The Registered Partnership - An historical Anachronism

Pareja Registrada [Registered Partnership] – un Anacronismo Histórico

The Registered Partnership – a Historical Anachronism

Towards Gender Neutral Marriages in Northern Europe.

Enkidu summarizes the current debates in Northern Europe about registered partnerships and marriage for same sex couples.

©LOWLB/ENKIDU

Most Northern and Western European countries introduced various institutions in the last 15 - 20 years to grant a certain legal recognition of same sex couples. Only Holland and Belgium have actually opened their civil marriage institutions to same sex couples. In all the other countries where separate institutions were introduced for same sex couples, and thereby maintaining a legal distinction between a registered partnership and similar institutions and heterosexual marriage, emotional debates about the future of these laws are now taking place. Once celebrated as a huge step towards equality and emancipation, as “including laws”, gay politicians and activists throughout these countries now argue that the very existence of separate institutions reflects a fundamental and structural discrimination, that in reality only weaken the emancipation efforts.

It is argued that the partnership laws are excluding and obstacles to integration. In Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Germany it becomes increasingly clear that the only acceptable solution for the future will be the introduction of gender neutral marriage institutions open to all. The equal but separate strategy has failed and will probably soon appear as equally anachronistic as the laws that once upheld racial segregation in the American South or the Apartheid system in South Africa.

Last week, The Liberal Party in Germany FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei) announced a law proposal, which 10 or 15 years ago probably would have been embraced enthusiastically by gay activists and politicians, that most likely would have characterized it as progressive and including. The proposal introduces several new civil rights for registered partnerships, including a right to adopt children. However, now it rather is interpreted as excluding and almost reactionary by many gay politicians and activists. Before the end of February the proposal will be presented to the German Parliament (Bundestag). The proposal has already generated emotional debates in Germany.

In their proposal, the FDP does not see a need to remove the formal distinction between registered partnership and marriage already now. They even state explicitly that they have no intention of erasing the distinction between the registered partnership and marriage. The party emphasizes in their publications and press releases, a need for fairness, and balance between duties and rights for registered partners. However, they do not go far enough. In reality, the current proposal is almost identical to the original law proposal presented by the government coalition consisting of the Social Democrats and the Green Party the first time the issue of registered partnership was up for voting in the German Parliament.

In 2001 the proposal presented by these parties was only partly adopted due to massive resistance by the Christian Democrats. As a result, the German Parliament finally issued only an amputated version of the originally intended partnership law. It is expected that more Christian Democrats will be in favour of FDP’s proposal this time. In a press release from February 9^th 2004, the president of the organisation for gay and lesbian members of the Christian Democratic Party (Lesben und Schwulen in der Union (LSU)) Axel M. Hochrein, encouraged all political parties including his own, to embrace FDP’s proposal, which he supports unconditionally. The press release emphasizes that this is an opportunity finally to create balance between rights and obligations for same sex couples in registered partnerships. Hochrein further underlines that this is not about special advantages for a minority, but about abolishing injustice.

"Hier sollen keine Vorteile geschaffen werden, sondern muss Unrecht abgeschafft werden“

Gay representatives of other parties have been less enthusiastic and predominantly critical. It is also evident that even the gay voters of FDP certainly had hoped for more in the proposal from their own party. In particular Volker Beck, parliamentary leader of the Green Party (which is part of the German government coalition) has uttered heavy critique in the media, underlining that this proposal seems unripe and half-hearted. The Green Party insists on a complete and unconditional equality between same sex couples and heterosexual couples now. The differences between registered partnership and civil marriage reflect a fundamental and structural continued discrimination. Maintaining them only weakens the emancipation efforts instead of strengthening them. FDP’s proposal may even mute further discussions if it is accepted by Parliament, it has been argued, since it may actually make society’s continued discrimination against same sex couples less visible.

A related debate takes place in Sweden these days. The Swedish parliament will soon discuss a proposal for a gender neutral marriage institution which is intended to replace the old registered partnership law which increasingly is seen as outdated. Recently a right wing Christian fundamentalist group collected 30.000 signatures in a protest campaign against the gender neutral marriage proposal and send to members of the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag). This campaign immediately mobilized the gay community in Sweden, both on national and regional levels, and the National Gay and Lesbian Rights movement RFSL started its own counter campaign in January, which still is running, collecting their own signatures in favour of the gender neutral marriage. The immediate response by the gay movement was been noted by several Swedish politicians, which received considerable attention.

During the annual Gay Gala (see Brief News this week), the society event of the year in the Swedish gay community, celebrity photographer Elisabeth Ohlsson-Wallin addressed the issue for a large audience. She became world famous a couple of years ago with her controversial exhibition ECCE HOMO [Link to Enkidu Special]. This year she was selected by the jury to announce the winner of Sweden’s “Gay of the Year” (Årets Homo) prize and deliver it to the winner diplomat Sverker Åström during the show. She used this opportunity to encourage people everywhere to sign the petition. Thereafter, signature lists circulated among the audience at the event. Ca 3000 people were present according to the QX, a major Swedish queer news magazine. The show, which was transmitted in national television, and according to the polls was watched by almost 1/3 of the Swedish population, stimulated even more awareness for the issue, also among the straight population. On the Internet page where they collect signatures, RFSL writes:

“Marriage is the only form of cohabitation with an absolute juridical validity in all the countries of the world, and no adult should be excluded from the possibility to marry”.

Äktenskapet är den enda samlevnadsform som har en absolut juridisk giltighet i alla världens länder och ingen vuxen människa bör utestängas från möjligheten att ingå äktenskap.

Also in Denmark and Norway, the first countries in the world that introduced registered partnerships for same sex couples, similar discussions take place in the media. The entire institution of registered partnership is increasingly depicted as such a discriminatory arrangement, that it is doubtful if it can be legal at all in combination with these countries’ extensive anti-discrimination legislation. There is no serious doubt that at least in most Northern European countries, sooner or later, gender neutral marriage in one form or another will be introduced. In an article in Dagbladet on February 7th 2004, Dag Øistein Endsjø, from Institute of Gender and Religion Studies at the University of Oslo raises the question whether same sex couples theoretically are allowed to marry in Norway already. It is questionable whether the current practice actually would survive a thorough juridical examination by a court. Any law preventing same sex couples’ access to any institution cannot possibly be constitutional. The entire concept of registered partnership is in reality in fundamental conflict with the juridical traditions of both countries and it is only a matter of time before the legislation is forced to take the consequences of this.

The current laws are already de facto gender neutral. Endsjø also underlines that in Norway, the legislation already has approved and legally recognized same sex marriages on several occasions. As an example, he mentions a case from the year 2002: A married man changed sex and became a woman. The couple received thereupon a confirmation from the authorities underlining that the two women still are to be considered a married couple without any limitations. This ruling was regarded a major breakthrough and improvement in Norway. Before 2002, married couples in a similar situation had been forced to divorce and then register their partnership as a same sex couple to maintain a continued legal recognition. The Norwegian legislation therefore does acknowledge same sex marriages. There are also other examples: Norway recognizes same sex marriages entered in the Netherlands, Belgium or Canada. A couple that has entered marriage in one of these countries and moves to Norway will automatically be recognized as a married couple without any limitations.

Despite the current debates taking place in these countries, and the persisting resistance against opening the institution of marriage for same sex couples in some political circles, there is no reason to doubt that sooner or later, gender neutral marriages will be the norm. The introduction of registered partnerships was once an important step for the gay emancipation efforts, but it is unlikely if such institutions will survive the test of time. The only solution for the future seems to be gender neutral marriages.

* [Si desea información sobre la fuente original favor de solicitarla a ENKIDU].