State Obligations in Relation to Gender Identity and Rights of Same-Sex Couples

2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 277-462

277Human rights — Gender identity — Rights of same-sex couples — State obligations concerning recognition of gender identity and rights of same-sex couples — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Right to equality and non-discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons — Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Whether sexual orientation and gender identity protected categories under Article 1(1) — Right to gender identity — Right to a name — Whether States under obligation to facilitate name change based on gender identity — Whether failure to establish administrative procedures for name change violating American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Whether name change procedure under Article 54 of Civil Code of Costa Rica complying with American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Right to equality and non-discrimination — Right to protection of private and family life — Right to family — Whether States obliged to recognize patrimonial rights arising from a same-sex relationship — Whether States required to establish legal institution to regulate same-sex relationshipsInternational tribunals — Jurisdiction — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Advisory jurisdiction — Whether advisory jurisdiction restricted by related petitions before Inter-American Commission on Human Rights — Admissibility — Whether request meeting formal and substantive requirements — Whether Court having jurisdiction

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 1746-1763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Lucy Cooper

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been considering whether same-sex couples should have the rights to marry and to be recognized as a family under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) for over thirty years. In the 1980s the European Commission of Human Rights (the Commission) and the ECtHR respectively rejected the notion that same-sex relationships constituted a “family life” under Article 8 of the ECHR, and that post-operative transgendered persons had the right to marry under Article 12. However, throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the new millennium, the ECtHR handed down a body of judgments that incrementally liberalized these rights (albeit not always smoothly) in favor of LGBT persons. This evolution culminated in part on 24 June 2010, when the ECtHR passed judgment inSchalk and Kopf v. Austria.In that case the First Section of the ECtHR made a number of major, but seemingly contradictory rulings. For the first time in its history, the ECtHR ruled that same-sex relationships expressly constitute a “family life” under Article 8, and that the right to marry under Article 12 was not confined to opposite-sex couples in “all circumstances.” However, the ECtHR simultaneously ruled that Member States are under no obligation to protect that “family life,” by providing same-sex couples with access to marriage under Article 12, or an alternative registration system under Articles 8 and 14. The Grand Chamber denied the applicants' subsequent request for a referral.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 357
Author(s):  
Douglas Sanders

The United Nations human rights system has recognized rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual,  transgender and intersex individuals (LGBTI), with key decisions in 2011 and 2016. To what  extent are the rights of these groupings respected in Southeast Asia? The visibility of LGBTI is  low in Southeast Asia and government attitudes vary.  Criminal laws, both secular and Sharia,  in some jurisdictions, have prohibitions, but active enforcement is rare. Discrimination in employment is prohibited by law in Thailand and in local laws in the Philippines. Change of  legal ‘sex’ for transgender individuals is sometimes possible. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships has been proposed in Thailand and the Philippines, but not yet enacted. Marriage has been opened to same-sex couples in neighboring Taiwan. Laws on adoption and surrogacy generally exclude same-sex couples. So-called ‘normalizing surgery’ on intersex babies needs to be deferred to the child’s maturity, to protect their health and rights.


Author(s):  
Petra Kotková ◽  
Milan Palásek

The paper deals with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights relating to cohabitation and other law aspects with this institute related. Attention will be focused particularly to clarification of cohabitation in relationship of marriage or relationship of same-sex couples, especially in connection with Art. 8 and 14 of the Convention.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 479-485
Author(s):  
Nicolás Carrillo-Santarelli

In its advisory opinion, OC-24/17 (Advisory Opinion), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR or Court) addressed globally debated issues concerning gender identity, same-sex relationships, and the rights of LGBTI persons. As discussed below, the Court reached conclusions more progressive than those of its European counterpart, due to its finding that the principle of individual autonomy is embedded in the foundations of human rights law and permeates individual self-determination, the free development of one's personality, and the protection of different models of the family. In line with an apparent trend in the Court's case law, the Advisory Opinion rejects the idea that domestic societies are sometimes entitled, by virtue of a margin of appreciation, to choose among different possibilities for protecting human rights, provided that certain international legal limits are observed—an idea addressed in the dissenting opinion.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-142
Author(s):  
Molly Ludlam

For over fifty years the concept of the “internal couple”, as a composite internal object co-constructed in intimate relationships, has been fundamental to a psycho-analytic understanding of couple relationships and their contribution to family dynamics. Considerable societal change, however, necessitates review of how effectively and ethically the concept meets practitioners’ and couples’ current needs. Does the concept of an internal couple help psychotherapists to describe and consider all contemporary adult couples, whether same-sex or heterosexual, monogamous, or polyamorous? How does it accommodate online dating, relating via avatars, and use of pornography? Is it sufficiently inclusive of those experimenting in terms of sexual and gender identity, or in partnerships that challenge family arrangement norms? Can it usefully support thinking about families in which parents choose to parent alone, or are absent at their children’s conception thanks to surrogacy, adoption, and IVF? These and other questions prompt re-examination of this central concept’s nature and value.


2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 75-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle L. Dion ◽  
Jordi Díez

AbstractLatin America has been at the forefront of the expansion of rights for same-sex couples. Proponents of same-sex marriage frame the issue as related to human rights and democratic deepening; opponents emphasize morality tied to religious values. Elite framing shapes public opinion when frames resonate with individuals’ values and the frame source is deemed credible. Using surveys in 18 Latin American countries in 2010 and 2012, this article demonstrates that democratic values are associated with support for same-sex marriage while religiosity reduces support, particularly among strong democrats. The tension between democratic and religious values is particularly salient for women, people who live outside the capital city, and people who came of age during or before democratization.


2018 ◽  
pp. 117-138
Author(s):  
Mary Robertson

Acknowledging that the youth of Spectrum tend to disclose their sexual and gender identities to parents at a relatively young age, this chapter explores the role of family in the formation of these youths’ sexualities and genders. It was often the case with Spectrum youth that, rather than rejection, they encountered loving support about their sexuality from their parents. The youth of Spectrum are of a generation of kids who are the first to grow up in a society in which same-sex couples and genderqueer parents rearing children have become significantly socially acceptable. The chapter argues that young people are sharing their queer sexual and gender identities with their parents at a younger age because of gender non-conformity that leads parents to make assumptions about their child’s sexuality because they are more frequently exposed to LGBTQ family members and loved ones and because these particular parents do not conform to the white, middle-class, heteropatriarchal regime of the Standard North American Family. Queer family formation has broad implications not just for same-sex couples but for the way U.S. society understands and recognizes family in general.


Author(s):  
Claire Fenton-Glynn

This chapter examines the interpretation of ‘family life’ under Article 8 and the way that this has evolved throughout the Court’s history. It contrasts the approach of the Court to ‘family life’ between children and mothers, with ‘family life’ between fathers and children, noting the focus of the Court on function over form. It then turns to the establishment of parenthood, both in terms of maternity and paternity, as well as the right of the child to establish information concerning their origins. Finally, the chapter examines the changing face of the family, considering new family forms, including same-sex couples and transgender parents, as well as new methods of reproduction, such as artificial reproductive techniques and surrogacy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document