“THIS MAN IS MY WIFE”: THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PROHIBITION ACT OF 2014 IN NIGERIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-104
Author(s):  
Habibat Oladosu-Uthman

AbstractThe increased visibility of same-sex relationships and the call for same-sex marriages have been particular challenges to the traditional marriage system in Africa in the contemporary period. While some critics have argued, erroneously, that same-sex relationships were completely unknown to the African continent until the advent of Western modernity, others have suggested that the practices speak to a greater malaise confronting African societies. Nigeria is not an exception in this case. In light of these trends, this article examines the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, which was promulgated by the Nigerian government in 2014 and has since led to infractions upon the human rights of citizens in same-sex relationships. The article examines these developments around same-sex relationships in the context of wider social and economic challenges to the traditional marriage institution in Nigeria.

Author(s):  
Xudong FANG

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.本文由兩個部分構成,第一部分闡述了不反對同性婚姻合法化的理由,逐一討論了對同性婚姻合法化的五種反對意見,認為它們都不成立。第二部分論述了儒家推崇異性婚姻的原因,其主要考慮是同性婚姻不能像異性婚姻那樣可以提供倫理的完整性。作者強調,作為公民權利,同性婚姻可以被自由追求,但作為儒家則以異性婚姻為婚姻的理想模式。前者事關權利,後者事關“善”,有各自的界限,不得逾越。This paper consists of two parts. In the first part, the author refutes, one by one, five objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage, including arguments grounded in naturalness, origin, reductio ad absurdum, compromising traditional marriage, and Jiang Qing’s doctrine of particular human rights. The strongest reason for advocating the legalization of same-sex marriage is the doctrine of equal rights. As contemporary people, we have no reason to deny that all individuals have equal rights. The second part discusses why Confucianism prefers heterosexual marriage. The main consideration is that same-sex marriages cannot provide ethical integrity, as heterosexual marriages do. The author emphasizes that, as a civil right, same-sex marriage can be pursued freely, but for a Confucian, heterosexual marriage is the ideal mode of marriage. The former concerns what is “right,” whereas the latter relates to what is “good.” There is an insurmountable boundary between right and good.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 423 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.


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.


Author(s):  
Joanna L. Grossman ◽  
Lawrence M. Friedman

This chapter describes what might be the last battleground over “traditional” marriage—same-sex marriage, and the social and legal revolution that brought us from an era in which it was never contemplated to one in which, depending on the state, it is either expressly authorized or expressly prohibited. Same-sex marriage has posed—and continues to pose—a challenge to traditional definitions of marriage and family. But, more importantly, the issue implies broader changes in family law—the increasing role of constitutional analysis; limits on the right of government to regulate the family; and the clash between the traditional family form and a new and wider menu of intimate and household arrangements, and all this against the background of the rise of a stronger form of individualism.


Author(s):  
Ruth Gaffney-Rhys

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam and assignment questions. Each book includes key debates, typical questions, diagram answer plans, suggested answers, author commentary and tips to gain extra marks. This chapter considers the formation and recognition of adult relationships i.e. marriage, same-sex marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation. The questions included in this chapter cover: the right to marry contained in article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights; forced marriage; the difference between opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage and civil partnerships and the difference between marriage and cohabitation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Smith

Some scholars, faced with the apparent conflict between the Church of England's teaching on marriage and the idea of equal marriage embraced by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, have focused on the implications of that Act for the constitutional relationship between Church, State and nation. More frequently, noting the position of the Church of England under that Act, academics have critiqued the legislation as an exercise in balancing competing human rights. This article by contrast, leaving behind a tendency to treat religion as a monolithic ‘other’, and leaving behind the neat binaries of rights-based analyses, interrogates the internal agonies of the Church of England as it has striven to negotiate an institutional response to the secular legalisation of same-sex marriage. It explores the struggles of the Church to do so in a manner which holds in balance a wide array of doctrinal positions and the demands of mission, pastoral care and the continued apostolic identity of the Church of England.


2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 1313-1333 ◽  
Author(s):  
TIMOTHY HILDEBRANDT

AbstractUsing the case of same-sex marriage in China, this article explores two fundamental questions: What motivates a non-democratic state to promulgate a progressive human rights policy? More importantly, when a non-democratic state adopts such policies, what is the impact on activism? I argue that same-sex marriage legislation could be used strategically to improve China's human rights reputation. While this would extend a pinnacle right to gays and lesbians, the benefits might not outweigh the costs: I show that when imposed from above, a same-sex marriage law would incur opportunity costs on activism; the passage of this progressive policy would eliminate an important issue around which the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-gender/-sexual (LGBT) community might develop. Moreover, even if such policy is promulgated, the right to marry will do little to challenge the larger social pressures that make life difficult for LGBT Chinese.


Subject Costa Rica's presidential election. Significance A shock result in the February 4 election has triggered a run-off between two diametrically opposed candidates of the same name (but not related) -- evangelical politician Fabricio Alvarado Munoz and former Labour Minister Carlos Alvarado Quesada. Neither candidate looked like a realistic prospect until the closing weeks of the campaign, when a controversial ruling on same-sex marriage polarised a substantial section of the electorate on that single issue. With just under two months until the second round, both candidates will now focus on shoring up their support and appealing to a large pool of undecided voters. Impacts A move towards the centre would likely see Alvarado Quesada pick up undecided voters put off by Alvarado Munoz’s evangelical support base. Alvarado Munoz would struggle to remove Costa Rica from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Court's headquarters would have to move if Costa Rica did leave its jurisdiction. Whoever wins the run-off, Costa Rica’s relationship with the Court will be debated, potentially undermining its ability to enforce rulings.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Bede Harris

Australia is currently confronting the issue of whether to legalise same-sex marriage. Thus far debate has been conducted with little reference to human rights theory. This article draws on the theories of John Rawls and John Stuart Mill and analyses whether, by confining the right to marry to heterosexual couples, the law infringes the right to privacy and, conversely, whether the legalisation of same-sex marriage would infringe religious rights of those who are unwilling to provide goods and services to same-sex couples. In so doing, the article adopts a comparative approach, drawing on case law from the United States. The article examines the way in which political debate on the issue has been conducted by the major parties in Australia, and concludes that both the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor party have been motivated by a desire to appease the religious right within their ranks, at the expense of human rights principles.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document