Same-Sex Marriage

The money behind the 2006 Marriage Amendments

2007-07-25T08:12:00.000+01:00

By: Moore, Megan
Published by: National Institute on Money in Sate Politics, 2007
Via: Docuticker

State-level constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in nine states in 2006 sparked $18 million in contributions to ballot measure committees formed to support or to oppose the amendments, a new study shows. Opponents of the measures raised three times more than proponents overall and raised more than proponents in every state except Tennessee, even though the amendments passed in every state except Arizona, the report by the National Institute on Money in State Politics found.

The 2006 same-sex amendment battles saw the formation of the Gill Action Fund to oppose the amendments, just as 2004 featured the rise of the Arlington Group, a national conservative Christian network, to promote them. Gay-rights activist Tim Gill — developer of the Quark software company — founded the Gill Action Fund, which contributed nearly $3.8 million to ballot measure committees in 2006. He also inspired other wealthy donors to give generously to committees opposing the amendments. Gill-related contributions made up nearly 38 percent of funds to opposing committees, or nearly $5.3 million, the report notes.

(http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/200707231.pdf)

Gay sex and marriage, the reciprocal disadvantage problem, and the crisis in liberal constitutional theory

2007-07-24T07:40:00.000+01:00

By: Seidman, LM
Published by: Georgetown Law Faculty Working Papers
Via: Docuticker

There is nothing unusual about constitutional controversy, but some disagreements, typified by the argument over constitutional protection for gay sex and marriage, go beyond ordinary differences of opinion. Some opponents of constitutional protection for gay rights think that their adversaries are not just wrong, but have exceeded the bounds of respectable constitutional argument. They want to turn the defense of gay constitutional rights into a position that dare not speak its name.

In this brief essay, I do not take a strong stand on whether the constitutional case for gay rights has been made out. Instead, I attempt to explain why these opponents are wrong to think that the case for gay rights is outside the range of reasonable constitutional argument and to speculate about why they nonetheless hold this view. While it is true that constitutional protection for gay rights depends upon contestable moral judgments, the failure to protect these rights also rests on such judgments. The argument that courts should not take a side in the “culture war” is therefore a wash. Conservatives are nonetheless eager to discredit the argument for gay rights because the failure to do so would challenge core assumptions of standard constitutional theory.

(http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=georgetown/fwps)

Love Counts

2007-07-24T07:34:00.000+01:00

The economic benefits of Marriage Equality for New York

By: William C Thompson, Jr
Published by: Office of the New York City Comptroller, 2007
Via: Docuticker

This study by the New York Comptroller’s Office uses Williams Institute numbers to study the impact of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. Their findings include that: marriage equality would provide economic benefits to New York State and New York City, especially in the years immediately following enactment of legislation granting this important civil right. The economic benefits would be derived primarily from the increase in visitors from other states who come to New York for the purpose of marrying or attending weddings. The Comptroller’s Office also investigated potential fiscal impacts. Weddings generate sales taxes and marriage license fees, and marriage may affect the income tax, estate taxes, and public spending on means-tested government transfer programs.
(http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Love%20Counts.pdf)

Beyond interstate recognition in the Same-Sex Marriage debate

2007-02-01T09:24:00.000+01:00

Cornell Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series

By: Simon GJ
Published in: UC Davis Law Review, 40(2). December 2006
Via: Docuticker

The national same-sex marriage debate has been dominated for the past decade by the interstate recognition issue. This article seeks to shift the focus of the debate to same-sex marriage prohibitions themselves and their incompatibility with several limitations of federal constitutional law.

After showing the legal irrelevance of the Defense of Marriage Act to the interstate recognition issue, the article addresses the proper resolution of that choice-of-law issue through the lens of a well-known New York Court of Appeals decision. In that case, despite New York's ban on uncle-niece marriage, the New York high court - one of the most respected state supreme courts over the years in choice-of-law matters - applied Rhode Island law to uphold the validity of an uncle-niece marriage in Rhode Island between two New Yorkers. On its face, the case appears to offer powerful support for recognizing an out-of-state same-sex marriage that is valid where formed, but as the article demonstrates, the court's choice of law is so difficult to defend that it actually militates against interstate recognition of same-sex marriage.

However, as the article's juxtaposition of the uncle-niece and same-sex marriage recognition issues highlights, same-sex marriage recognition is not simply a matter of choice of law. While the Constitution leaves states free to allow or ban uncle-niece marriage, states do not have such latitude in legislating about same-sex marriage. The article maintains that prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Establishment Clauses.

Holliday Season!

2006-12-15T08:11:00.000+01:00

Dear Readers

Yet another year has flown by. And it was a busy year indeed! I am going to take a well-deserved break, and will start posting again at breakneck speed in the New Year.

I hope that Gender Focus and its sister blogs have been of some help to you, and will continue to do so in the future. So look forward to a bumper crop of posts early in January 2007, as I will endeavor to bring you all up to speed with what has been happening over the holiday season.

Have a great time, and a Happy New Year!

Same-sex marriage initiatives and lesbian, gay and bisexual voters in the 2006 elections

2006-12-11T14:39:00.000+01:00

Published by: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Via: DocuTicker

Bans on same-sex marriage performed more poorly in the November 2006 elections than in the past, in part due to their declining appeal in states with smaller “born-again” Christian populations, according to a study released today by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. If current trends hold, such bans would fail at the ballot box in many of the states that have not yet considered same-sex marriage initiatives.

Same-sex marriage bans passed with an average of 64 percent of voter support in all states in 2006, down from a similar figure of 71 percent in 2004. But support has fallen even more dramatically in states where those identifying themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians make up an identifiable minority of residents, according to the report.

Presuming women

2006-08-31T09:52:00.000+01:00

Revisiting the presumption of legitimacy in the Same-Sex Couples era

By: Appleton SF
Published in: Boston University Law Review, Vol. 86, 2006
Via: SSRN

One of family law's most venerable doctrines, the presumption of legitimacy, has reached a critical crossroads. On the one hand, this doctrine, which recognizes a woman's husband as the father of her children, has been eroding in recent years, thanks to both the decreasing disadvantages of illegitimacy and the increasing ability to determine genetic paternity. On the other hand, this doctrine is getting a "second wind" as one of the traditional (and gendered) benefits of marriage that some states newly have made available to same-sex couples.

Using a functional test, which many scholars and law-reform efforts advocate, this analysis considers the extent to which the presumption, as a default rule of parentage, makes sense today for families - whether formed by traditional different-sex couples, gay male couples, or lesbian couples. The analysis concludes that a modernized version of the presumption is worth preserving for traditional couples and worth extending to lesbian couples. This extension to lesbian couples is consistent with the outcomes (but not the reasoning) of a handful of very recent judicial decisions. The analysis fails, however, to reach a similar conclusion concerning an extension of a modernized presumption to gay male couples.

The extension to lesbian couples turns out to hold promise for resolving some of the new difficulties encountered by the presumption in traditional settings, with the advent of sophisticated genetic testing. The failure to extend the presumption to gay male couples raises important questions not only about the increasingly apparent split between some feminist theorists and gay rights advocates, despite their shared opposition to gender stereotypes, but also about the value to be accorded to gender neutrality, the role to be given to functional analysis, and the room to be left for officially privileged relationships in contemporary family law.

The backalsh thesis and same-sex marriage

2006-08-30T08:35:00.000+01:00

Learning from Brown v. Board of Education and its aftermath

By: Ball, Carlos A.
Published in: William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 14 2006
Via: Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

The backlash that followed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's opinion in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health has created considerable anxiety within the gay rights movement as many have questioned whether the same-sex marriage litigation has backfired by encouraging social conservatives to flex their political muscles to the detriment of lesbians and gay men. I argue in this article that despite the harmful backlash experienced by the gay rights movement following marriage cases such as Goodridge, lesbians and gay men are nonetheless better off as a result of those cases. The gains from the litigation, in other words, have so far outweighed the losses. In defending the decision to litigate cases such as Goodridge, I explore the similarities between the backlash that followed that case and that which followed Brown v. Board of Education.

Family, unvalued - discrimination, denial, and the fate of binational same-sex couples under U.S. law

2006-07-17T07:47:00.000+01:00

Published by: Human Rights Watch (HRW), 2006
Via: Docuticker

The United States, a nation of immigrants, likes to see itself as a symbol of freedom. Family reunification is central to U.S. immigration policies. Yet some families have no recognition-- and no rights. Binational same-sex couples are lesbian and gay couples where one partner is a U.S. citizen, the other a foreign national. There are an estimated 40,000 such couples in the U.S. according to the 2000 U.S. Census.

In this report, couples tell stories of abuse by immigration officials and even deportation. They describe the devastating impact not only on their partnerships but on their careers, homes, children, livelihoods, and lives. Most of all, Family Unvalued lets the reader hear the sometimes horrifying, always enlightening testimony of lesbian and gay families: people simply seeking to build a better future...together

The Federal Fmarriage Amendment

2006-07-10T07:41:00.000+01:00

Unnecessary, anti-federalist, and anti-democratic

Published in: Policy Analysis, June 2006
By: Dale Carpenter
Via: DocuTicker

Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim that an amendment is needed immediately to prevent same-sex marriages from being forced on the nation. That fear is even more unfounded today than it was in 2004, when Congress last considered the FMA. The better view is that the policy debate on same-sex marriage should proceed in the 50 states, without being cut off by a single national policy imposed from Washington and enshrined in the Constitution.”

Georgia high court reinstates same-sex marriage ban

2006-07-07T08:50:00.000+01:00

Source: GA Supreme Court
Via: DocuTicker

In the Georgia opinion, the court held “that the first sentence of subparagraph (b) of the amendment does not address a different objective than that of the amendment as a whole and does not render the amendment violative of the multiple-subject prohibition of Art. 10, Sec. 1, Par. 2, Ga. Const. 1983,” and therefore reversed the trial court’s ruling.

Same-Sex Marriage defered to Lawmakers

2006-07-07T08:46:00.000+01:00

Full text court filing

Sourse: NY Court of Appeals
Via: DocuTicker

New York Court of Appeals defers Same-Sex Marriage to lawmakers

The Impact on New Mexico’s Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry

2006-05-05T07:53:00.000+01:00

Economic impact of Gay Marriage

By: Badgett MVL,
Published by: Williams Institute / IGLISS, 2006
Via: ResourceShelf's DocuTicker

"This report finds that giving marriage rights to same-sex couples in New Mexico will have a positive impact on the state budget. The study estimates that the state would save up to $1.5 million to $2 million each year for the state."

Nigeria: Obasanjo must withdraw Bill to criminalize gay rights

2006-03-28T08:00:00.000+01:00

President Should Disavow Ban Before U.S. Trip

Via: HRW

(New York, March 23, 2006) – As Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo prepares to visit the United States, he should reaffirm his commitment to the human rights of all Nigerians and withdraw proposed legislation to introduce criminal penalties for same-sex relationships and marriage ceremonies, as well as for public advocacy or associations supporting the rights of lesbian and gay people.

In a letter to President Obasanjo, a coalition of 16 human rights organizations urged him to disavow the bill, which contravenes international law and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights that ensure rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. The bill also undermines Nigeria’s struggle to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, said the 16 groups which work in Nigeria and abroad.

“This draconian measure will only intensify prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “The bill criminalizes public expressions of love and any defense of lesbian and gay rights, denying fundamental freedoms that should be enjoyed by all Nigerians.” The bill, proposed in January 2006 by Nigeria’s minister of justice, Bayo Ojo, is entitled “Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act.” It was recently approved by the Federal Executive Council of Nigeria and is poised to be submitted to the national assembly. The bill calls for five years imprisonment for any person who “goes through the ceremony of marriage with a person of the same sex,” “performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage,” or “is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations.” It also prohibits any public display of a “same-sex amorous relationship,” as well as adoption by lesbian or gay people.

“This bill is yet another example of exploiting fear of same-sex marriage to trounce rights that lesbians and gay men have under international law to associate, engage in intimate relations, and speak openly,” said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. “We urge President Obasanjo to protect the rights and well-being of all Nigerians and disavow this dangerous bill.” The human rights groups detail how the proposed law also undermines international treaties designed to protect fundamental freedoms. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Nigeria acceded without reservations in 1993, which protects the rights to freedom of expression (article 19), freedom of assembly (article 21) and freedom of association (article 22). The ICCPR affirms the equality of all people before the law and the right to freedom from discrimination in articles 2 and 26. In the landmark 1994 case, Toonen v. Australia, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which monitors states’ compliance with the ICCPR, held that sexual orientation should be understood to be a status protected from discrimination under these articles.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights similarly affirms the equality of all people. Its article 2 states: “Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, color, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or other status.” Article 3 guarantees every individual equality before the law. And its article 26 prescribes that: “Every individual shall have the duty to respect and consider his fellow beings without discrimination, and to maintain relations aimed at promoting, safeguarding and reinforcing mutual respect and tolerance.” The letter to Obasanjo also cites the destructive consequences the bill would have for Nigeria’s struggle against HIV/AIDS. The groups state that the government will damage its own prevention efforts by driving populations already suffering stigma for their sexual conduct further underground – not only making it more difficult to reach them with outreach and education efforts, but potentially criminalizing civil society groups engaged in HIV prevention. “This proposed legislation flies in the face of Nigeria’s obligations to the rights and well-being of its people,” the letter concludes. “Under international human rights law, the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the obligation to promote and protect the human rights of its population, without distinction of any kind. We urge you, as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, to act in accordance with Nigeria’s legal obligations under international human rights law and withdraw this bill.”

In a statement released in February, the U.S. State Department condemned the proposed legislation. It stated it was “concerned by reports of legislation in Nigeria that would restrict or prohibit citizens from assembling, organizing, holding events or rallies, and participating in ceremonies of religious union, based upon sexual orientation and gender identity... The freedoms of speech, association, expression, assembly, and religion are long-standing international commitments and are universally recognized. Nigeria, as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has assumed important obligations on these matters. We expect the Government of Nigeria to act in a manner consistent with those obligations.”

In addition to Human Rights Watch and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, the organizations signing the letter to President Obasanjo are: Africa Action (United States); African Human Rights Organization (Cameroon); Alliance Rights (Nigeria); Amnesty International, International Secretariat (United Kingdom); Center for Democracy & Development (Nigeria); Centre d'Etudes et de Recherche en Droits de l'Homme - Démocratie et Justice Transitionnelle (Democratic Republic of Congo); Civil Liberties Organization (Nigeria); Global Rights (United States); International Commission of Jurists (Switzerland); International Service for Human Rights (Switzerland); Legal Defense & Assistance Project (Nigeria); National Black Justice Coalition (United States); Support Project in Nigeria (Nigeria); and the University of Pretoria Centre for Human Rights (South Africa).

What same sex civil partnerships may mean for health

2006-02-22T07:10:00.000+01:00

By: Michael King, Annie Bartlett
Published in: Journal of Epidemiology and community health
Via: ResourceShelf's DocuTicker

"A growing number of countries have introduced a form of marriage or civil partnership registration for same sex couples. Marriage confers health benefits on heterosexual men and women and similar benefits could arise from same sex civil unions. The authors argue that legal and social recognition of same sex relationships may reduce discrimination, increase the stability of same sex relationships, and lead to better physical and mental health for gay and lesbian people."

Sexual rights in Brazil

2006-02-01T07:36:00.000+01:00

Social movement and legal literacy

By: Lorea R, 2005
Via: Siyanda

The Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988 made freedom of sexual orientation a fundamental right. Sexual diversity is thus constitutionally secured in Brazil. Since the 1990s, Brazilian gay and lesbian movements have used this rationale to fight for a specific law to regulate same-sex marriage. Yet this paper argues that the “gay marriage institution” should be abolished as this stigmatises this group. Creating alternatives to marriage does not confront the issue of discrimination. Instead the marriage institution that already exists should be made accessible to all people, irrespective of their sexual orientation. The Judiciary Power should assure such rights, by making it one Law for all.

Report on Public Hearings: Same Sex Marriages

2006-01-23T14:36:00.000+01:00

Public Hearings on Same Sex Marriages

Published by: National House of Traditional Leaders, 2005

Having received enquiries from members of the public about their position regarding the issue of same sex marriages, the NHTL decided to hold Public Hearings on the matter. The hearings where held in rural areas in six out of the nine provinces: Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Kwazulu natal, North West, Eastern Cape and Free State

Nigeria bans gay marriages

2006-01-20T07:03:00.000+01:00

News reporting the ban on gay marriage by the Federal Government of Nigeria

Articles Dated: 19 Jaunuary 2006

Nigeria bill to ban same-sex relations, Cape Times
Link via: IOL

Abuja, Nigeria - The executive branch will introduce legislation in Nigeria's parliament outlawing homosexual sex and same-sex marriages and making it an offence for churches and mosques to sanction any such relationship, the justice minister said yesterday.

Justice Minister Bayo Ojo said the bill, which proposes up to five years' imprisonment for homosexual sex, was approved during a cabinet meeting chaired by President Olusegun Obasanjo and would be forwarded immediately to lawmakers for a vote, at an unspecified time. Ojo said the law, if approved, would also forbid associations of homosexuals and lesbians.

Public hostility to homosexual relations is widespread in the largely conservative country of more than 130 million people, split between a mainly Muslim north and a largely Christian south. The governing People's Democratic Party has a large majority in the legislature. - Sapa-AP

FG Bans gay marriages, Vanguard - Lagos
Link via: AllAfrica
By: Charles Ozoemena

THE Federal Government has banned gay marriage in Nigeria, thus ending hopes by people of same sex to enjoy marital relationships in the Country. The ban also affects staging of Gay Rallies and Associations of whatever kind. This resolution was reached yesterday during the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting which considered and endorsed the bill prohibiting gay marriage and slamming five years prison terms with no option of fine on both direct violators of the law and those that aided and abated such marriages.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Mr. Bayo Ojo presented the bill to the meeting, leading to the resolution. Addressing state House Correspondents on the bill, Chief Bayo Ojo and Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mr. Frank Nweke said that Government frowns against marriage of people of same sex as it contravenes the provisions of even both the Holy Bible and the HolyQuoran.Nweke clarified that in spite of the liberal disposition of the Western World that permits gay marriages that Nigeria would remain a conservative society and as such would never condone such relationship. "So, council approved that this bill be forwarded to the National Assembly. Government prohibits marriage of same sex and it is banned in Nigeria and sanctions have been imposed on persons who flout the law", he emphasized.

The Attorney General of the Federation in his summation of the bill explained that the legal document has eight parts with a section prohibiting any church, mosque or place of worship from ordaining either marriage between homosexuals or between lesbians. Describing gay or lesbianism as un-African he argued "We don't want such incidence to crop up in Nigeria". If you abate and support the marriage you are also liable to five years of sentences without option offine. Ojo further explained that Gay rallies or association of whatever kind has also been banned.

FG Bans same sex marriage, This Day - Lagos
Link via: AllAfrica
By: Josephine Lohor

The Federal Government took a major step towards banning same sex marriage in Nigeria, by approving a Bill for an Act to make provisions for the Prohibition of Relationship between Persons of the Same Sex, Celebration of Marriage by them and for other Matters Connected Therewith. The Bill, presented to the Federal Executive Council (FEC), yesterday, by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Bayo Ojo (SAN), seeks a five-year jail term for offenders and people who aid and support such act in any way.

The Federal Government said checkmating same sex marriage has become expedient, to stop its indulgence by Nigerians, adding that passing the Bill by the National Assembly was important, because "we believe that despite all the pretensions about this kind of thing, Nigeria is still basically a conservative society. "We know the values that we hold here as a people and so government decided to say that let us check basically the possible erosion of our value system," Minister for Information and National Orientation, Frank Nweke said.

Giving further insight into the Bill, Ojo said "the various parts of the bill are interpretation, validity and recognition of marriages, prohibition, non-recognition of marriages of same sex , prohibition of marriages of same sex in any of the recognised places of worship like churches, mosques and customary courts, offences under the law.

"Section seven provides for offences, and it is an offence for anybody to contract a marriage or have a relationship with a person of the same sex.. If you do, it carries a sentence of five years imprisonment without the option of fine, and if you aid or support in any way, anybody of the same sex to contract a relationship or marriage, it will also attract five years imprisonment."
Ojo said "state high courts and the Federal high courts have jurisdiction to deal with such offences.Basically, it is unAfrican to have a relationship of the same sex. If you look at the holy books, the Bible and the Koran, it is prohibited. The issue is that we don't want such incidents to crop up in our nation.

"Things like rallies and relationships or amorous relationships being displayed in public are all included in the bill. "We all know that marriage is a unique institution between a man and a woman, and this fact is universally acknowledged and it is also contained in the holy books. But in recent times, incidents of marriage or relationships between people of the same sex has been growing in the developed world.

"Just in December, this incident crossed over to South Africa, we got worried. President olusegun Obasanjo then thought it fit that we should bring a bill to council, to prohibit the relationship and marriage between people of the same sex. This bill was brought to council today and was passed with certain amendments," Ojo added. Nweke recalled that "during the last International Conference on AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (ICASA), held in Abuja, one of the groups that engaged in a march past made a call for recognition of that kind of thing in Nigeria. Of course, government has frowned at this kind of development."

The Federal Executive Council also yesterday, approved N167.504.148 million for the purchase of furniture for the Ministry of Petroleum Resources which has since 2004 been allocated five floors at the NNPC Towers, Abuja, just as it approved another N63 million inclusive of VAT for consultancy services to Messrs KPMG Professional Services that has been engaged by the Chief Ernest Shonekan-led Committee on the Consolidation of Emoluments last year.

The FEC also approvedN763,547,099.00 million for the rehabilitation of four power sub-stations at the State House, Three Arms Zone, Eyadema Road and the Yakubu Gowon Crescent; N5.4 billion for the completion of rehabilitation of the 74 kilometre Nasarawa to Loko Road in Nasarawa State; N440,686,785 million for the limited rehabilitation of the Onitsha - Enugu State dual carriageway, N508 million as augmentation of contract for the reconstruction and asphalt laying of the Okigwe - Afikpo road in Ebonyi State that was awarded in 2001 but abandoned because of the variation order. Augmentation of contract sum for the Ota - Abeokuta road in Ogun State that was first awarded in 2000 to Julius Berger was also approved by Council.

The Registered Partnership Act

2006-01-09T15:14:00.000+01:00

HomO: The office of the Ombudsman against discrimination on grounds of Sexual Orrientation.

This site contains various pieces of legislation protecting the right to non-discrimination. It also contains the The Registered Partnership Act (1994:1117), legalizing the registration of Same Sex Partnerships in Sweden.

The impact on New Hampshire's budget of allowing same-sex couples to marry

2006-01-06T07:24:00.000+01:00

Gay Marriage

By: Sears RB & Kukura E
Produced by: The Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, UCLA School of Law, 2005
Via: ResourceShelf's DocuTicker

This study finds that giving marriage rights to same-sex couples in New Hampshire will have a positive impact on the state budget. The study estimates that the state would save up to $500,000 each year for the state.

Declaring Same-Sex Marriage a constitutional right in South Africa

2006-01-05T15:11:00.000+01:00

Minister of Home Affairs v. Fourie

Produced by: Constitutional Court of South Africa
Provided by: Findlaw

Minister of Home Affairs v. Fourie is a case decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. This made South Africa only the fifth nation in the world to recognize such a right, after The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada. Fourie was decided on December 1, 2005, in a holding authored by Justice Albie Sachs. It was unanimous among the eleven justices of the Court, except as to the remedy, in which the majority held that the legislature had one year to rewrite statute in conformity with its decision, otherwise the holding would displace the statute