24.11.2013 by David Gold
So far, civil marriage for all consenting adult couples, no
matter their gender, no matter their sexual orientation, is legal in ... (the
following list grows from year to year):
A. Outside the
United States
Argentina
Australia (legal only in the Australian Capital Territory;
the Parliament of Australia may repeal the law; the High Court of Australia may
declare it unconstitutional; or both may happen)
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Colombia (if a judge performs the ceremony [not all are
willing], it is legal at the national level and its legality in sub-national
jurisdictions is unclear)
Curacao (legal only if the ceremony is lawfully performed in
The Netherlands)
Denmark (except the Faroe Islands and Greenland, which,
being autonomous, determine their own laws on marriage, adoption, and divorce)
France (legal not only in metropolitan France but also in
all French departments and territories outside Europe: French Guiana, French
Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, New Caledonia, Reunion, Saint
Barthelmy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna)
Iceland
Israel (legal only if the ceremony is lawfully performed
elsewhere, though Israel does not grant same-gender couples all the benefits,
privileges, protections, and rights that it does different-gender ones)
Mexico (if performed in the Federal District [= Mexico
City], it is legal everywhere in the country; if performed in the states of
Chihuahua, Coahuila, Colima, Mexico, Oaxaca, and Quintana Roo, it is legal just
in the state in which it has been formed)
Netherlands (including the Caribbean Netherlands, which
consists of Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius; see Aruba, Curacao, and Sint
Maarten)
New Zealand (including the Ross Dependency and excepting the
Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, all three of which jurisdictions, being
autonomous, determine their own laws on marriage, adoption, and divorce)
Norway
Portugal (legal not only in metropolitan Portugal but also
in all other Portuguese territories, namely, the Azores Archipelago and the
Madeira Archipelago)
Sint Maarten (legal only if the ceremony is lawfully
performed in The Netherlands)
South Africa
Spain (legal not only metropolitan Spain but also in all other
Spanish territories, namely, the Alhucemas Rock-Fortress, the Balearic Islands,
the Canary Islands, Ceuta, the Chafarinas Islands, Melilla, and the Vélez de la
Gomera Rock-Fortress)
Sweden
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (legal
only in England and Wales)
Uruguay
B. In the United
States
B.1. Sixteen
states and one district
California
Connecticut
Delaware
the District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
B.2. In two other
states, partly
New Mexico (legal in Bernalillo, Doña Ana, Grant, Los
Alamos, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, and Valencia counties; its legality in the
twenty-five other counties of the state is unclear; recognized by the state if the ceremony is legally
performed outside state boundaries; New Mexico Supreme Court will soon rule
whether it is legal or illegal in the state)
Oregon (recognized by the state as legal if the ceremony is
legally performed outside state boundaries; illegal if the ceremony is
performed within state boundaries; the ban on performing gender-neutral civil
marriages within state boundaries has now been challenged in United States
District Court for the District of Oregon)
B.3. In seven
First American jurisdictions
The government of the United States recognizes the right of
each of 565 groups of First Americans (“American Indians”) to autonomy in
internal affairs, including the right to determine its own laws on marriage,
adoption, and divorce, regardless of what the relevant laws may be in the state
or territory in which the group has its officially recognized homeland
(“reservation”). So far, these First American jurisdictions have legalized
marriage for all consenting adult couples, no matter their gender, no matter
their sexual orientation:
the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (since 2013), located in the
State of Oklahoma (which prohibits gender-neutral marriage elsewhere in the
state).
the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (since
2013), located in the State of Washington (which in 2012 legalized gender-neutral
marriage elsewhere in the state).
the Coquille (since 2008), located in the State of Oregon
(which until 2013 prohibited gender-neutral marriage; in that year, it began
recognizing all marriages lawfully performed elsewhere).
the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (since 2013),
located in the State of Michigan (which prohibits gender-neutral marriage
elsewhere in the state, though the legality of the ban has now been challenged
in court).
the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians (since 2013), located
in the State of Michigan (see above).
the Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the
Santa Ysabel Reservation (since 2013), located in the State of California
(which at the time of the Band's legalization of gender-neutral civil marriage
had re-legalized it).
the Suquamish (since 2011), located in the State of
Washington (which legalized gender-neutral civil marriage in 2012).
B.4. The Federal
government of the United States
The Federal government of the United States recognizes
gender-neutral civil marriages if they have been lawfully performed in any
American jurisdiction where they are legal (= those in B.1, B.2, and B.3).
B.5. The armed
forces of the United States
Gender-neutral civil marriages may be performed on all military
bases located in American jurisdictions where they are legal (= those in B.1.,
B.2, and B.3). Gender-neutral religious marriages are permitted there too,
though military chaplains are not required to perform them if they do not want
to.
*
A number of other national and sub-national jurisdictions in
the United States and elsewhere have legalized gender-neutral civil unions
(also called, depending on the jurisdiction, civil partnerships, civil
solidarity pacts, registered life partnerships, registered
partnerships, and stable unions), such as Andorra, Austria, the
Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Ireland, Jersey,
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, Scotland,
Slovenia, Switzerland, and a number of states in the United States. Though
second-class marriages, they are not only better than nothing but also possible
stepping stones to gender-neutral civil marriage.
Notes
1. The first
jurisdiction to legalize gender-neutral civil unions (however called) was Denmark
(in 1989). See notes 4-5.
2. The first
jurisdiction to legalize gender-neutral civil marriage was The Netherlands (in
2001). See notes 4-5.
3. Until 18
November 2003, no American jurisdiction permitted gender-neutral civil marriage
(or gender-neutral civil unions). On that day, the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts ruled that under the state's Constitution it was impermissible
for any of its agencies to restrict civil marriage to one man and one woman.
See notes 6 and 6.A.
4. Consider
the location of the European jurisdictions that have so far legalized
gender-neutral civil marriage:
4.A. All ten
of them border on the Atlantic Ocean or on arms of that body of water, such as
the North and the Baltic seas: Belgium, Denmark (except Greenland, which is
physiographically part of North America but culturally and politically part of
Europe, and the Faroe Islands), England, France, The Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Wales.
4.B. Moving
inland from those ten jurisdictions, we find none in Europe that have legalized
gender-neutral civil marriage, though eight have legalized gender-neutral civil
unions: Andorra, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Liechtenstein,
Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Switzerland.
4.C. Farther
east in Europe than Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia, none
has legalized gender-neutral civil marriage or gender-neutral civil unions.
4.D. Of the
members of the former Soviet bloc, only the Czech Republic, Hungary, and
Slovenia (thus, part of the western periphery of the bloc) have legalized
gender-neutral civil unions.
5. That
geographic distribution of legalized gender-neutral civil marriage and civil
unions correlates fairly well with the degree to which European countries are
now democratic, fair-minded, and progressive. In light of that correlation, the
Russian Federation's recent enactment of anti-gay laws is not surprising
(during its entire history, Russia has in fact enjoyed only seven months of
democracy, from 21 July 1917 to 7 November 1917, when Alexander Kerensky headed
the government; otherwise, the Russian Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, and the Russian Federation have in effect been been three
incarnations of the same dictatorship).
6. Correlations are discernible in the United
States too:
6.A.
Massachusetts (see note 3) was the cradle of the American Revolution and
Boston, the capital of the state, was also the cultural, including literary and
publishing, capital of the United States until well into the nineteenth
century. Furthermore, the state is in New England (= Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), where gender-neutral
civil marriage is now universal, and New England is part of the northeastern
United States (= New England, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New
Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania), in most of which gender-neutral civil
marriage is now legal (the exception is Pennsylvania, where the ban on
gender-neutral civil marriage is now being challenged in a lawsuit), which on
the whole is more progressive than most other parts of the United States.
7. Of the
jurisdictions in Asia and Africa, only South Africa and Israel appear on the
list (though physiographically part of Africa, to be excluded from consideration
here are the Alhucemas Rock-Fortress, Ceuta, the Chafarinas Islands, Melilla,
and the Vélez de la Gomera Rock-Fortress, where gender-neutral civil marriage
is legal only because it has been legalized throughout Spain).
8. The tiny
number of jurisdictions in Asia and Africa is consistent with the fact that the
bulk of undemocratic and backward countries in the world are located on those
two continents.
9. The Maltese Parliament is now considering a bill
providing for the legalization of civil unions for all adult consenting
same-gender couples that would grant them all the benefits, privileges,
protections, and rights that civil marriage now grants different-gender couples
(thus, gender-neutral civil marriage de facto but not de iure). If the bill
passes, Malta will become:
(1)
the first European jurisdiction that does not border on the Atlantic Ocean or
on an arm thereof (see note 4.A) to legalize gender-neutral civil marriage de
facto – provided that it does so before Luxembourg does (the government that
will probably assume power in Luxembourg in December 2013 intends to legalize
gender-neutral civil marriage in 2014);
(2)
the third easternmost European jurisdiction (after Norway and Sweden) to do so;
(3)
the third Mediterranean jurisdiction (after France and Spain) to do so (see
section A for the reason Israel does not qualify here);
(4)
the fourth jurisdiction in southern Europe (after Portugal, France, and Spain)
to do so; and.
(5)
the easternmost jurisdiction in southern Europe to do so.
We are thus beginning to see the legalization of marriage
equality in Europe spread farther east and become more frequent in southern Europe and
in the Mediterranean Basin.
I'm a single gay man living in France (with a wonderful partner but we don't want to declare our relationship to the administration) and I want to collaborate to this article as far as I can.
ReplyDeleteThe article about France is incomplete. Same sex marriage is legal in France since mid may 2013 but LGBT people from 12 (or 13 countries) with special agreements with France about same sex marriage may not get married because of that special agreement. It has gone to court and a binational french-marrocan gay couple seemed to have succeed to marry.
I finally found the list of those countries with a special agreement with France forbidding marriage between french LGBT people and those countries: Morroco, Poland, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Slovenia, Tunisia, Algeria, Cambodia and Laos. The french supreme court has to give its opinion on the subject soon.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the information, which I will add in a revised version.
DeleteDavid Gold
Response from David Gold
DeleteAnonymous is right that not everyone in France at this time may contract a same-gender civil marriage. That situation is a result of agreements signed between France and eleven countries (Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Kosovo, Laos, Montenegro, Morocco, Poland, Serbia, Slovenia, and Tunisia) years before anyone even dreamed of the possibility of legalizing gender-neutral civil marriage in France.
It was the eleven countries (not France) that wanted their citizens to marry according to their own laws.
As long as both France and the eleven countries prohibited same-gender marriage, the agreements caused same-gender couples no problems not already caused by the fact that same-gender civil marriage was prohibited in all twelve.
When, however, civil marriage for all consenting adult couples, no matter their gender, no matter their sexual orientation, was legalized in France (in 2013), the agreements came to stand in the way of gay citizens of the eleven countries resident in France, who may now, in principle, marry in that country but, in fact, may not do so because of the agreements.
For more on the subject, see “Le mariage pour tous en France, mais pas pour tous les étrangers” (www.france24.com/.../20130626-mariage-tous-circula).
Here are three possible solutions:
1. Since the agreements in question are part of larger agreements (that deal with many other matters, unconnected to marriage), France and each of the eleven countries could renegotiate the larger agreement and agree to omit the provision concerning marriage. Probably, however, the eleven countries would not consent to omitting it, except, maybe, Montenegro, which might legalize same-gender civil unions in the not too distant future.
2. Residents of France not possessing French citizenship could request it and, if it is granted, renounce their non-French citizenship. That may not be so easy as it sounds because they may not be eligible for French citizenship.
3. Since one would not want to renounce one's citizenship without being assured of being able to acquire the citizenship of another country, the French government could make the following assurance to such couples:
3.A. The partner who is not a French citizen will renounce her or his citizenship;
3.B. That partner will immediately thereafter marry the partner who is a French citizen; and
3.C. By virtue of now being married to a French citizen, the stateless partner will be assured of French citizenship.
This is, of course, not a problem that a couple could solve alone or one that even all the couples involved could. Rather, the French Ministry of Justice should be lobbied. Fortunately, the Minister of Justice, Christiane Taubira, could not be a more fervent supporter of marriage equality (likewise the Prime Minister and the President of France).
@Temp agency in oklahoma city.”
ReplyDeleteMarriage equality may soon be coming to the entire state of Oklahoma too.
At the moment, the only legal way to contract a same-gender civil marriage in is by marrying a member of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (see the second paragraph of section 3.B in the foregoing article). By so doing, a couple would qualify for all the benefits, privileges, protections, and rights granted by the Federal government, including the United States military (see section B.4 and B.5), and for all the benefits, etc. granted by those tribes, but not for any of the ones granted by Oklahoma.
However, since the more than 1,138 Federal benefits, etc. (and the many military benefits, etc.) are far more numerous and important than the ones granted by the state, same-gender couples would gain considerably by marrying under the laws of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes. The only special requirement is that at least one of the partners be a member of one of the tribes.
On 3 November 2004, a lawsuit (Bishop versus. Oklahoma) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on behalf of two same-gender couples living in the state who sought two injunctions:
1. An injunction to prevent the government of the United States from enforcing sections 2 and 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which went into effect throughout the United States on 21 September 1996.
Section 3 stipulates that “the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
2. An injunction to prevent the State of Oklahoma from enforcing Section 35 of Article II of the Constitution of Oklahoma.
Section 35 stipulates that “A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. B. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
The case languished for years, but the delay has turned out for the better.
On 26 June 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is unconstitutional. That section is therefore now null and void.
With that ruling, the couples' lawsuit became stronger not only because they no longer have to fight the Federal government of the United States (which is now in fact on their side) but also because the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of 26 June 2013 was in their favor and can therefore now be used against the State of Oklahoma.
Consequently, the couples' lawyer has re-filed the lawsuit.
The motto of the State of Oklahoma is LABOR OMNIA VINCIT ('Work Conquers Everything'). Supporters of marriage equality live by it.
David Gold