9.30am, Wednesday 2 February
Corner Abingdon Street and Great College Street, SW1
(diagonally opposite the House of Lords)
Equal Love – European Court application launch
10.30am, Tuesday 2 February
Committee Room 17
House of Commons
“Eight British couples will formally file a joint legal application to the European Court of Human Rights this Wednesday, 2 February, in a bid to overturn the twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships,” announced human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of the LGBT human rights group OutRage!.
The European Court challenge will be formally announced at a meeting in Committee Room 17 at the House of Commons at 10.30am, booked in the name of Caroline Lucas MP. Ms Lucas is the keynote speaker.
Prior to this meeting, there will be a photo call at 9.30am, where the couples filing the European Court challenge will post their application in the red letter box at the corner of Abingdon Street and Great College Street, SW1, diagonally opposite the House of Lords.
Peter Tatchell is coordinator of the Equal Love campaign – www.equalove.org.uk – which seeks to end sexual orientation discrimination in both civil marriage and civil partnership law.
“Since November, four same-sex couples were refused marriage licenses at register offices in Greenwich, Northampton and Petersfield. Four heterosexual couples were also turned away when they applied for civil partnerships in Islington, Camden, Bristol and Aldershot,” added Mr Tatchell.
“All eight couples received letters of refusal from their register offices, which we are now using as the evidential basis to challenge in the European Court of Human Rights the UK’s exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage and the prohibition of straight civil partnerships. Since there is no substantive difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems.
“Outlawing black or Jewish people from getting married would provoke uproar. The prohibition on gay marriages should provoke similar outrage. Arbitrarily excluding heterosexual couples from civil partnerships is equally reprehensible.
“The bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships are a form of sexual apartheid – one law for gay couples and another law for heterosexual partners. Two wrongs don’t make a right. In a democratic society, we should all be equal before the law,” said Mr Tatchell.
Wednesday’s launch will be chaired by Peter Tatchell, and feature Caroline Lucas MP as the keynote speaker, plus some of the eight couples and their legal advisor, Professor Robert Wintemute of the School of Law at Kings College London. He will outline the legal basis of the Equal Love challenge to the current proscriptions.
“Our Equal Love campaign wants both marriages and civil partnerships opened up to all couples, different-sex and same-sex. Let everyone have a free and equal choice,” said Professor Wintemute.
“Banning same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnerships violates Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“It’s discriminatory and obnoxious, like having separate drinking fountains or beaches for different racial groups, even though the water is the same. The only function of the twin bans is to mark lesbian and gay people as socially and legally inferior to heterosexual people.
“I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UK’s system of segregating couples into two ‘separate but equal’ legal institutions violates the European Convention. I predict that same-sex couples will be granted access to marriage in the UK and that this will be because the UK Government will eventually accept that it cannot defend the current discriminatory system,” he said.
See Prof Wintemute’s detailed legal arguments below.
See below a summary of countries around the world that have legislated same-sex civil marriage and civil unions.
1. Why and how we are able to take the Equal Love legal case direct to the European Court of Human Rights, without first exhausting the UK courts
“We have decided to take our case directly to the European Court of Human Rights for two reasons,” said Professor Robert Wintemute.
“First, anyone challenging discriminatory legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998 has to worry that losing could mean being ordered to pay the UK Government’s legal costs. This happened in 2006 to a lesbian couple, Susan Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, when they tried to have their lawful Canadian marriage recognised as a marriage in the UK. Our government would only recognise it as a civil partnership. Their case was rejected by a High Court judge, who ordered them to pay the UK Government £25,000 in legal costs. They could not afford to appeal the decision. In contrast, individuals who lose in the European Court of Human Rights do not have to pay the UK Government’s legal costs. The eight couples bringing this joint legal action are not well off and are not in a position to take the risk of a potentially huge legal bill.
“Second, even if we were to win in a UK court, the Human Rights Act 1998 only allows a UK court to make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, if the court deems legislation to be discriminatory. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that the parties to a marriage must be male and female. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 stipulates that the parties to a civil partnership must be of the same sex. A ‘declaration of incompatibility’ is not legally binding, so the UK Government is free to ignore it. Even if the declaration is made by the UK Supreme Court, the UK Government is able to say: ‘We’ll wait to hear what the European Court of Human Rights has to say.’ This limit on the powers of UK courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 is a defect in the UK’s legal protection of human rights. Because of this defect, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed in 2008 that a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ is not an effective remedy, and does not have to be exhausted before making an application to the Court against the UK Government.”
2. The key points and arguments of the Equal Love legal case
“Our case is that the combination of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 creates a system that segregates couples into two separate legal institutions, with different names but identical rights and responsibilities. The segregation of couples is based on their sexual orientations: same-sex couples are excluded from marriage, and different-sex couples are excluded from civil partnership. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, all differences in treatment affecting other Convention rights – in this case the rights to marry in Article 12 and to respect for family life in Article 8 – must have an ‘objective and reasonable justification’. The European Court of Human Rights has said that differences in treatment based on sexual orientation ‘require particularly serious reasons by way of justification’, like differences in treatment based on race, religion or sex. The only apparent reason for maintaining the system of segregation is to use the law to mark same-sex couples as socially and legally inferior, and different-sex couples as socially and legally superior. Same-sex couples are excluded from marriage, which is the universal system for legally recognising a loving, committed, sexual relationship between two adults. This legal segregation is similar to having separate beaches and drinking fountains for white and black people, as existed in South Africa under apartheid. It is comparable to having a system of marriage for Christians and civil partnership for non-Christians.”
3. Why previous ECHR rulings against same-sex marriage might not apply in our case
“On 24 June 2010, the European Court of Human Rights issued its first judgment in a case in which a same-sex couple was seeking the right to marry. The Court found no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of two men, Horst Schalk and Johan Kopf, who were seeking the right to marry in Austria. Although the Court ruled that Article 12 of the Convention did not yet impose an obligation on European governments to allow same-sex couples to marry, the Court changed its interpretation of Article 12, saying that it ‘would no longer consider that the right to marry enshrined in Article 12 must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex’. When more Council of Europe countries than the current 7 (out of 47) allow same-sex couples to marry, the Court will be willing to consider ordering all of them to do so. The number European countries that allow same-sex marriage increased from three in 2005 to seven in 2010, and could double again while this case is pending. Same-sex marriage bills are currently being considered by the parliaments in Luxembourg and Slovenia, and a bill is expected soon in Finland. With a change of government, Denmark and France may follow suit.
“In our case, we are not asking the Court to order Italy, Poland, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and 35 other Council of Europe member states to allow same-sex couples to marry. Some countries in continental Europe, like Austria, do not want to allow same-sex couples to marry, because they are not ready to allow them to adopt children jointly, or to grant lesbian couples access to donor insemination. But this is not the situation in the UK. In 2002, same-sex couples in England and Wales were granted the right to adopt children jointly. In 2004, they won the right to register a civil partnership and acquire all of the rights of married different-sex couples, except in relation to assisted reproduction. In 2008, they achieved full equality in relation to assisted reproduction, including donor insemination. We are asking the Court to require the UK Government to explain why, after taking these politically difficult decisions voluntarily, and having gone so far to ensure equality between marriage and civil partnerships, the UK should be allowed to withhold access to marriage from same-sex couples, and access to civil partnership from different-sex couples. Given that UK marriages and civil partnerships confer identical rights and responsibilities, the UK government will have to justify to the European Court its maintenance of two different institutions that discriminate based on sexual orientation.
“We will draw on the EU Court of Justice’s requirement of consistency, set out in its Maruko judgment in 2008. The EU Court ruled that it was up to Germany to decide whether or not to have a registered partnership law for same-sex couples, and how many rights to grant registered same-sex partners. But once Germany decided voluntarily to pass a registered partnership law, and to put registered same-sex partners ‘in a situation comparable to that of spouses’, Germany could not exclude them from survivor’s benefits under employment-related pension plans that fell within the scope of EU anti-discrimination law. EU freedom of movement law also requires consistency with regard to the immigration rights of same-sex partners who are not EU citizens, ‘if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage’.
“Our case is essentially that the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with developments in European Union law, imposes an obligation of consistency on European governments that voluntarily create an institution like civil partnership, and then grant same-sex civil partners all of the rights of different-sex spouses.
“The European Court of Human Rights should, as a matter of consistency and for the avoidance of pettiness, require the UK and other countries in the same position, like Denmark, to take the final step and grant access to the institution of marriage. Anyone who has attended a civil partnership ceremony, and seen how similar it is to a marriage ceremony, knows how extraordinarily petty it is for the UK Government to say that a same-sex couple can have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage through an institution with a different name (civil partnership) but cannot have access to the word and institution of marriage.
4. Our assessment of the chances of success
“I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UK’s system of segregating couples into two ‘separate but equal’ legal institutions violates the Convention. I would predict that same-sex couples will be granted access to marriage in the UK and that this will be because the UK Government will eventually accept that they cannot defend the current discriminatory system. The UK Government should settle the case, and voluntarily introduce a bill in the UK Parliament, so that the European Court of Human Rights does not have to issue a judgment. This bill should simply repeal the twin bans on same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnership, and give every couple, different-sex or same-sex, a choice of marriage or civil partnership, as in the Netherlands, Quebec and South Africa. This bill would bring ‘Equal Love’ to the UK,” said Professor Wintemute.
“At this event we will announce the joint legal action to be taken by the eight Equal Love couples. Four same-sex couples have filed applications at register offices for civil marriages. Four different-sex couples have applied for civil partnerships. All have been refused, on the grounds that the law prohibits same-sex civil marriages and different-sex civil partnerships. It is this discrimination that we intend to challenge in the courts,” said Professor Wintemute.
Segregation of couples in UK law, based on sexual orientation:
Countries, provinces and states with civil partnership for same-sex and different-sex couples: