The OUTfront Campaign of Amnesty International, and more specifically Amnesty-Houston, is dedicated to being proactive and informing about GLBT human rights abuses and advances around the world.
OUTfront Report July, 2010:
1) From AP 6-7: Lesbian couple
weds in
LISBON, Portugal – A lesbian couple wed Monday in
Portugal's first same-sex ceremony since the predominantly
Catholic country introduced a law allowing gay marriage last
month.
Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao, divorced
Portuguese mothers in their 30s who have been together since
2003, married in a 15-minute ceremony at a
"This is a great victory, a dream come
true," Pires said as the couple kissed and hugged.
"Now we're a family, that's the
important thing," Pires said, adding they would continue to
fight for equal rights for homosexuals, including adoption.
The ceremony came less than a month after
The center-left Socialist government said
the law is part of its effort to modernize
Pires and Paixao, the lesbian couple, had
campaigned for a change in the law since a registry office turned
them away when they first tried to marry in 2006.
Officials argued the law stipulated that
marriage was between people of different sexes. The women
appealed to
The court rejected their appeal, but
left-of-center parties in Parliament supported the government
bill which removed the reference to marriage being between
different sexes.
2) From Guardian Legal Network
European Court of Human Rights finds that
there was no violation of human rights for Austrian couple denied
the right to marry
"article 12 enshrined the traditional
concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The court
acknowledged that a number of contracting states had extended
marriage to same-sex partners, but went on to say that this
reflected their own vision of the role of marriage in their
societies and did not flow from an interpretation of the
fundamental right as laid down by the contracting states in the
Convention in 1950."
As to the litteral text of article 12, the
court held that, looked at in isolation, the text "be
interpreted so as not to exclude the marriage between two men or
two women" (para. 55). But it then continued to add that
"However, in contrast, all other
substantive articles of the Convention grant rights and freedoms
to 'everyone' or state that 'no one' is to be subjected to
certain types of prohibited treatment. The choice of wording in
article 12 must thus be regarded as deliberate. Moreover, regard
must be had to the historical context in which the Convention was
adopted. In the 1950s marriage was clearly understood in the
traditional sense of being a union between partners of different
sex."
The applicants asked the court to interpret
the text of article 12 ECHR in the light of present-day
conditions, an interpretation method which the court has often
used in the past to give a new or extended meaning to convention
provisions. This depends to a great extent on an evolving or
developing consensus within
Interestingly, the court also looked at the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (27 members)
which includes in its article 9, a right to marry without a
reference to men or women, but with a reference to national law in accordance with which that right should
be guaranteed. Thus, article 9 of the Charter, leaves the
decision to the states whether or not to recognise same-sex
marriages (without oblgiing them to do so). On the basis of this,
the European Court of Human Rights concluded on article 12 that it
"would no longer consider that the
right to marry enshrined in article 12 must in all circumstances
be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex.
Consequently, it cannot be said that article 12 is inapplicable
to the applicants' complaint. However, as matters stand, the
question whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is left to
regulation by the national law of the
The door is thus left open a little bit,
which basically affirms that those countries who do recognise and
allow for same-sex marriages do so within the limits of human
rights. This did not help the applicants of course. The Court
went on to re-affirm that marriage has deep roots in societies
and differs from one place to another. Considering this, it found
it should not "rush to substitute its own judgment in the
place of that of national authorities." To summarise,
article ECHR 12 does not oblige states to allow same-sex couples
to marry.
The applicants may have foreseen this
outcome and therefore also argued a violation under articles 8
and 14 taken together. But that backdoor was also closed by the
court, since it held that the convention's articles have to be
interpreted in harmony with each other. The court thus did not
want to grant under these articles what it did not grant under
article 12. However, and here lies the importance of the present
judgment, the court did make a significant step by recognising
that stable relationships of cohabiting same-sex couples fall
within the notion of family life. This may seem self-evident to
many, but for the court it is a first. I cite the relevant
paragraphs in full here:
93. The Court notes that since 2001, when
the decision in Mata Estevez was given, a rapid evolution of
social attitudes towards same-sex couples has taken place in many
member States. Since then a considerable number of member States
have afforded legal recognition to same-sex couples (see above,
paragraphs 27-30). Certain provisions of EU law also reflect a
growing tendency to include same-sex couples in the notion of
"family" (see paragraph 26 above).
94. In view of this evolution the Court
considers it artificial to maintain the view that, in contrast to
a different-sex couple, a same-sex couple cannot enjoy
"family life" for the purposes of article 8.
Consequently the relationship of the applicants, a cohabiting
same-sex couple living in a stable de facto partnership, falls
within the notion of "family life", just as the
relationship of a different-sex couple in the same situation
would.
The court then went on to look at the case
from a non-discrimination angle in which it reiterated that
differences made by the state based on sexual orientation
required a serious justification. It also held, innovatively in
its jurisprudence, that
"same-sex couples are just as capable
as different-sex couples of entering into stable committed
relationships. Consequently, they are in a relevantly similar
situation to a different-sex couple as regards their need for
legal recognition and protection of their relationship."
(para. 99).
Nevertheless, it went on to hold that since
Austria had introduced a same-sex partnership it would not look
at whether a total lack of legal ecognition of same-sex couples
would violate the convention, but only whether Austria had been
obliged to offer any alternative way of legal recognition
previous to the new partnership law. The court held that Austria
was not obliged to do so, with an explicit reference to the fact
that there is "an emerging consensus towards legal
recognition of same-sex couples" (para. 105) and that this
was a rapidly developing tendency in the past ten years, but that
currently no consensus existed yet (which it described as: there
is no majority of states doing this yet). Consequently, states
should enjoy a wide margin of appreciation. This margin also
extended to the precise way in which alternatives (to marriage)
of legal recognation fell within that margin. Thus the court
concluded that also on this count the convention was not
violated.
It must be noted, that on the issue of
articles 14 and 8, the court came to its conclusion with a very
small margin (four votes to three). The means that it might be
wise for the applicants to ask the court to have its Grand
Chamber take a new look at the case on this very principled
point. Indeed, as the three dissenters point out, there is a
legal tension between saying that particular serious
justifications are needed for such difference of treatment and
then paradoxically not assessing whether such reasons where
present, but rather going into the margin of appreciation
question. Arguably, it is one or the other: the first approach
suggests a rather small margin, the second implies that the
justifications advanced by the state can be manyfold.
Thus this judgment seems to be a kind of
Echternach procession: two steps forward, one step back (or even
one step forward and two steps back, depending on ones
perspective). It makes some important advances by recognising the
at least factual and symbolic equality of same-sex and other
couples, but it does not attach any far-reaching and clear legal
consequences to that. Either a Grand Chamber judgment or a
judgment in a different case which focuses on a situation in
which any form of legal recognition in the country concerned was
absent, should offer more clarity. The judgment seems to take a
slightly too prudent approach for reasons of judcial politics
(this outcome is the most acceptable to all states probably), but
leaves us with a reasoning that is not entirely convincing nor an
outcome which is very promising for same-sex couples.
It may be noticed that the government of
the
3) From Irish Times
THE GOVERNMENT has withdrawn its appeal
against a landmark ruling by the High Court that Irish law on
transgender rights is in breach of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
The decision brings to an end a 13 year
legal battle against the State by Dr Lydia Foy, a former dentist
who was registered as male at birth and fought for legal
recognition to live as a woman.
It also paves the way for the Government to
propose new legislation giving transsexuals the right to obtain
birth certificates showing their acquired sex and the entitlement
to marry in that gender.
Dr Foy, who began High Court proceedings to
secure recognition of her acquired gender in 1997, said she was
delighted the long legal battle was finally over. “I hope
this achievement will help others who have endured the pain,
abuse, isolation, humiliation and fear that have been the lot of
those who are transgendered,” she said.
Transgendered people are those who have had
gender reassignment surgery and treatment, having been diagnosed
with gender identity disorder. This is a recognised medical
disorder where a person’s psychological identity and
physical characteristics diverge.
Support groups estimate at least 600 people
suffer from gender identity disorder in the Republic. This number
could be higher as people may choose not to come forward due to
the stigma associated with the disorder.
Under current law a transgendered person
cannot have a birth certificate issued with his or her new
gender, and does not have the right to marry in that identity.
However, in October 2007 the High Court, in
a case brought by Lydia Foy, stated that Irish law on issuing
identity documents to transgendered people was incompatible with
the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Mr Justice McKechnie ruled that the lack of
a provision in Irish law for recognising Dr Foy’s new gender
identity was a breach of her rights under Article 8 of the ECHR,
which protects private and family life. “In this regard,
This landmark judgment overturned a
previous ruling by the same judge of the High Court in July 2002,
who found physical and biological indicators should be used to
determine sex/gender.
Just two days after this ruling was
delivered, the European Court of Human Rights in
Under section 5 of the ECHR Act 2003 the
Taoiseach must bring to the attention of the Dáil and Seanad
Éireann a declaration of incompatibility issued by the High
Court within 21 sitting days.
In anticipation of the withdrawal of the
legal appeal the Government has set up an inter-departmental
committee on the legal recognition of transsexuals.
The gender recognition advisory group held
its first meeting on May 6th and is due to make recommendations
on legislation within six months. Under its terms of reference it
is to propose heads of a Bill to provide for:
A process for legal recognition of the
acquired gender of persons suffering from gender identity
disorder who have made transition from one gender to another;
To set up a gender recognition register for
such persons. The certificates issued by this register should be
indistinguishable from birth certificates and not refer to the
fact a person has acquired a new gender;
An entitlement to transsexuals to marry in
the legally recognised reassigned gender.
Michael Farrell, senior solicitor for Free
Legal Advice Centres, who represented Ms Foy in the case, called
on the Government to act quickly to introduce legislation.
4) From AFP
Using similar tactics to a gay rights
protest in
Around 30 activists staged the protest in
the inner courtyard of the world famous
"Equality without compromise",
"homophobia is an illness" and "homophobia -- the
country's shame" were among the slogans.
When police appeared, five of the
protestors were roughly arrested and taken to a police car, the
AFP correspondent reported from the scene.
"It is clear that this is against the
constitution," said leading Russian gay rights campaigner
Nikolai Alexeyev. "But our main task was to prevent clashes
and we were successful in this."
Minutes later, a group of anti-gay
agitators armed with truncheons arrived on the vast
Several of them were also arrested, the AFP
correspondent saw. A police source said the agitators had been
arrested for "hooliganism".
Such cat-and-mouse tactics last month
allowed gay rights activists in
Gay rights activists in