Civil Unions and the EU

[LeCharivari]

In a controversial decision earlier this month the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Greece could not restrict the Civil Unions it introduced in 2008 to heterosexual couples, and that homosexual couples also had to be entitled to register Civil Unions in Greece as this discrimination was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

While the gay/human rights argument is clear (Article 14 of the ECHR) the issues of both respect for "family life" (Article 8) and national sovereignty are questionable - according to the judgement it seems that any definition of "marriage" is up to individual countries but that as soon as they introduce another category (civil unions, civil partnerships, etc) then the ECHR has ultimate authority over that category. Rather curiously, although the ECHR noted that of the 19 Council of Europe states with civil union type legislation only two (Greece and Lithuania) excluded same-sex couples they made no mention that many more, including the UK, Hungary, Ireland and Germany, exclude opposite-sex couples.

In Greece's case they have, so far, simply ignored the ruling and it looks as if they are likely to continue to do so; given the current rise of Greek nationalism and rising antipathy to the EEC (and the Euro) generally it looks as if this will be far more of an issue of sovereignty in Greece than one of gay rights and it is possible that the Greeks may simply repeal the law and revert to being a "marriage-only" state to avoid having to recognise same-sex relationships.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/182580581/Grand-Chamber-Judgment-Vallianatos-and-Others-v-Greece

The issue of a European trend towards civil unions as a secular alternative to marriage rather than an option intended primarily for same-sex couples is questionable at best. In most European states with civil union legislation they are either clearly intended primarily for or only open to same-sex couples, and in many cases they are also not technically "equal" to marriage. There is also an equally questionable trend towards greater recognition of the place of religion and closer ties between church and state - in Germany, for example, since 2010 church/religious marriages may now be preformed before a civil marriage registration and Germany still continues to raise mandatory additional taxes on Catholics, Protestants and Jews which it collects on behalf of the organisations and pays to them in Germany (hence the complaints about the "Bishop of Bling"); Other European countries from Iceland to Italy also support religions through taxes, although they are not additional taxes (a proportion goes to secular welfare organisations) and many other religions are included on a pro-rata basis (although Muslims are seldom included while Buddhists are, which seems rather discriminatory), so any trend towards secualrism in Europe could be as much a question of finance as of faith.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19699581

(Please note that the topic is specifically about civil unions in the EU, nowhere else)

[isanbirder]

What actually is the difference between a civil union (in the first instance for opposite-sex couples) and a civil marriage, e.g. a registry office marriage in England? Your post, LeC, sounds as if you are talking about three, not two, categories of union.

EU only!

[LeCharivari]

As far as I can make out there may be up to 19 categories of "union" (EU only!) as it varies from country to country. In the UK Civil Partnerships are identical in all ways to civil marriages, in other countries they are nearly the same but differ in terms of other associated rights or formalities such as adoption or divorce, while in others such as France they have marked differences. In some ways its a bit like saying that "marriage" means the same thing everywhere, while the reality is that it confers different rights and responsibilities in different countries.

The ECHR ruling seems to have muddied the waters even further, saying that civil unions or any "new" sorts of unions for couples must be open to same-sex couples (but not necessarily opposite-sex couples?), while "marriages" are a separate issue.

[isanbirder]

Thanks, LeC. Being English, I thought they were the same! But then we always were accused of being insular.

[Mario2008]

Becasue mariage has also religious implications and deals with morals in the individual memberstates the ECHR leaves it up to the memberstates. Traditionally the ECHR will not touch that subject but leave it to the member states. The same goes for instance with regards to pornography, where member states have great liberty to decide for themselves what is allowed and what not.

A Civil Union or how you will call that is however a new concept and is a purely judicial construction, not a moral/religious one. As a result laws regarding this concept must be in accordence with the European Convention on Human Rights.

In some countries the civil union was/is a construction to allow a kind of official union just like marriage between people of the same sex in the first place, and since then some countries have taken the step to allow same-sex marriage.

[LeCharivari]

Thanks, LeC. Being English, I thought they were the same! But then we always were accused of being insular.

In hindsight it may have been more accurate for me to say that there are probably as many versions of civil unions as there are versions of marriage (at least in comparison to the number of countries concerned).

With only one exception world-wide, as far as I am aware, all countries that recognise same-sex relationships also recognise that all other countries' such relationships are the full equal of their own, regardless of the terminology used either at home or abroad, so to all intents and purposes (with that exception) they generally are the same. The problem if they didn't recognise them as the same would be that a same-sex couple with a civil union from one country who go to a country that only recognises same-sex marriage (not civil unions) and who wanted to have their relationship recognised there would have to get divorced first before they could be re-married under that country's laws, which would be a bit bizarre.

(Within the EU the only "odd-man-out" is France with it's PCS, but that is really a complete alternative to marriage rather than either a civil marriage or a civil union.)

[LeCharivari]

Becasue mariage has also religious implications and deals with morals in the individual memberstates the ECHR leaves it up to the memberstates. Traditionally the ECHR will not touch that subject but leave it to the member states. The same goes for instance with regards to pornography, where member states have great liberty to decide for themselves what is allowed and what not.

A Civil Union or how you will call that is however a new concept and is a purely judicial construction, not a moral/religious one. As a result laws regarding this concept must be in accordence with the European Convention on Human Rights.

In some countries the civil union was/is a construction to allow a kind of official union just like marriage between people of the same sex in the first place, and since then some countries have taken the step to allow same-sex marriage.

As far as the ECHR is concerned I don't think its really about what's been done "traditionally" but about jurisdiction and what Greece said their civil unions were for..

Greece's argument was that "the legislature's intention had been to enhance the legal protection of children born outside marriage", which the ECHR didn't see as being a valid reason to exclude same-sex couples from such a relationship as including them would not have affected that - " the Court was not convinced that the attainment through the legislation on civil unions of the goals referred to presupposed excluding same-sex couples from its scope". Had they put forward an alternative argument on moral grounds the ECHR judgement clearly indicates that the outcome may have been different.

http://www.fidh.org/en/europe/greece/14222-european-court-of-human-rights-greek-civil-unions-law-only-for

Many people (particularly gays and above all gay couples in such relationships) see civil unions as being far more than "a purely judicial construction" giving them equal technical and legal rights to opposite-sex couples - that can be established purely by recognition of de-facto relationships. I don't know of any gays (certainly none I am aware of here, however much we may disagree on some issues, and regardless of whether they see civil unions as an end in themselves or just a transitory step to marriage for gay couples) who see that either as the aim of civil unions or as acceptable. Civil unions recognise that gay couples are just as entitled to live together in moral, acceptable, stable, loving and physical relationships as anyone else, and that is what they are about and what makes them FAR more than just "a purely judicial construction".

[LeCharivari]

Becasue mariage has also religious implications and deals with morals in the individual memberstates the ECHR leaves it up to the memberstates. Traditionally the ECHR will not touch that subject but leave it to the member states. The same goes for instance with regards to pornography, where member states have great liberty to decide for themselves what is allowed and what not.

A Civil Union or how you will call that is however a new concept and is a purely judicial construction, not a moral/religious one. As a result laws regarding this concept must be in accordence with the European Convention on Human Rights.

In some countries the civil union was/is a construction to allow a kind of official union just like marriage between people of the same sex in the first place, and since then some countries have taken the step to allow same-sex marriage.

"In some countries the civil union was/is a construction to allow a kind of official union just like marriage between people of the same sex in the first place, and since then some countries have taken the step to allow same-sex marriage."

"some" would seem to suggest that in other countries civil unions had/have some other purpose. I may well be wrong as I haven't done an exhaustive check, but I can't think of any countries where recognition for same-sex couples was not the primary aim and where there was some other motivation or intention.

France is an example of a country introducing an alternative to marriage which formally excludes any religious element in the form of the PCS, but the whole point of the PCS is that it is NOT "just like marriage". I just can't find any evidence to support this idea that civil unions have any growing popular support as some sort of secular alternative to marriage, or that that is what they have ever been intended to be - particularly in Europe where marriage is as secular or as religious an institution as the participants want it to be and it is very much seen as an "evolving" institution in which civil unions are simply a part, not an alternative.

(I can see that there is a possible move towards civil unions in Israel where there are no civil / secular marriages and consequently there is both a need and a call for them, but Israel is not in the EU or Europe even if it is in the European Broadcasting Area and consequently the Eurovision Song Contest!)

[onthemoon]

Israel is indeed in the European Song Contest (Grand Prix d'Eurovision de Chanson). But that's not your point. It's just that I'm a devoted fan of the Grand Prix.

Thanks for your input about Israel, I didn't know that.

[LeCharivari]

Israel is indeed in the European Song Contest (Grand Prix d'Eurovision de Chanson). But that's not your point. It's just that I'm a devoted fan of the Grand Prix.

Thanks for your input about Israel, I didn't know that.

To confirm its "off-topic-ness", its the EuroVISION Song Contest, not the EuroPEAN Song Contest - Israel's part of the EBU, not the EU!

http://eurovisiontimes.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/faq-why-can-israel-participate-in-the-eurovision-song-contest/

The possibility of Civil Unions in Israel is an interesting one, but I don't think its one for here.

.

Edited November 18, 2013 by LeCharivari

[onthemoon]

Israel is indeed in the European Song Contest (Grand Prix d'Eurovision de Chanson). But that's not your point. It's just that I'm a devoted fan of the Grand Prix.

Thanks for your input about Israel, I didn't know that.

To confirm its "off-topic-ness", its the EuroVISION Song Contest, not the EuroPEAN Song Contest - Israel's part of the EBU, not the EU!

http://eurovisiontimes.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/faq-why-can-israel-participate-in-the-eurovision-song-contest/

The possibility of Civil Unions in Israel is an interesting one, but I don't think its one for here.

I still know it by it's original French-language name, but thanks for the link clarifying why countries like Israel or Azerbaijan are represented.

Back on topic, I think the discussion of Civil Unions in Israel could be done in the other thread.