scholarly journals O przypadkach dokonanej transkrypcji aktów urodzenia dzieci par jednopłciowych

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 131-161
Author(s):  
Michał Wojewoda
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Birth Certificates ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Status ◽  
Polish Law

The article concerns the problem of birth certificates of children of same sex couples, which have been transcribed into the Polish register of civil status. Although such transcriptions, after the resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of 2.12.2019, seem not to be allowed, a significant number of foreign certificates had already been transcribed beforehand. The author argues that there are limited grounds to eliminate such acts from the Polish register. Especially in cases, in which the transcribed birth act — generated in Poland — names the woman who gave birth to the child (which woman is always considered to be the mother according to Polish law), such acts can properly fulfill their role by proving the fact of the child’s birth and by explaining the motherhood. The fact that the other parent (of the same sex) is not mentioned at all or is mentioned only in an annotation to a birth act can be well reconciled with the rules of the Polish law.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Frank ◽  
Bethany Moreton ◽  
Heather R. White
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Word Of God ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Sunday Morning ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Marriage ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The U.S

The lines seem so clearly drawn: A white evangelical minister stands in front of his California congregation on a Sunday morning. In one hand he holds a Bible. In the other is the text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples throughout the country. “It’s time to choose,” he thunders to thousands of believers in the stadium-style worship center. “Will we follow the Word of God or the tyrannical dictates of government?” His declaration “This is who I stand with” is met with applause from the faithful as he dramatically flings the Court’s decision to the ground and tramples on it, waving the Bible in his upraised hand....

The Intersection of LGBT Rights and Religious Beliefs in the United States

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily R. Gill
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lgbt Individuals

Tension has long existed in the United State between the equality claims of LGBT individuals, on the one hand, and free exercise claims by those who hold that compelling equal treatment violates their convictions, on the other. This tension increased, however, after the United States Supreme Court extended marriage equality to same-sex couples nationwide. Equality advocates hold that antidiscrimination laws simply allow LGBT individuals to enjoy the same rights as others. Many religious advocates, however, believe that they are being prohibited from living out the implications of their conscientious beliefs. Neutrality between these conflicting claims cannot be achieved, as policies that appear neutral to one group appear non-neutral to the other. Private voluntary organizations are one site of conflict. Although private organizations should not typically be forced to reflect the values of the larger society, not all organizations are similarly situated within it. Groups such as the Boy Scouts should be able to exclude at will. Public authority does not itself always support the values of free and equal citizenship, and organizations may evolve over time as the Scouts itself has done. Organizations that exist within larger entities, however, fall into a different category. The Supreme Court was correct to uphold Hastings Law School in forcing the Christian Legal Society as a registered student organization to admit all comers. These groups also represent the values of a public entity and can continue to operate as independent entities if they so choose. The provision of services in connection with same-sex weddings and commitment ceremonies has been another site of conflict. In Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop (2015), the Supreme Court found narrowly that bakery owner Phillips could refuse to create cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, as the state of Colorado had displayed animus toward Phillips’s religious beliefs. Commercial establishments, however, are public accommodations and generally should not be allowed to discriminate against customers on the basis of their identities. Discrimination against the activity or conduct of formal commitment is also discrimination against the identity or status of a same-sex couple. These kinds of cases do not admit of neutral solutions. Some suggest that those with religious reservations could advertise that they do not serve same-sex couples, but this is reminiscent of Jim Crow in the post–Civil War South. Jurisdictional pluralists suggest that the government designate a sphere of noninterference as a jurisdictional boundary that it will not cross. Thus individuals and associations with religious commitments would be free to pursue these interests with minimal interference. However, a prior authoritative structure must exist to define the nature and scope of this jurisdiction, just as the Constitution defines the relationships between the national government and the states. Applications for religious exemptions should not be treated more generously when they conflict with LGBT equality concerns than with equality claims based on race or gender. Although religious individuals and groups should be able to exercise their religious convictions within their areas of competence, in a liberal society and state they cannot define the limits of these areas.

Dropping the Other Shoe:Obergefelland the Inevitability of the Constitutional Right to Equal Marriage

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nora Markard
Keyword(s):  
State Level ◽  
The Other ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Road ◽  
Historical Reason ◽  
Defense Of Marriage Act ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Individual

After having invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the U.S. Supreme Court “dropped the other shoe” inObergefell v. Hodgesby declaring the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage at the state level unconstitutional. Written by Justice Kennedy, the majority opinion heavily relied on the dignity-bestowing character of marriage to show why this exclusion is so harmful. But this strategy comes with a cost: it inflicts a stigma even as it conveys recognition—a drawback that an equality analysis can avoid. Respondents had argued that opening marriage dangerously disconnected marriage from procreation, both the historical reason for and the essence of marriage. In finding that they had failed to provide evidence for the harmful outcomes they described, the majority not only provided the rational basis test with a new kind of “bite.” It also asserted that tradition or religious beliefs were not enough to justify exclusion. Once secular purposes define marriage and rational reasons are required to regulate access, the road to marriage equality opens wide. As the line of cases leading up toObergefellsuggests, and developments in Germany, Austria, and other jurisdictions confirm, equality works as a one-way ratchet—albeit without necessarily including polygamy and incest. Crucially, equality changes the focus: From an equality perspective, the harm lies not in the exclusion from a dignity-conferring institution, but in the suggestion that the excluded group is not worthy of participating in it and does not deserve the recognition and benefits associated with it. Instead of aspiring to achieve dignity through marriage, in this view same-sex couples claim recognition as free and equal citizens. Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation subsumes an individual under a group category whose purported characteristics are systematically devalued, thus refusing to appreciate a person as an individual. It is this denial of recognition that conveys harm to the dignity of the individual above and beyond the respective disadvantage suffered. Thus taken with equality, dignity does not have the exclusive effect it has in isolation, as struggling against degrading exclusion stresses common traits.

scholarly journals Hungarian law and practice of civil partnerships with special regard to same-sex couples = Das Ungarische recht und praxis von lebenspartnerschaften mit besonderer rücksicht auf gleichgeschlechtliche paare

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 278
Author(s):  
Ádám Fuglinszky
Keyword(s):  
Human Reproduction ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Special Regard ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Registered Partnership ◽  
Civil Status ◽  
Factual Question ◽  
The Right ◽  
Property Regime ◽  
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch

Abstract: Cohabitation is a factual question in Hungarian law (living in a financial and emotional community in a common household), it does not constitute civil status, and is extended to same-sex couples, too. The default property regime is “participation of acquisitions.” While the constitutional notion of marriage in Hungary covers the conjugal union of a man and a woman, registered partnership (reserved for same-sex couples) has existed since 2009, the latter constitutes a civil status and has the same legal effects as marriage except the presumption of paternity, the possibility of joint adoption and of taking part in artificial human reproduction, and the right to use each other’s name or a joint family name. The default property regime is “community of property”.Keywords: cohabitation, same-sex couples, registered partnership, Hungary, civil code.Abstrakt: Lebensgemeinschaft ist eine faktische Frage im Ungarischen Recht (man lebt in einer wirtschaftlichen und emotionalen Gemeinschaft im gemeinsamen Haushalt zusammen), sie schafft keinen Personenstand/Zivilstand und ist auch für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare zugänglich. Der gesetzliche Güterstand ist die Zugewinngemeinschaft. Während der verfassungsrechtliche Begriff der Ehe in Ungarn auf die eheliche Lebensgemeinschaft von Mann und Frau beschränkt ist, existiert seit 2009 die eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft, welche für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare vorbehalten ist. Dieser schafft zivilrechtlichen Status (Personenstand) und hat dieselben Rechtsfolgen wie eine Eheschließung, ausgenommen die Vermutung der Vaterschaft, das Recht auf die gemeinsame Adoption eines Kindes oder auf die gemeinsame Unterziehung einer künstlichen Befruchtung, sowie das Recht, den Namen des/der anderen Partner(s) oder einen gemeinsamen Familiennamen anzunehmen. Der gesetzliche Güterstand ist die Ehegütergemeinschaft.Stichwörter: Lebenspartnerschaft, gleichgeschlechtliche Paare, eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft, Ungarn, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch

scholarly journals Blessing Same-Sex Unions in the Church of England: The Liturgical Challenge of Same-Sex Couples’ Demand for Equal Marriage Rites

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-167
Author(s):  
Rémy Bethmont
Keyword(s):  
Church Of England ◽  
The Other ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Narrow View ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Church

AbstractThose Anglican Churches that have opened marriage to same-sex couples have done so from a liturgical starting point which makes space for the eschatological vocation of marriage. Such liturgies are arguably more congenial to same-sex couples’ demands for equal rites. The Church of England, on the other hand, has clung to services underpinned by a narrow view of marriage as a creation ordinance. It may be well-suited to the established Church’s legal duties but it means that the present demand for the inclusion of same-sex couples into Christian marriage represents a greater challenge. Equal rites, however, need not exclude the view of marriage as a creation ordinance. Interviews with four Church of England clergy who have been involved in same-sex ceremonies allow an exploration of the kind of marriage services that would meet same-sex couples’ demands and offer insights about what these demands say about the English marriage service today.

scholarly journals IVF, same-sex couples and the value of biological ties

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 784-787 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezio Di Nucci
Keyword(s):  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
The Other ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Lesbian Couples ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Parents And Children

Ought parents, in general, to value being biologically tied to their children? Is it important, in particular, that both parents be biologically tied to their children? I will address these fundamental questions by looking at a fairly new practice within IVF treatments, so-called IVF-with-ROPA (Reception of Oocytes from Partner), which allows lesbian couples to ‘share motherhood’, with one partner providing the eggs while the other becomes pregnant. I believe that IVF-with-ROPA is, just like other IVF treatments, morally permissible, but here I argue that the increased biological ties which IVF-with-ROPA allows for do not have any particular value beside the satisfaction of a legitimate wish, because there is no intrinsic value in a biological tie between parents and children; further, I argue that equality within parental projects cannot be achieved by redistributing biological ties.

scholarly journals Recent Polish Case Law on the Application of the Ordre Public Exception in Case of Transcription (Registration) of Foreign Birth Certificates into the Domestic Register of Civil Status

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 163-195
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Wasielewicz
Keyword(s):  
Birth Certificate ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Birth Certificates ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Ordre Public ◽  
Foreign Birth

This article is an overview of the recent Polish case law on the application of the ordre public exeption in case of transcription of foreign birth certificates in Poland. In recent times, the ordre public exception was applied to prevent the transcription of birth certificates that indicate same-sex couples as parents of a child and birth certificates of children born by surrogacy. Simultaneously, it was commonly assumed that the transcription is obligatory in order to obtain Polish identity documents. For that reason, the refusal of transcription meant in fact i.a. the inability to obtain Polish identity documents. It caused not only practical complications in everyday life but it was also a serious breach of rights.This article outlines the evolution of the transcription case law in Poland. Initially, the administrative authorities and the courts had been refusing the transcription due to its inconsistency with fundamental principles of the legal order. Subsequently, however, transcription was found admissible on the basis of the principle of the best interests of the child. Due to the divergence in the case law, the issue of transcription was the subject of the resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of 2 December 2019 (ref. no. II OPS 1/19). The resolution states that the transcription is contrary to the fundamental principles of the legal order. However, the resolution also underlines that the fact that a child is a Polish citizen may be confirmed solely by a foreign birth certificate so there is no need for transcription in order to obtain Polish identity documents.

Social Infertility and the Quest for Parenthood

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Daar
Keyword(s):  
Social Structure ◽  
Sexual Reproduction ◽  
Social Relationships ◽  
Reproductive Cycle ◽  
The Other ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Medical Assistance ◽  
Heterosexual Intercourse ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Natural Reproduction

This chapter talks about how for many couples, their physical expressions of love will never yield a baby. The largest faction of this cohort consists of the medically infertile—those who lack the physical capacity to accomplish the reproductive cycle of conception, gestation, and childbirth through heterosexual intercourse. The other faction of the “nonproductive lovemaking” cohort includes those with social infertility—the inability to conceive and maintain a pregnancy within a particular social structure without medical assistance. People with social infertility may or may not be medically infertile, but the structure of their intimate social relationships, or lack thereof, make sexual reproduction an impossibility. The socially infertile include single and transgender individuals and same-sex couples who lack access to natural reproduction.

scholarly journals Adoption v. Surrogacy: New Perspectives on the Parental Projects of Same-Sex Couples

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-145
Author(s):  
Sara Tonolo
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Birth Certificates ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Surrogate Motherhood ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Italian Law

Abstract In Italy all forms of surrogacy are forbidden, whether it be traditional or gestational, commercial or altruistic. Act n. 40 of 19/2/2004, entitled “Rules about medically-assisted reproduction”, introduces a prohibition on employing gametes from donors, and specifically incriminates not only intermediary agencies and clinics practising surrogacy, but also the intended parents and the surrogate mother too. Other penal consequences are provided by the Criminal Code about the registration of a birth certificate where parents are the intended ones, as provided by the lex loci actus (art. 567 of the Italian Criminal Code, concerning the false representation or concealment of status). Apart from the mentioned criminal problems, several aspects of private international law are involved. In the cases where national rules forbid the transcription of birth certificates for public policy reasons, specifically the prohibition of surrogacy, Italian Judges often seek solutions to enforce the status filiationis. In this case, the Italian Supreme Court intervenes in the debate, allowing the recognition of a foreign adoption order related to a procedure of surrogate motherhood in favour of a same-sex couple. Focusing on the recent evolution of the notion of international public policy the Supreme Court affirms that the inherent adoptive parental status acquired by a homogenitorial couple is not contrary to international public policy, when the effects of the act from which this status derives are not incompatible with the limits that cannot be exceeded constituted by the founding principles of the relational choices between intended parents and child (Article 2 of the Constitution, Article 8 ECHR), by the Best interest of the child as codified in the Italian Law 219/2012, by the principle of non-discrimination, by the principle of solidarity that is the basis of social parenting. Splitting the problem of the surrogacy, underlying the adoption order to recognize in this case, and narrowing the public policy exception, is highly evident the risk to suggest to same-sex couples to realize their parental projects putting in place the surrogacy within the legal systems where contemporary it is possible to carry out the adoption of the child born as a result of this procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document