The Ryan Line - Random Musings on Law and Life

It has now become de rigueur in conservative circles to suggest that gay and lesbian people who wish to marry are perfectly free to do so. Marriage, it is argued, is open to LGB people on the same basis as for everyone else, namely that anyone is free to marry a person of the opposite sex.  (I'll address trans* people in another post, I promise!)  A person who is gay, conservatives argue, is free to marry a person of the opposite sex and is therefore not barred from marriage.  Thus, they maintain, there is no unequal treatment. 

With respect, this is a deeply disingenuous argument.  It is hardly addressing the point to argue that a lesbian woman, in a long-term relationship with another woman, is perfectly free to leave her partner and marry some random man.  It is flippant, irresponsible, and deeply dismissive of the experience of being lesbian or gay.

The argument, moreover, does not stand up to legal scrutiny.

It is well established from case law that a heterosexual marriage …

An opinion piece in a prominent mainstream newspaper this weekend past claimed that the proposed wording of the marriage referendum in Ireland would inadvertently outlaw heterosexual marriage. With respect, I believe that this view is wrong. Several prominent constitutional lawyers have confirmed to me that the claim is inaccurate.

Both the Irish and English versions of the referendum wording are, in my view, open to the interpretation that two persons who are of different sex from each other may still marry each other if the amendment is passed. While the amendment anticipates that they may be of the same sex, they do not have to be. Arguably, the wording could have been more explicit on this point. Yet even if you accept that there is some potential ambiguity here, the risk that the amendment will inadvertently ban marriage for opposite-sex couples is non-existent.

Even if the amendment could be read as applying to same-sex couples only, it is exceptionally unlikely – without v…

Following on from earlier posts, the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, has publicly called for same-sex marriage in the UK. This may reflect, in part, the particular legal conditions in the UK, civil partnership being more or less identical in effects to marriage. Therefore the logic for maintaining the distinction, as noted in an earlier post, is weak to vanishing point. Even Prime Ministers can no longer stand over the distinction.

Nonetheless, the fact that a Prime Minister, a Conservative one no less, is willing publicly at his party conference to make such a pronouncement speaks volumes. It is particularly noteworthy given that this was the same party that sponsored the notorious section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988

I have argued elsewhere that this trend in favour of same-sex marriage reflects as much a conservatisation of gay discourses as a liberalisation of straight sentiment. Marriage, after all, involves the acceptance of serious mutual inter-personal obligations that …

Tom and Katherine want a civil partnership. But the UK government won't let them register. Why? Because they are not of the same sex, as required by UK law. Sounds familiar?

Currently, in UK law, marriage is reserved to opposite sex partners. A largely identical form of civil partnership is available to same sex couples. The legal incidents of each are largely identical. There are very few, minor, technical differences but to all intents and purposes marriage in the UK is more or less the same as civil partnership.

How can it be appropriate to have two similar yet distinct systems for the civil recognition of these two like categories? As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 US 483 (1954), ‘separate but equal’ policies necessarily imply that the State does not really think that the subjects of the differentiation are alike. In setting same-sex partners apart from married couples is Parliament not really saying that gay couples are not so equ…

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the banning of several Gay Pride marches in Moscow contravened the European Convention on Human Rights. (Alekseyev v. Russia).

The Court found that the actions of the Government of Moscow in blocking gay pride parades constituted a breach of Article 11 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly and association. The Mayor of Moscow, in particular, had vigorously opposed the marches, instructing his officials to do everything in their power to prevent them from taking place. The mayor's office thus refused permission for a march in 2006, in 2007 and again in 2008. It cited public order concerns, as well the need to protect the health, morals of society and the rights and freedoms of others. It also noted the risk of riots and counteractions directed against the parade participants.

The mayor, though proclaiming his alleged tolerance of private conduct, noted "that 99.9% of the population of Moscow supported …

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that pre-nuptial agreements may be enforced in law, in appropriate cases.

Katrin Radmacher and her husband, Nicolas Granatino married in 1998. They have two young daughters. At the time of the marriage, they agreed that, if the marriage failed, they would not seek financial support from each other. Radmacher, heiress to a German paper company, is reputed to be worth E120 million. Her husband, by contrast, gave up a lucrative post in an investment bank in 2006 for a more modest post as a researcher.

Ms. Radmacher claimed that the agreement was made at the insistence of her father, who wished to protect her inheritance. She felt that the agreement also underlined that the couple were marrying for love and not for financial gain.

For his part, Mr. Granatino claimed that at the time of the marriage, he was not aware of the extent of his wife's wealth. He asserted also that he had signed the agreement (which was in German) without the benefit of eith…

News that Australian actor Portia de Rossi (of Arrested Development fame) has taken her wife Ellen DeGeneres' surname casts an interesting new twist on a old dilemma: should a wife take her spouse's name?

Portia de Rossi married Ellen de Generes in the wake of the decision of the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384, which opened up marriage to same-sex couples. While proposition 8 restored the former ban on same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court decision in Strauss v. Horton 46 Cal.4th 364, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 confirmed that the c. 18,000 same-sex marriages contracted in the interim would remain valid.

Now, Portia has changed her surname to De Generes, to match that of her wife. An LA court recently approved the proposed name change. Incidentally, this is de Rossi's second name change - she was raised as 'Amanda Lee Rogers' but adopted the moniker by which she is better known at the p…