This afternoon seminar will consider the legal regulation of same-sex marriage at different levels, in particular, the EU, ECHR, and the inter-American Court of Human Rights. This is a particularly topical subject, in view of recent developments in national (e.g. the Obergefell judgment of the US Supreme Court in 2015), European (the CJEU Coman ruling in June 2018 and the ECtHR judgments in Oliari (2015) and Orlandi (2017)), and international (the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion 24/2017) levels.

The following three papers will be presented:

The European Court of Human Rights and Same-Sex Marriage: An Unhappy Union

Dr Loveday Hodson, Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Leicester

The European Court of Human Rights has long been at the forefront of securing international rights for LGBT people. In particular it has done much to secure rights to privacy and non-discrimination in a lengthy history of engagement with issues relating to sexual orientation. However, it has floundered when it comes to the right to marriage for same-sex couples. The Court has a history of declaring marriage to hold a special status and it has done little to disrupt heteronormative understandings of that institution. It is now seems that the European Court of human rights is being left behind in the current chapter in the international struggle for gay rights and recent decisions from other international tribunals are contributing more clearly to the struggle for marriage rights. In this paper I will critically explore the European Court’s caselaw in this area. The court has come a long way in recognising and securing the relationship rights of same-sex couples, in particular insisting in recent judgments that some form of legal structure must be in place to recognise and secure the family rights of same-sex couples and their children. In this paper I will consider some of the normative foundations that are preventing the Court from taking greater strides when it comes to recognising the right to marriage for same-sex couples.

Recent Steps Towards Marriage Equality in the EU: The Comancase

Professor Alina Tryfonidou, Professor of Law, School of Law, University of Reading

The European Union does not have competence in the family law field. This means that each EU Member State can regulate family law in its territory as it chooses. This is why in the EU there is currently a patchwork as regards the legal recognition of same-sex relationships: some EU Member States have opened marriage to same-sex couples, some have opened registered partnerships to same-sex couples (either alone or in addition to marriage), whilst a number of Member States (currently six) do not offer any legal recognition to same-sex relationships. A married same-sex couple (which consists of at least one EU citizen) may wish to exercise EU free movement rights and move from a Member State which recognises same-sex marriages to one which does not. What is the position of the couple in the host Member State? Is the latter State obliged – by EU law – to recognise the same-sex marriage that the couple lawfully concluded elsewhere? This is the question that had been referred to the EU’s top court – the ECJ – in the Coman case. The ECJ ruling in Coman was delivered last June and the Court held that all EU Member States are obliged by EU law to recognise – for the purpose of the grant of family reunification rights – the same-sex marriage lawfully concluded in another Member State, of a Union citizen who moves to its territory. This paper will aim to analyse the case, and through it to discuss the progress that the EU has made in relation to marriage equality.

Same-sex marriage in the Americas: From recognition by 6 (and ½) States to an international obligation

Dr Damian Gonzalez-Salzberg, Lecturer in Law, School of Law, University of Sheffield

This paper will explore the (scarce) jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on LGBT rights, with a special focus on the recent Advisory Opinion 24/2017. Following a discussion of the case law, the substantive part of the paper will cover three main issues: 1) An analysis of how a question concerning patrimonial rights was turned by the Court into a ruling on same-sex marriage; 2) A discussion about the Court’s use of progressive terminology to deal with a rather conservative institution; and 3) A reflection on whether “compliance” with this decision should be expected.

Register

Keep up to date with the latest events

_________________

LGBT professionals, LGBT Graduates, LGBT professional network, LGBT professional events, LGBT networking events, LGBT Recruitment, LGBT Friendly organisations, LGBT Friendly companies, LGBT jobs 

__________________