hunter of justice

Vermont judge orders transfer of custody to non-bio mom of Isabella Miller-Jenkins

The custody dispute over Isabella Miller-Jenkins is the longest running and most notorious dispute between former same-sex partners over a child they planned for and raised together. You can read much of the background in a February 2007 Washington Post Magazine article, and the GLAD website has more recent updates.

Here are the barebones: Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller were partners, living in Virginia, when they travelled to Vermont in 2000 and entered a civil union. Their daughter, Isabella, was born in 2002 after Lisa was inseminated by donor semen, and a few months later the family moved to Vermont. A year later, the couple split up, and Lisa moved back to Virginia with Isabella. She filed in Vermont to dissolve the civil union, and, in June 2004, the court granted custody of Isabella to Lisa with visitation rights to Janet. In July 2004, Lisa, who is no longer a lesbian, filed an action in Virginia seeking a ruling that she was Isabella’s only parent. She argued that Virginia should not recognize Janet as a parent because Virginia does not recognize a legal status for same-sex couples and Janet’s status derived from the civil union. Lisa lost, not because Virginia likes lesbian parents, but because only one state can have the right to decide the custody of any given child, and Vermont had that right with respect to Isabella.

The Vermont court held a trial on Isabella’s custody in April 2007. The court found that the decision on custody was a “close case,” but awarded custody to Lisa because Isabella was living with her in a stable environment. The court ordered visitation for Janet, including a specific schedule to reintroduce the contact that Lisa had blocked. Lisa has litigated the case through the trial and appellate courts of Vermont and Virginia for five years, losing in every instance. The Virginia courts have consistently ruled that Virginia respects the Vermont orders. Lisa is represented by Liberty Counsel, which makes a point of arguing for biological gay and lesbian parents against the nonbiological parents. Lisa has not obeyed the Vermont court orders.

Well, last Friday, the trial judge in Vermont transferred custody of Isabella to Janet. Here’s a newspaper account, but the ruling itself is not available online. The court handled the case like any other dispute between two parents, and the deciding factor was Lisa’s undermining of Janet’s relationship with Isabella. The harm from that, the judge ruled, would be worse than the short-term harm from Isabella’s relocation. The judge found that Janet would not undermine Lisa’s relationship with Isabella. Last Friday’s order follows an August court hearing at which Lisa appeared only through counsel.

The court spelled out in detail every court order that Lisa had violated, contempt of court findings, and every date there was court-ordered visitation which Lisa failed to provide. After some sporadic compliance in 2007, there were about 24 hours of parent-child contact in 2008 and that many so far in 2009. At the April 2007 trial, Lisa had testified that she would comply with the court’s visitation orders.

The judge also found that Lisa interfered with visits by Janet’s parents, who live in Virginia, and that she asked them not to refer to themselves as “Mom-Mom” and “Pop-Pop” to Isabella. (Isabella’s middle name is Ruth, after Janet’s mother). In addition, Lisa changed Isabella’s name to eliminate “Jenkins” without any notice to Janet.

The judge reviewed the legal standard very carefully, noting that the change of custody is not and cannot be for the purpose of punishing Lisa. The court found that Lisa’s willful and calculated non-compliance with the visitation orders was a significant change in circumstances. The court also noted the warning to Lisa in January 2009 that non-compliance could lead to a change in custody. At that hearing, Lisa said she would comply with the court orders. The court order continues:

“Ms. Miller has proven this testimony to be wholly untrue; she has willfully disobeyed every subsequent Court order regarding visitation and there has not been parent-child contact…since that date….The Court finds that it is Ms. Miller’s intent to cease all parent-child contact between Ms. Jenkins and IMJ.”

The judge also found that “Ms. Miller’s non-compliance with court orders and willingness to provide false promises under oath, cast doubt upon her ability to provide proper guidance for IMJ.”

After finding the significant change in circumstances, the court considered each of the factors necessary to determining Isabella’s best interests. The court found that any short-term difficulties the child would experience with the change of home, school, and community would not cause great harm; that Lisa’s alienation of Isabella from Janet and Janet’s parents was more harmful; and that therefore a change in custody was appropriate.

There have been many other acrimonious disputes between mothers who are former partners, but this stands out because the judge is insisting on adherence to court orders made in the child’s best interests. In other cases where the mother with custody has refused to comply with a court order, judges have been too quick to rule that there is no remedy the court can order. I think this is often because the court thinks of the visitation as an order for contact between the child and a non-parent, and in the end the court just doesn't think it all that important to enforce the order. The judge in Miller-Jenkins, however, recognizes that the child has two parents and is assessing both the law and the child's interests with that in mind.

The order sets a transfer date of January 1, 2010, at the home of Janet’s parents in Virginia. I’m not holding my breath. Janet is still litigating in Virginia, and I’m thinking that she is essentially counting on the Virginia authorities not to enforce this order. So far she’s been wrong on that.

Guest blogger Nancy Polikoff

 

MSU Law professors propose "e/marriage"

Michigan State Law Professors Adam Candeub and Mae Kuykendall have launched a website to promote the idea, explicated in their article, E: Marriage: Breaking the Marriage Monopoly, that states should permit a couple to marry under the laws of jurisdictions other than where they live, without having to travel to those locations. If Massachusetts, for example, enacted an e-marriage provision, a couple residing in another state could avail themselves of a Massachusetts marriage. They could have the ceremony in their home location, perhaps with the officiant performing the ceremony online. However, the couple's home state would not be required to recognize the marriage. The authors argue that the e/marriage laws would create a competitive federalism in family law. 

The article abstract summarizes the proposal:

This Article advocates updating the law governing marriage formation to recognize the shift in social interactions from real to virtual life. We argue that couples can use internet communications not only to marry when separated by great distance but also to choose which state's laws will authorize their marriage. In particular, same sex couples could marry under the laws of a state that permit such unions, regardless of where they exchange vows.

States inadvertently have created geographic monopolies, requiring each marriage receiving the benefits of their licensing laws to be performed within their borders. This Article's model builds upon established precedents, such as proxy marriage and choice of law for multi-jurisdictional and internet contracts. Using the power of internet communications, our proposal allows states to compete over marriage's procedures and substance. Depending on a couple's preferences for "e-ritual" and a state's desired level of regulatory control, couples could consume the trappings of a traditional ceremony before their friends and family, without travelling to another jurisdiction, perhaps with an officiant presiding on-line from a remote location. More simply, couples could have a complete marriage ceremony in the location of their choice, but would receive a license and file necessary papers with a distant state jurisdiction.

Some states do not recognize types of marriages that other states authorize, i.e., Massachusetts same sex marriage or Louisiana covenant marriage. Every type of e-marriage will not be enforceable everywhere. We argue, however, that marriage satisfies a unique human need for socially sanctioned commitment, which a simple contract cannot satisfy, a point ignored by those who argue for a purely private, contractual approach to marriage. E-marriage can more efficiently distribute the "status good" of marriage-even if it cannot provide a legally enforceable relationship in every state. Finally, our proposal encourages a legal cosmopolitanism as individuals witness a variety of sanctioned relationships within their own places of worship and communities, defusing protracted political struggles at the state level over substantive marriage rules.

DC should not eliminate domestic partnerships when it authorizes gay marriage

One of the questions associated with legalizing gay marriage is the question of what to do about existing domestic partnership laws which create some meaningful form of legal recognition for relationships in addition to the standard conjugal couple form. Unfortunately, DC City Councilmember David Catania's bill to legalize gay marriage also would terminate access to domestic partnerships. 

Big mistake.

In DC, domestic partnerships are open not just to gay or even straight unmarried couples, but also to any two people in "a committed, familial relationship." I don't have any problem with eliminating civil union laws, because typically they create only a marriage mimic status, with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, open only to same-sex couples. If same-sex marriage becomes legal in one of those states, there is no reason to preserve civil unions, which really are just a segregated, second-class form of marriage. But DP laws such as the one in DC have created rights for non-gay folks and/or non-couples, and they shouldn't be dropped because gay couples acquire the right to marry.

Happily, there has been something of a revolt against this part of the bill within the DC lgbt community. A Council hearing on the bill tonight, at which more than 250 people have signed up to testify, will center mostly on the merits of legalizing gay marriage and the religious arguments pro or con, and will doubtless produce a massive amount of noise and probably not a single new argument on either side. However, some of the testimony in support of the marriage bill will also oppose the DP sunset provision. I endorse the arguments being made by Nancy Polikoff, who will testify about the importance of not limiting legal protections to couples, but extending them to other family forms as well.

Other jurisdictions that move from a domestic partnership system to marriage rights for gay couples will also have to decide whether to extinguish recognition for the different sex couples and others who can qualify as DPs. Currently, coverage varies from state to state. The next place where this issue will have to be addressed will probably be New Jersey. Thinking through how non-marital family recognition laws should be structured after gay couples have the right to marry is an important issue, for the gay and straight couples who choose not to marry, for people in various other forms of familial relationships, and for family law in general.

UPDATE - The provision phasing out domestic partnerships was dropped by the committee.

Another first for Latin America: gay adoption in Uruguay

Uruguay lawmakers Wednesday adopted a trailblazing law allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children, in an unprecedented move for Latin America. ... [T]he contentious bill passed its final hurdle with 17 out of 23 senators voting in favor of the legislation.

It was approved by lawmakers from the ruling leftwing Frente Amplio and the opposition Colorado Party, while the opposition National Party voted against. The Senate had already approved a draft bill on its first reading in July, but it had to pass a second vote due to slight changes to the text introduced when the lower house voted approved the legislation last month.

Gay adoptions remain contentious worldwide, and Uruguay, a nation of some 3.5 million people, is taking another step away from its more conservative neighbors after having already authorized gay civil unions last year. President Tabare Vazquez, the first leftist leader in Uruguayan history, already opened access for homosexuals to military schools in May. But the move faced huge opposition from the country's religious leaders and some right-wing politicians.

The Catholic Church is against the bill because "from Genesis in the Bible, it says that 'God created man and woman,'" Bishop Paul Galimbertti said. "The position of the Church is very clear on this issue," he said, adding "there is no proof that adoption by homosexuals is a positive thing."...

"Uruguay has a long tradition of leading the way in civil rights, and has shown a desire to move ahead quickly on such questions," said social sciences professor Adolfo Garce at the Montevideo University. The large wave of European immigration to the country in the 20th century, particularly from Spain has given it "a progressive and secular culture," he added.

Uruguay was the first country in the largely Catholic South American region to approve divorce in 1907, and gave women the right to vote in 1932. But abortion remains illegal, after President Vazquez vetoed a proposed bill last year which would have legalized the terminations of pregnancies on "ethical grounds."

+++

Source: yahoo news; HT Oscar Cabrera

NC judges under attack for second-parent adoptions

HT to Nancy Polikoff for alerting me to the following story from the News & Observer about the backlash against progressive North Carolina judges, whose willingness to grant second-parent adoptions became publicly visible in the wake of such an adoption being upheld in the Boseman case. This will be a state to watch as conservative groups seek opportunities to enact anti-gay laws.

Hundreds of gay couples in North Carolina have turned to judges in Orange and Durham counties to give them what most courts won't: the legal right to be a parent to their partner's child. The discreet and little-known practice came to light this week in a state Court of Appeals ruling on a custody battle between a biological mother and her estranged partner, a state senator. Now that the practice has been exposed, some lawmakers and legal experts say the adoptions should stop.

The judges who granted them say they're more confident and committed than ever to extending parental rights to unmarried partners. "These are nothing but good situations, nothing but harmony and hope and a desire to care for a child," said Pat DeVine, a recently retired Orange County District Court judge who works as a substitute judge. "It's 2009, and we have situations we didn't have 20 years ago. The polar star is what's in the best interest of the child."...

"Everyone wishes there's a mother and a father and a happy family, but the truth is that our families are not like that," said Marcia Morey, Durham County District Court judge who granted Boseman's adoption in 2005. "Families come to us for answers, and we will give them based on the best interest of the child."

Such adoptions became commonplace in Durham County in 2002. Sharon Thompson, a Durham family lawyer and a former state representative, asked her county clerk of courts and local judges to consider what she had seen a few other states do: waiving the requirement that a parent forfeit rights before another can adopt.

Thompson said that citizens can waive legal rights. She argued that surrendering legal parenthood before an adoption is a benefit and protection for the parent who wishes to give up the child. Therefore, she argued, the surrender is a right that can be waived.

"I certainly didn't invent the concept," said Thompson, who has handled hundreds of these adoptions in Durham and Orange counties. "It's not widely used, but it's legally sound." Parents from across the state have hired Thompson to secure a second-parent adoption. She said that she's presented these cases in her home county of Durham and also had success in neighboring Orange County....

"If people fault me for going to Durham County, the fault is with counties that refuse to follow the law and deny adoptions simply because someone is gay," she said.

Adoption law experts say Thompson's method isn't valid. Even the Court of Appeals gently criticized the process in its ruling this week. Cheryl Howell, a family law expert at UNC-Chapel Hill's School of Government who trains district court judges, said it's a mistake for judges to view the Court of Appeals ruling as a validation of second-parent adoptions. "The statute doesn't allow for second-parent adoptions," Howell said. "I stand firm on that." ...

"The effect of this is that adoption policy can now be set by our district court judges," said state Rep. Paul Stam, a Wake County Republican and a lawyer. "All people have to do now is find one district court judge who will do what they want. That's the lowest common denominator adoption policy."

State Sen. Jim Forrester, a Gaston County Republican, said it might be time for legislators to explicitly tell judges what kind of families can adopt children. Judges, who are elected, have broad discretion to interpret and rule on laws. This often leads to very different decisions rendered in similar cases across the state. ...

Carolina lavender

Two pieces of good news for lgbt advocates in ye olde home state:

• The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a second-parent adoption in Boseman v. Jarrell. See Nancy Polikoff's blog for analysis of the decision. The extra bonus is that the plaintiff who won the case - Julia Boseman - is the first and only openly gay member of the state legislature.  She is the state senator who represents Wilmington (ye olde home town).

• The Durham City Council voted unanimously to endorse marriage equality for same-sex couples.  According to the News & Observer:

The [Durham] City Council got a standing ovation Monday night when it unanimously passed, without discussion, a resolution supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples.

"It is simply a statement" and has no effect on the law, City Attorney Patrick Baker said before the vote. Nevertheless, when the outcome was announced much of the full-house audience in the council chamber broke into applause and then stood.

The resolution states:

"The City Council of the City of Durham endorses and supports the rights of same sex couples to share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitments of civil marriage."

Mapping the sliding scale of same-sex relationship rights

Joanne Grossman (Hofstra Law) and Ed Stein (Cardozo Law) have posted a very useful new column at Writ in which they analyze current same-sex relationship rights as a sliding scale. The column provides a succinct summary of where each state stands as to recognition of couple rights for same-sex partners, ranging from marriage equality to non-recogntion to state constitutional amendments prohibiting recogntion. Grossman and Stein see the same lavender ceiling coming that I do: "In sum, although the developments in the same-sex marriage have been fast and furious at times, we are likely to see a slower pace in the coming years." More movement to marriage recogntion will come in the next few years, but it's going to be slow going after that, at least until ongoing demographic change gels into legislative action.

European Court of Human Rights: failure to protect women from domestic violence can be human rights violation

In Opuz v Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found that a state violated the human rights of the applicant and her mother in failing to protect them against domestic violence.  The applicant had alleged that the state bore responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights for its failure to take action against her violent husband who repeatedly attacked her and killed her mother. For the first time in a domestic violence case, the Court found violations of:

• the right to life (art. 2) "in respect of the death of the applicant's mother"


• the prohibition of torture (art. 3) "in respect of the authorities' failure to protect the applicant against domestic violence perpetrated by her former husband"


• and the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sex (art. 14). It explicitly recognized domestic violence as a form of gender discrimination that gives rise to state responsibility.

Regarding the sex discrimination claim, the Court found:

the existence of a prima facie indication that hte domestic violence affected mainly women and that the general and discriminatory judicial passivity in Turkey created a climate that was conducive to domestic violence ... the criminal-law system, as operated in the instant case, did not have an adequate deterrent effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of [domestic violence] ...

Bearing in mind its finding above that the general and discriminatory judicial passivity in Turkey, albeit unintentional, mainly affected women, the Court considers that the violence suffered by the applicant and her mother may be regarded as gender-based violence which is a form of discrimination against women. Despite the reforms carried out by the Government in recent years, the overall unresponsiveness of the judicial system and impunity enjoyed by the aggressors, as found in the instant case, indicated that there was insufficient commitment to take appropriate action to address domestic violence.

HT: IntLawGrrls

Why the new Nevada DP/civil union law is unique

At Balkinization, family law scholar Linda McClain (BU Law) has posted this analysis of several important features of the new Nevada domestic partnership law that are easy to overlook in the marriage media flood. First, although called a DP law, it really creates the kind of marriage equivalent usually called a civil union, which is pretty remarkable given the Nevada state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Additionally, it's open to both straight and gay couples - a first for a statewide registration system for a true marriage equivalent status. 

Here are Linda's thoughts, with minor excerpting:

With comparatively little notice, on May 30 and 31, Nevada’s legislature overrode Governor Jim Gibbons’s veto of a new Domestic Partnership Act (Senate Bill 283). Several features of this Act warrant comment. First, the legislature passed it mindful of Nevada’s constitutional amendment (approved by voters in 2002) providing: “Only a marriage between a male and a female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.” Thus, the Act states: “A domestic partnership is not a marriage for the purposes of . . . the Nevada Constitution.” But marriage is the clear reference point for the “social contract” between domestic partners. The Act provides them “the same rights, protections and benefits” and subjects them to “the same responsibilities, obligations and duties” under law as spouses, former spouses, and surviving spouses, with some exceptions (such as employers providing health care to partners). The law of marriage supplies the substance of this new status. ...

Second, Nevada’s new law is available both to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. By contrast, California’s domestic partnerships law is open only to older opposite sex couples (at risk of losing important retirement or medical benefits if they marry). In this respect, Nevada is like several European countries where registered partnerships are available to opposite sex and same-sex couples. The Act does not include findings about why Nevada made this striking choice. Like others, I have argued that creating a new civil status alternative to civil marriage might provide a good option for heterosexual couples who resist marriage either because of its historical association with sex inequality or its religious connotations. Will any opposite-sex couples in Nevada choose this new status? Will critics charge that the Act weakens marriage precisely because it provides this alternative?

Third, Governor Gibbons’s veto of the Act highlights the recurring question of the interplay of legislative and constitutional change. He asserted that the Act contradicts the will of the people, as expressed in the 2002 constitutional amendment and that “only the voters” should determine whether the rights of marriage “should equally apply to domestic partners.” However, that amendment does not expressly bar civil unions or domestic partnerships. Indeed, when it was on the ballot, some supporters stressed this fact.. The governor also claimed that many of the rights granted in the Act are already available by way of private contracts. But private contract cannot secure all the significant rights and responsibilities linked to marriage; at best, it provides what I have elsewhere called “partial equality.”

In sum, the Nevada Domestic Partnership Act illustrates how a state legislature constrained by such a constitutional amendment may find a way to maneuver to create a new legal status to support and recognize intimate relationships other than civil marriage. It changes yet again the landscape in the United States with respect to the recognition and support of intimate relationships.

Wednesday night in DC: Economic inequality, the downturn, and impact on the lgbt community

On Wednesday night, the Williams Institute is offering a CLE program on issues related to the current economy and its impact on LGBT people.  The event will begin with the CLE at 5:30 pm at the Finnish Embassy, at 3301 Mass Ave, followed by a reception. Speakers will include Lee Badgett, an economist who is the Research Director at Williams; Joseph Kapp, financial planner with Lincoln Financial Advisors; Diane Fuchs, partner at Womble, Carlyle Sandridge & Rice; and yours truly. It's a great way to satisfy your CLE requirements.  Tickets available here.

Pathbreaking Colorado law allows meaningful choices for designating beneficiaries

A huge HT to Nancy Polikoff, who has blogged (twice) about a remarkable new Colorado Designated Beneficiaries law that allows any two persons (not just couples) to file a list of preferences covering 15 separate benefits and protections that could arise around illness and death. Each individual simply checks off which benefits she wishes for the other person to receive. The form is then filed with the county clerk. It remains in effect until revoked or superseded. This process obviates the need for a will or power of attorney (at least within the state), and maximizes individual choice.

Here is how the form, which you can find at pp 9-11 of the law, begins:

WE, ____________________(name and address) REFERRED TO AS PARTY A, AND _________________ (name and address) REFERRED TO AS PARTY B, HEREBY DESIGNATE EACH OTHER AS THE OTHER'S DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY WITH THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS GRANTED OR WITHHELD AS INDICATED BY OUR INITIALS:

Each party then initials in columns for Party A or Party B whether to grant or withhold a series of rights, including the following:

• The right to be designated as beneficiary or dependent for health and life insurance;
• The right to be designated as beneficiary or dependent in a retirement or pension plan;
• The right to petition for and have priority for appointment as a conservator or guardian;
• The right to visit in a hospital or other health care facility;
• The right to make medical decisions for the other party, to be notified of withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures, and to direct the disposition of last remains;
• The right to inherit real or personal property through intestate succession; and
• The right to have standing to sue for wrongful death or to receive workers comp benefits.

Where these provisions conflict with a federal law (like DoMA or ERISA), they will probably not be honored. Some particulars could get complicated.  But in most situations, the designations should hold. Colorado has taken a giant step forward in reforming the interaction between a state and its citizens on issues of relationship recognition.

France to recognize foreign gay marriages and DPs as PACs

The French National Assembly has passed a bill, passed by the Senate last month, that will recognize  foreign legal same-sex marriages/unions/partnerships as PACs. PACs are the French version of an alternative legal status for relationships.  Unlike most such laws, PACs are open to both straight and gay couples. Gay couples in France cannot marry, however. The new law is a step forward in providing equality for gay EU citizens who want to relocate without losing recognition of their marriages.

President Sarkozy now must either "promulgate" the bill into law or return it to the Assembly for "further consideration." French law does not permit him to veto it. From UK Gay News:

The passing of the measure in the French National Assembly was welcomed in Brussels where both the European Union and the European Parliament had been pressing the French Government to recognise the legal status of same-sex couples who had registered their partnerships in another country.

“We have been calling for this for some time,” said president of the European Parliament’s all-party ‘intergroup’ on gay and lesbian rights. “I am looking forward to similar moves in other countries and eventually hope that same sex partnerships and marriages will be recognised throughout all 27 Member States of the EU.”

Currently, same-sex couples with legal partnerships or marriages registered in other countries, had not of the benefits of same-sex, or opposite-sex, couples who had PACS. This meant that, for instance, a couple who had registered a civil partnership in the UK and lived in France had no rights as a couple – and were even subject to a higher rate of inheritance tax if one of the partners died, especially if property was owned.

The non-recognition of foreign same-sex couples by France has been a bone of contention for ex-pats from EU countries living in France as those EU countries that have same-sex relationships laws recognise PACS.

One-third of French couples, mostly straight, opt for PACS

From the Washington Post, an article on a French law that creates an alternative status to marriage. Originally intended for same-sex couples, it is increasingly popular with heterosexual couples, who now comprise more than 90 per cent of those who opt for it:  [note: see update after the jump]

The  Civil Solidarity Pact, or PACS in its French-language abbreviation, [is] a novel legal and social status, halfway between living together and marriage, that is helping change the way France organizes its families.

The PACS was introduced a decade ago by France's then-Socialist Party government. Parliament approved the measure only after a fierce debate because, although its wording was deliberately ambiguous, the arrangement was understood mainly as a way for gay couples to legalize their unions even though under French law they are not allowed to marry.

In passing the law without making it specific to gays, however, France distinguished itself from other European countries that have approved civil unions or even marriage for same-sex couples. As a result of that ambiguity, the PACS broadened into an increasingly popular third option for heterosexual couples, who readily cite its appeal: It has the air of social independence associated with the time-honored arrangement that the French call the "free union" but with major financial and other advantages. It is also far easier to get out of than marriage.

The number of PACS celebrated in France, both gay and heterosexual unions, has grown from 6,000 in its first year of operation in 1999 to more than 140,000 in 2008, according to official statistics. For every two marriages in France, a PACS is celebrated, the statistics show, making a total of half a million PACSed couples, and the number is rising steadily. Yves Padovani, chief clerk at the Marseille court, said couples stream through his office every day at half-hour intervals and make appointments three months in advance to get a slot.

Perhaps more important as an indication of how French people live, the number of heterosexual men and women entering into a PACS agreement has grown from 42 percent of the total initially to 92 percent last year.

That was not what conservative opponents of the measure foresaw in 1999. They viewed it as an encouragement of homosexuality and organized rallies to denounce the Socialists for undermining morality in France. Christine Boutin, housing minister under conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy, was among the most vociferous critics and still complains that the PACS harms society by serving as a substitute for marriage.

Multinational divorce = $$$

The Economist has a lengthy article advising wealthy bi-national couples with property, offspring and domiciles scattered across the globe on where to go to cut the ties that bind, apparently an increasingly likely event in the current financial meltdown.  Here's a handy guide (click on chart to enlarge):

 

Hungarian Constitutional Court forces backward step for civil unions law

In December, Hungary's highest court struck down that country's civil union law not because it recognized gay couples, but because it "demeaned" marriage by allowing straight couples to partake of an alternative. Now Pink News reports that the government has drafted a bill to replace the law that was struck down.  The new legislation would restrict a civil union-like status to same-sex couples, and create a new but less significant status for all couples.

The court's ruling cut off the best policy option: to definitively de-link the civil legal status from the religious ceremonial status. It implied the same view often voiced by American conservatives, which is that an even more important goal than keeping same-sex couples from marrying is to keep heterosexual couples from having any other viable option. It could well be the final irony in this long debate: it will be easier politically to have the same status for everyone by opening marriage to same-sex couples than by opening civil unions to straight couples. 

Meanwhile, in Hungary:

The new bill introduces the institution of registered partnership only for same sex couples and a scheme of domestic partnership registration for both same sex and different sex couples. Support for the bill in the Parliament is still an open question.

Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány instructed the Minister of Justice and Law Enforcement to prepare a new bill on registered partnership taking into account the opinion of the Court. After consultations with various LGBT organisations, the Ministry prepared a new bill that has been approved by the Government yesterday.

The new bill retains much of the content of the previous bill with one exception: the institution of registered partnership would only be available to same-sex couples. Establishment and dissolution of registered partnerships would be the same as for marriage, and registered partners would be entitled to most of the rights available for married couples [the right to register their partnership and protections regarding next of kin status, taxation, health care, inheritance, social security, pensions and shared possession of a home]. Notable exceptions are the right to take the partners' name and the right to adopt children.

Besides introducing registered partnerships for same-sex couples, the bill would also introduce a new scheme for registering domestic partnerships. Unlike registered partnership, this new opportunity would not grant any new rights or duties to couples cohabiting without marriage, but would only make it easier for them to prove the existence of such a relationship. This second registration scheme would be available to both same sex and different sex couples.