Tag Archives: same-sex marriage

India’s Supreme Court Rules Against Marriage Equality, Calls on Parliament and Government to Define Same-Sex Couples’ Rights

Uncategorized,

India’s Supreme Court ruled mostly against LGBT rights advocates in the case Supriyo v. Union of India, ruling that same-sex couples do not have a right to marry under the Special Marriages Act, 1954. In addition, the majority ruled against a formal right of same-sex couples to civil union absent legislation, as well as a right to adopt, and ruled that the courts must leave the issue to Parliament. However, the majority did rule that same-sex couples have the right to choose their own partner and that transgender people in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry their partner. 

The minority on the court also issued a dissent which also ruled against the right to marry under the Special Marriages Act but did recognize the right to civil union and the right of transgender people to marry. 

The ruling is a setback for the same-sex couples in India, who awaited the ruling after years of litigation at the state level. However, observers noticed that many of the details rehashed prior favorable rulings, including Navtej (which struck down Section 377), NALSA (which declared transgender people a third gender and affirmed their rights), Deepika Singh (which expanded the definition of family to include unmarried couples, queer relationships and single parents), and Puttaswamy (aka the “right to privacy verdict”). At the very least, it is the firmest statement yet by the Supreme Court of India on the rights of same-sex couples, even as it lacks anywhere near the punch or power of landmark decisions from other countries of similar import, such as Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

The Same-sex couples committee?

In addition, in the absence of marriage under the Special Marriages Act, the Court unanimously called on the federal government to create a committee under the Cabinet Secretary to detail and advise the government on the rights and privileges of same-sex couples, an act which was promised by the Solicitor General to the Court during oral arguments.

There is no telling as to what the committee will look like, or what the scope of the committee’s powers may be. At the very least, it could look like the National Council for Transgender Persons, which was established under the Transgender Persons (Protections of Rights) Act, 2019, which was passed largely to fulfill some of the letter of the 2014 NALSA decision. 

Possible rights within the scope of the proposed committee:

  • partnership registration of some kind
  • Joint residency in housing
  • Joint custody and adoption
  • Joint decision-making in healthcare of partner
  • Inheritance and property
  • Power of attorney and judicial proceedings
  • Finance
  • Insurance
  • Employment benefits for partners
  • Protection from spousal violence by partners
  • Protection from violence and interference by non-partners
  • Rights of transgender partners of the same gender

Advocates on the ground are not holding their breath for such a committee to be created or sustained by the Modi government, which came out against the Supriyo petitioners and sought to convince the court to rule the entire case inadmissable and non-justiciable.

Thoughts about this case

  • Advocates are rightly heated by this decision and by the suspense in which they were held for most of the year.
  • The decision closes the door to litigation as an avenue for marriage rights for same-sex couples in India, meaning that LGBT groups must intensely lobby federal and state governments for expansion of their rights for the foreseeable future.
  • This will definitely make same-sex couples a football for political parties and lobbying groups to play. Expect heavy politicization and maybe polarization.
  • Openly-LGBT people will have to run for office and advocate for themselves in the media.
  • Are there any Indian organizations focused on advocating for LGBT marriage and family rights?
  • This campaign for marriage rights will take several more years to bear fruit.
  • No telling if this ruling will have an effect on marriage litigation or even legislation in other countries in the way Obergefell (may have) had. Obergefell itself was cited by the Supriyo petitioners, while the Dobbs decision on abortion was criticized by the justices during Supriyo‘s oral arguments regarding justiciability on social issues.

The “Least” Offensive Ways by Which the Abrahamic Fanatics Carve Out Exceptions on LGBT Rights

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

Abolishing Marriage Licenses

On August 29, 2019, over four years after the landmark Scotus ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, Alabama followed through on a lingering threat to abolish marriage licenses. The resulting law is…..interesting, to say the least.

Under the new law, county probate judges are now required to record marriage certificates but are no longer required to issue licenses. Couples are no longer required to apply for a license, and only need to complete and send a marriage certificate to a probate judge, who is required to declare the marriage valid. A ceremony may be held for the wedding, but solemnization is no longer required for a recognized marriage in Alabama.

Coincidentally, this method is similar to how marriage is done in Australia. Over there, marriage licenses do not exist, and are instead carried out in the following manner:

  1. the couple notifies a certified celebrant one month in advance
  2. the couple meets the celebrant in person with at least two witnesses over the age of 18 present
  3. the celebrant recites the required words to solemnize the marriage
  4. the couple signs the certificate in front of the celebrant and witnesses
  5. the celebrant sends the marriage certificate to that state’s Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, who registers the marriage as valid.

The Alabama system seemingly discards the need for a celebrant of any type. It’s as close as Alabama might get to common-law marriage. Unironically, this makes sense, even with the Respect for Marriage Act codifying Loving v. Virginia and Windsor v. United States into law. Now, on the other hand….

The “Utah Compromise”

I still think about how Utah’s SB 296 from 2015 has been hailed since as the “Utah Compromise” on LGBT rights. It was written to protect against discrimination in housing and employment for LGBT people. And now SCOTUS may further gut anti-discrimination laws in order to force this compromise on those states which have more comprehensive civil rights laws in place.

Only Indiana and Arkansas went so far as to pass their bills into law (Georgia and Arizona’s were both vetoed by Republican governors), and both did so without an LGBT nondiscrimination bill being considered by their Republican majorities.

The RFRA moment reached its crescendo in state legislatures in 2015-16 in the run-up to and aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges, after which the religious right shifted its war-making in the direction of targeting public accommodations for transgender people.

What if this outgoing Congress had passed the Fairness for All Act, which adds the broad religious exemptions to LGBT rights protections sought by the LDS church? The ACLU criticized the bill in 2019 due to its singling-out of sexual orientation and gender identity for religious exemptions, its attempted undermining of then-ongoing court cases, and its undermining of child welfare protections.

I’m trying to find an example of a federal bill which would have advanced broad religious exemptions to all existing civil rights law, something like what Indiana’s SB 101 did. I’ve seen federal bills attempting to expand RFRA to vaccines and vaccine mandates during the height of the pandemic, but not yet something that would expand federal RFRA into a sledgehammer against all other federal civil rights law.

That’s the problem, IMO, with the Fairness for All Act being framed as a federal analogue to Utah SB 296. It specifically targets SOGI for exemptions, like bills filed during the pandemic by Ron Estes or Marco Rubio targeted vaccines, when the GOP could have gone whole-hog and targeted all civil rights law like Indiana SB 101 did. Meanwhile, Utah SB 296 only protected against discrimination in housing and employment, said nothing about SOGI in public accommodations, and was built into Utah’s extremely-broad religious exemptions for state civil rights law (even on race and color).

SCOTUS, these days, seems interested in carving out such exemptions on SOGI. The question is how far are they willing to wreck the Civil Rights Act(s) and Americans with Disabilities Act in the process.

2022 is a Banner Year for Same-sex Partnerships in Japan

Uncategorized, , ,

Despite some legal setbacks, many Japanese jurisdictions have moved ahead with strengthening recognition and registration of same-sex couples:

  • A record number of cities and wards enacted partnership registries on a single day (1 April)
  • Tokyo is set to (finally) establish a prefecture-wide partnership registry on 1 November
  • Saga and Fukuoka prefectures, both on Kyushu, established a mutual recognition agreement (18 August), the first between prefectures.
  • Crystal ball notes:
    • I would not be surprised if mutual recognition between prefectural governments becomes more of a thing in lieu of any national-level recognition
    • In Taiwan’s spree of local registries from 2015 to 2018 prior to same-sex marriage, at least one agreement was made, this being between Taipei and Kaohsiung city governments.
    • While Shibuya in Tokyo was the first in Japan to create a partnership registry, the city of Fukuoka was the first to establish a mutual recognition agreement with other cities, and has done so mostly with other cities’ registries on the island of Kyushu.
    • Most other cities which have established these mutual recognition agreements have mostly done so within the same prefecture.
    • This agreement between Saga and Fukuoka is likely to do a lot of advancement for the cause of same-sex civil recognition in Japan, cutting some red tape.
    • Saga and Fukuoka are two of eight prefectures with same-sex partnerships created since 2019, with three others (Tochigi, Shizuoka and Tokyo) joining throughout the autumn. Saga and Fukuoka are also two prefectures with registries which border each other.
    • Aomori and Akita, which also have registries, also border each other in Northern Honshu, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they also make an agreement soon.
    • With Tochigi enacting their registry on 1 September, I wouldn’t be surprised at a mutual agreement between Tochigi, Ibaraki and Gunma.
    • Based on the above, why are Saitama and Kanagawa holding out on prefectural registries?

What the fuck.

Via JMG:

Phillip W. Unruh and Sandra L. Unruh today filed a motion to intervene in the ACLU’s marriage equality case in Kansas. As laid out in multiple points in their brief, the Unruhs declare that legalization of same-sex marriage would constitute the literal theft of their straight Christian marriage, a property which is guaranteed to belong only to them per the Fifth Amendment.

The full brief is here.

via Joe. My. God.: KANSAS: Straight Couple Seeks To Intervene In Marriage Case Because Gays Literally Want To Steal Their Marriage.

There are better ways of making an impact than casting pearls before swine

LGBT, To Export, , ,

Noah Michaelson, editor for HuffPo’s Gay Voices, takes on gay evangelical businessman Matt Stolhandske’s publicized offer of a $150,000 “olive branch” donation to a anti-gay Christian fundamentalist baker couple who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple:

Well, guess what, Stolhandske? You are an apologist for homophobes. And this kind of anti-gay behavior shouldn’t be rewarded. While I don’t like to see anyone suffer, this wasn’t something that just happened to the Kleins. They willfully disregarded the law — they went so far as to close their store rather than offer their services to a gay couple — and when you break the law, there are consequences.

Besides, what kind of a message does paying for these people’s fine really offer? It’d be one thing if Aaron and Melissa had shown any sign of remorse for what they did or promised to change their behavior, but they haven’t, and it doesn’t appear that their minds (or hearts) will change anytime soon. Instead, they’d rather lose their business and put their family in jeopardy. And now Stolhandske wants us to co-sign their hate because of some misguided mumbo-jumbo about love and acceptance.

Michaelson provides a list of organizations at the end which would do more good with Stolhandske’s money.

via Here’s a Better Idea for the Gay Man Who Wants to Raise $150,000 for Anti-Gay Bakers | Noah Michelson.

Flip Benham: one of many wastes of talent.

With gay marriage now legal in North Carolina, it was only a matter of time before Flip Benham of Operation Save America started crashing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

The North Carolina-based pastor, who is the father of Religious Right activists David and Jason Benham, reportedly disrupted several weddings at the Mecklenburg County and Courts Office in Charlotte last week.

Benham’s group, which in July disrupted a memorial service at a Unitarian Universalist congregation in New Orleans, “interrupted several couples’ weddings as supporters held up a large rainbow flag to block his view,” according to the North Carolina LGBT publication Q Notes. “Another protester waved a bible in the air as he screamed several profanities and vulgarities.”

via Flip Benham Crashes Gay Weddings In North Carolina | Right Wing Watch.

Today is normal and secular, and lives have been made better

LGBT, ,

The request to those who advocated most strenuously for marriage equality to observe magnanimity in “victory” is short-sighted. There was no victory, no score, no feather on a cap. 

Same-sex couples do not exist to “win” anything. They exist out of long-term love and affection, and they exist for that same purpose. 

That gays were made into targets of culture warriors is a major tragedy, albeit not as grievous of an offense as the scapegoating, criminalization, demeaning and incarceration of homosexuality into a forced closet. 

There was no victory, only realizations. A realization of unconstitutionality, a realization of forcible impoverization, a realization of meaningless, unreasonable denial of humanity and worth. 

Yesterday, our nation, as a whole, realized yet another facet of our inhumanity toward other Americans, and reduced that inhumanity a bit more than the last time that we made such a reduction. 

It is a progression, one on which individualists and communitarians alike will evolve in their own ways, but hopefully will not devolve in irrational disgust. 

Let’s move forward. 

If California fails…

Uncategorized, ,

What is to be done? Sure, Obama has won, but since Florida and Arizona have already passed same-sex marriage bans and California seems like it will pass a similar ban/de-recognition, what is to happen now?

Apparently, even though California has one of the highest concentrations of same-sex-identified residents and couples in the world, the state’s general populace has apparently shown that it cannot be trusted to weigh same-sex relationships along same or similar criteria as "traditional", heterosexual relationships.

But now, after California has rejected the recognition of same-sex marriage (and, by extension, the many long-term same-sex relationships in the state), it is time for the LGBT rights organizations to reassess the security of the place of the LGBT demographic in U.S. society, even in such a place as California, and to rethink just how welcome they are within the de-facto democratic process in these states.

Outside of the marriage issue, for example, the movement towards the establishment of the first LGBT-centric high school in the state of Illinois was brought to a halt a few weeks ago by Chicago’s mayor Daley, who "fears" the effects of "segregation" of LGBT students from non-LGBT students. Only two other such schools have already been established in the U.S., one in New York City (which has faced opposition from conservatives) and one in Milwaukee.

The issue of same-sex relationships in prisons has not been resolved at all; neither have LGBT adoption, LGBT migration and asylum provisions, nor standards of municipal provisions for gay/LGBT villages, nor any special assessment of the needs of the LGBT elderly. Even organized self-defense of LGBT individuals, relationships, gatherings or communities has not been considered save by a few LGBT gun rights organizations like the Pink Pistols. Even the homeless and under-poverty-line LGBT demographic (including the LGBT youth) has not been fully considered, nor has empowerment of the LGBT identity in all areas.

But now let’s look at the issue of the seemingly few-and-far-between LGBT population in rural areas, where the movement for "traditional" marriage may draw its highest support and where the stereotypically. Is this demographic as spread out and unconcentrated as we may assume, or is it possible to encourage a better entrenchment of the LGBT population in rural areas?

What can be defined as LGBT values within a rural context in Middle America? How different is the rural LGBT experience compared to the urban LGBT experience, and how should LGBT organizations in these areas be focused and organized towards their empowerment in these areas? And can a full reachout to the LGBT population, closeted and non-closeted, in non-urban areas, including Califiornia, help to redefine how the public views the LGBT demographic?

I think that the answer to all of the above questions is an emphatic "Yes." Rural, Middle American visibility matters in any political situation. Establishing a stronger presence in such areas could potentially push the LGBT rights agenda’s advocacy to new heights of respectability in the political arena.

I think it is time that PFLAG, the HRC, GLAAD and other LGBT-centric organizations begin to assess their rural efforts and outreach if they hope to reverse the tide of same-sex marriage bans that have been passed by most state’s electorates within the last decade. But the only question that remains on such an effort is "How?"