Same-sex union court cases

Same-sex marriage is legal in the following countries: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark,^{[nb 1]} Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Nepal, the Netherlands,^{[nb 2]} New Zealand,^{[nb 3]} Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom,^{[nb 4]} the United States,^{[nb 5]} and Uruguay. Same-sex marriage is recognized, but not performed in Israel. Furthermore, same-sex marriages performed in the Netherlands are recognized in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten.

An alternative form of legal recognition other than marriage is recognized in Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, San Marino, and on a subnational level in Aruba, a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, territories of the United Kingdom.

International level

Several attempts have been made to establish a right to same-sex marriage at the international level through strategic litigation, at the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations and at the European Court of Human Rights, both of which currently have not yet recognized an equal right to marry for same-sex couples. The Human Rights Committee case was in 1999, with two same-sex couples as the plaintiffs/petitioners and the government of New Zealand as the defender/respondent. The ECHR case, Schalk and Kopf v Austria, was in 2010, with a same-sex couple as the plaintiffs/petitioners and the government of Austria as the respondents. Although both New Zealand and Austria then responded against the petitions then in each case, both countries now legally recognize same-sex marriage. However, new cases were raised regarding same-sex marriage recognition, e.g. Andersen v. Poland.^[1]

Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling

On 8 January 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) ruled that the American Convention on Human Rights mandates and requires the legalisation of same-sex marriage. The landmark ruling was fully binding on Costa Rica and set binding precedent in the other signatory countries. The Court recommended that governments issue temporary decrees legalising same-sex marriage until new legislation is brought in. The ruling applies to the countries of Barbados, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Suriname. The Costa Rican Government subsequently announced that it would implement the ruling "in its totality",^[2] and the Government of Panama has also signalled that it would accept the ruling.^[3]^[4]

Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne

On 5 June 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that European Union member states must recognise the freedom of movement and residency rights of same-sex spouses, provided one partner is an EU citizen.^[5] The Court ruled that EU member states may choose whether or not to allow same-sex marriage, but they cannot obstruct the freedom of residence of an EU citizen and their spouse. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the term "spouse" is gender-neutral, and that it does not necessarily imply a person of the opposite sex.^[6]^[7]

National level

Jurisdiction	End date	Description	Restrictions unconstitutional?
United States	1972	The Supreme Court of the United States dismissed Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial federal question".^[8] This decision was overturned in June 2015 by the same court in the case Obergefell v. Hodges.	No
Netherlands	1990	The Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that is not discriminatory not to allow same-sex couples to marry, because marriage is open to procreation. However, the Hoge Raad stated that the Parliament is free to grant to same-sex couples most of marriage rights.^[9]	No
Israel	1994	An Israeli court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same common law benefits as opposite-sex couples.	Yes
Israel	1995	An Israeli court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to further benefits.	Yes
Israel	1996	An Israeli court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to even further benefits.	Yes
New Zealand	December 1997	The Court of Appeal of New Zealand ruled in Quilter v Attorney-General that marriage under common law was between one man and one woman, and the common law ban on same-sex marriage was not discriminatory under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.	No
South Africa	February 1998	The Transvaal Provincial Division in Langemaat v Minister of Safety and Security ordered a medical aid scheme to register the same-sex life partner of a member as a dependent, ruling that scheme regulations excluding same-sex partners were unconstitutionally discriminatory.^[10]^[11]	Yes
Canada	1999	The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in M. v. H. that cohabiting same-sex partners in a common-law marriage were entitled to the same rights as unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex partners.^[12]	Yes
South Africa	December 1999	The Constitutional Court ruled in National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs that foreign same-sex partners of South Africans are entitled to the same immigration benefits as foreign spouses.^[13]	Yes
Israel	2000	An Israeli court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to pension benefits.	Yes
Israel	2001	Common-law status is once again expanded to allow a partner to claim guardianship of the other's child.	Yes
South Africa	July 2002	The Constitutional Court ruled in Satchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa that pensions and other financial benefits provided by an employer to spouses must also be provided to same-sex life partners who have undertaken a reciprocal duty of support.^[14]	Yes
South Africa	September 2002	The Constitutional Court ruled in Du Toit v Minister of Welfare and Population Development that same-sex partners are entitled to adopt children jointly and to adopt each other's children as if they were married.^[15]	Yes
Venezuela	2003	The Supreme Court of Venezuela ruled that the government is free to introduce measures that provide for economic benefits to same-sex couples, though it is not bound by law to do so.^[16]	No
South Africa	March 2003	The Constitutional Court ruled in J v Director General, Department of Home Affairs that children born to lesbian life-partners through artificial insemination are to be regarded as legitimate in law and that both partners must be registered as the legal parents.^[17]	Yes
Austria	2003	The European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples must be recognized under common-law status equal to opposite-sex couples.	Yes
South Korea	July 2004	A lesbian couple who have lived together for 20 years has made a palimony suit the property division by eliminating de facto marriage.^[18]	No
Israel	January 2005	The Supreme Court expanded the common-law status to include for adoption of a partner's child.	Yes
South Africa	December 2005	The Constitutional Court ruled in Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional. The ruling, however, was suspended for one year to allow Parliament time to enact legislation to rectify the inequality.^[19]	Yes
Costa Rica	May 2006	The Supreme Court of Costa Rica ruled 5–2 that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was not unconstitutional.^[20]	No
United Kingdom	July 2006	In Wilkinson v. Kitzinger and Others the High Court ruled that recognizing same-sex marriages performed abroad as "civil partnerships" over marriages was not discriminatory.^[21]	No
Israel	November 2006	The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the government must recognize same-sex marriages performed abroad on par with opposite-sex marriages that have been performed abroad.^[22]	Yes
South Africa	November 2006	Days before same-sex marriage became legal, the Constitutional Court ruled in Gory v Kolver NO that a same-sex life partner is entitled to inherit automatically when the other partner dies without a will.^[23]	Yes
Brazil	2006	A 2006 decision issued by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça stated that same-sex couples qualify as de facto partners.	Yes
Colombia	February 2007	A Colombian court ruled that some common law benefits must be extended to same-sex couples.^[24]	Yes
Colombia	January 2009	The Constitutional Court of Colombia later ruled that benefits for cohabiting same-sex couples must be expanded to give them equality with cohabiting opposite-sex couples.^[25]	Yes
Slovenia	July 2009	The Constitutional Court of Slovenia ruled that the registered partnership law excluding registered partners from inheritance rights was discriminatory and gave the Parliament six months to respond to the ruling.^[26]	Yes
Portugal	July 2009	The Constitutional Court of Portugal ruled 3–2 that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the Portuguese constitutional provision that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.^[27]^[28]	No
Russia	January 2010	Two lesbians who recently married in Canada announced their intention to push for its recognition within Russia.^[29]^[30] Russian courts have ruled that the two are not legally able to marry, and thus the two women are seeking to use a loophole for recognition only.^[31]	No^[32]
Poland	March 2010	The European Court of Human Rights ruled that homosexuals have the right to inherit from their partners.^[33]	Yes
Italy	April 2010	The constitutionality of Italy's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was questioned before the Constitutional Court.^[34]^[35] In April 2010, the court rejected the bids from Italian couples.^[36]	No
Austria	June 2010	Schalk and Kopf v. Austria challenges the validity of Austria's marriage laws in the European Court of Human Rights.^[37]^[38]	No
Mexico	August 2010	After affirming the constitutionality of Mexico City's same-sex marriage law, the Supreme Court ruled that all Mexican states are required to recognize the marriages.	Yes^[39]
Germany	August 2010	The Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that the twenty-point higher inheritance tax for registered partners as opposed to married opposite-sex couples violated the constitution. The government had until 2011 to amend the law.	Yes
France	January 2011	France's highest court of appeal, the Court of Cassation, on November 17, 2010, asked the Constitutional Council to decide whether Articles 75 and 144 of the Civil Code are inconsistent with the preamble and Article 66 of the French constitution.^[40]^[41]^[42] On January 28, 2011, the Council ruled that the law banning same-sex marriage is constitutional.^[43]	No
Brazil	May 2011	On May 5, 2011, the Supreme Federal Court ruled 10-0 that same-sex stable unions must be recognized. This decision paved the way for future legalization on same-sex matrimonial rights.^[44]	Yes
Brazil	June 2011	A judge in São Paulo converted a stable union into a civil marriage.^[45]	Yes
Colombia	July 2011	The Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled that same-sex couples are at a legal disadvantage by being excluded from marriage and ordered Congress to rectify this issue by June 20, 2013. If the deadline is not met, same-sex couples would thenceforth be able to get married by a judge or a notary.^[46]	Yes
India	July 2011	The Gurgaon Court granted an individual marriage to a lesbian couple.^[47]	Individual case
Brazil	October 2011	The Superior Court of Justice ruled that two women can legally marry. Differently from the U.S. Supreme Court's "stare decisis", the Superior Court decision would only reach the authors of the demand, but stood as a precedent that could be followed in similar cases. It is the highest court in Brazil to uphold a same-sex marriage. It overturned two lower courts' rulings against the women. The Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry and that the current Civil Code does not prohibit the marriage of two people of the same sex. This decision paved the way for future legalization on same-sex matrimonial rights.^[48]	Yes
Chile	December 2011	A Court of Appeals in Santiago asked the Constitutional Court about the validity of Article 102 of the Civil Code that defines marriages only between a man and a woman, after three couples challenged the article.^[49] The Constitutional Court rejected their bids in a 9–1 vote,^[50] and subsequently, the Court of Appeals rejected the challenges.^[51]	No
Italy	March 2012	The Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same common law benefits as opposite-sex couples.^[52]	Yes
Israel	December 2012	Ramat Gan family court allowed a gay couple to divorce.^[53]	Yes
Mexico	December 2012	The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico ruled unanimously in favor of three same-sex couples who sued the state of Oaxaca for the right to marry. The ruling does not immediately eliminate marriage bans in other Mexican states, but it does set a legal precedent to begin challenging statewide marriage bans.^[54]	Yes
Italy	January 2013	The Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that gay couples can bring up children as well as heterosexual couples. It also said that it was "mere prejudice" to assume that living with a homosexual couple could be detrimental for a child's development.^[55]^[56]	Yes
Austria	January 2013	The Constitutional Court of Austria ruled that same-sex couples who want to register their partnership will have the same ceremony offered to opposite-sex couples who want to marry. In addition, gay couples will be able to bring the witnesses.^[57]	Yes
Australia	February 2013	Court held that the national ban on same-sex marriages did not constitute gender discrimination^[58]	No
Paraguay	March 2013	A Paraguayan gay couple asked an Asunceño judge to register their marriage which they performed in Argentina.^[59] On 4 April 2013 the judge refused to register the couple's marriage because the Paraguayan Constitution establish that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman. The petitioners announced their intentions to appeale the ruling.^[60]	No
Italy	May 2013	An Italian judge recognises a civil partnership contracted by two Italian men in the UK. The couple registered their partnership in the local (Milan) Civil union register. It is the first time that occurs in the Italian jurisprudence.^[61]	Yes
Brazil	May 2013	On May 14, 2013, the National Justice Council ruled 14-1 that every notary of Brazil must license and perform same-sex marriage and permit the conversion of any same-sex stable union into a marriage. The ruling was published on 15 May and took effect on 16 May 2013.^[62]	Yes
United States	June 2013	In United States v. Windsor the Supreme Court of the United States struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples legally married in their own state.	Yes
Colombia	July 2013	A Civil Court in Bogotá ruled that a male same-sex couple has the right to marry.^[63]	Yes
Greece	November 2013	In 2008 Greece passed a law which regulated cohabitation but excluded same-sex couples from enjoying the same benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples. On November 7, 2013, in Vallianatos and others v Greece the ECtHR ruled that is discriminatory excluding same-sex couples.^[64]	Yes
Italy	2014	The Civil Court of Grosseto ordered the recognition of a marriage contracted by two Italian men in New York. It is the first time that occurs in the Italian jurisprudence.^[65] In September 2014 an appellate court in Florence has overruled the lowers court decision. However, the court didn't rule on the constitutionality of the marriage, but insisted that the couple sued the wrong agency. The judges sent the case back to the Civil Court of Grosseto.^[66]	Case dismissed
Costa Rica	2014	Two gay couples asked a Costa Rican court on May 16, to be married in a civil union.^[67] The request of one couple was declined, but they said they have the intention to appeal the judgement.^[68]	United with other similar cases ruled upon in 2018
Costa Rica	June 2015	A gay couple asked a Family Court in 2013 for the right to the benefits of de facto unions afforded to heterosexual couples. On 2 June 2015, the court ruled for the plaintiffs granting them pension, visitation and inheritance rights in their verdict. The couple became the first in the nation to have a same-sex union recognised. The effects of the ruling are on hold while a judicial review of a law referenced in the judge's opinion is pending.^[69]
United States	June 2015	In Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require all states to license marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions.^[70]	Yes
Colombia	April 2016	The Constitutional Court unified the criteria after Congress did not meet its 2013 deadline and, in practice, only some judges were performing marriages. The 2016 ruling indicates that judges and notaries are obliged to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.^[71]	Yes
China	2016	The court in central Changsha dismissed the suit brought against the civil affairs bureau for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. One of the plaintiffs, 26-year-old Sun Wenlin, said he would appeal the decision.^[72]^[73]	No
South Korea	December 2016	After Seodeamun-gu office refused to grant marriage licenses to a same-sex couple, they asked a court on May 21, 2014, to be married.^[74] The first oral argument was held on July 6, 2015, in Seoul. On 25 May 2016, the district court ruled against the couple and declared that same-sex marriage can't be granted under the current laws. The couple quickly filed an appeal against the district court ruling. In December 2016 the ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The couple announced they would petition the Supreme Court.^[75]	No
Estonia	January 2017	The Tallinn Circuit Court recognized one marriage performed in Sweden, declaring that out-of state marriages are governed by the countries statutes they are concluded under, thus granting foreign same-sex spouses the same-rights as domestic opposite-sex spouses.^[76]	Yes
Italy	February 2017	The Supreme Court recognized one marriage performed in France between an Italian women and her French partner by rejecting an appeal to the ruling from a Naples court recognizing the marriage.^[77]	Individual case
Taiwan	May 2017	On 24 May 2017 the Constitutional Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry, and gave the legislature two years to adequately amend Taiwanese marriage laws. According to the court ruling, if amendments are not passed within two years, same-sex marriages will automatically become legal.^[78] Same-sex marriage became legal on 24 May 2019.	Yes
Estonia	June 2017	The Supreme Court of Estonia ruled that same-sex couples have a right to the protection of family life. Clarifying the courts' jurisdiction in the matter of applying legal protection in residence permit disputes, the Court ruled that Estonian law does not forbid issuing a residence permit to same-sex spouses.^[79]	Yes
Greece	November 2017	A couple married by the Greek municipality of Tilos in June 2008 sought to have their marriage recognized. However, the Supreme Court upheld earlier rulings by lower courts rejecting the legality of their marriage and thereby annulling it.They are expected to bring their case to the ECHR.^[80]^[81]	No
Austria	December 2017	The Constitutional Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry, and gave the legislature until 01.12.2019 to adequately amend the Austrian Civil Code. According to the court ruling, if amendments are not passed until the date given, same-sex marriages will automatically become legal.The plaintiffs were allowed to marry immediately.^[82]^[83]	Yes
Bulgaria	January 2018	The case of a Bulgarian couple that had married in the UK sought to have their marriage recognized in Bulgaria. The Sofia Administrative Court rejected their case labelling it "against the public order".^[84]	No
Hungary	February 2018	The Budapest District Court ruled that foreign same-sex marriages have to be given the same rights domestic civil unions are given.^[85]	Yes
Estonia	April 2018	The Supreme Court of Estonia held that despite the lack of implementing measures the Registered Partnership Act has taken effect and is valid as it found the denial of recognition to same-sex couples unconstitutional.^[86]^[87]	Yes
Nepal	June 2018	The Supreme Court of Nepal held that denying a dependent visa for a foreign same-sex spouse of a Nepalese citizen is unlawful, as the Immigration Rules do not specify the gender of the spouse. The plaintiffs married in the U.S.^[88]	Yes
Costa Rica	August 2018	Sala IV of the Constitutional Court ruled two articles of the Family Code (§14; §242) and article 4 of the Law of Young People unconstitutional giving lawmakers 18 months to amend the lawbooks in order to legalize same-sex marriage. If they fail to do so, it will become legal automatically.^[89]^[90]	Yes
Lithuania Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Same-sex_union_court_cases Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia. Navigácia: Veda > Analytika Antropológia Aplikované vedy Bibliometria Dejiny vedy Encyklopédie Filozofia vedy Forenzné vedy Humanitné vedy Knižničná veda Kryogenika Kryptológia Kulturológia Literárna veda Medzidisciplinárne oblasti Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy Metavedy Metodika Metodológia vedy Náboženstvo a veda Náučná literatúra Podvody vo vede Popularizácia vedy Potravinárstvo Prírodné vedy Pseudoveda Scientometria Spoločenské vedy Teórie Teatrológia Technické vedy Technika Terminológia Umenie Výskum Veda Veda a technika podľa štátu Veda a technika podľa kontinentu Veda a technika podľa roka Veda v kozme Vedci Vedecká literatúra Vedecké databázy Vedecké experimenty Vedecké konferencie Vedecké metódy Vedecké ocenenia Vedecké organizácie Vedecké parky Vedeckí spisovatelia Vzdelávanie Záhady Príbuzné výrazy: Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia. www.astronomia.sk \| www.biologia.sk \| www.botanika.sk \| www.dejiny.sk \| www.economy.sk \| www.elektrotechnika.sk \| www.estetika.sk \| www.farmakologia.sk \| www.filozofia.sk \| Fyzika \| www.futurologia.sk \| www.genetika.sk \| www.chemia.sk \| www.lingvistika.sk \| www.politologia.sk \| www.psychologia.sk \| www.sexuologia.sk \| www.sociologia.sk \| www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk

[nb 1]

[nb 2]

[nb 3]

[nb 4]

[nb 5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]