives more rights than the similar law instituted by Mexico City in November 2006. Coahuila offers social security benefits. The law was promoted by Coahuila’s Institutional Revolutionary Party, which rules the state. Debate for the law had begun in late 2006. The measure was modeled on France’s civil code and provides property, pension, inheritance and even co-parenting rights. Namibia A high court ruling, on June 25, 1999, stated that same-sex couples have exactly the same rights as opposite-sex couples. The rabidly anti-gay government had sought to deny a German woman a residence permit because of her homosexual relationship with her Namibian partner. Judge Harold Levy also that ruled the Ministry of Home Affairs must supply reasons for refusing an application for permanent residence. The couple has been living together for several years and are raising a son. Levy ruled, “Not only is this relationship recognized, but the respondents (Home Affairs) should have taken it into account … I have no hesitation in saying that the long-term relationship between the applicants, in so far as it is a universal partnership, is recognized by law.” The Netherlands More than 100 Dutch cities offer to register relationships, a formality that carries no benefits or legal rights of any sort. As of July 1995, more than 800 couples had registered. In January 1998, the Netherlands instituted “Registered Partnerships.” It is the only country to offer it for both same- and opposite-sex couples. Some professions, including civil service, health care, education, and KLM Airlines had already received spousal benefits.