欧盟同性伴侣平等立法的司法障碍

Tulsa Law Review Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI:10.21427/D74196
Bruce Carolan
{"title":"欧盟同性伴侣平等立法的司法障碍","authors":"Bruce Carolan","doi":"10.21427/D74196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the United States, the state and federal courts often has been the first port of call for activists hoping to advance the cause of same-sex couples. State courts, in particular, have ruled on occasion that guarantees of equal rights or due process contained in state constitutions require recognition of same-sex marriage or civil unions. These court decisions, in turn, have sparked a legislative backlash. Legislators and voters have rejected these court decisions by amending state constitutions to limit the rights of same-sex couples. The European Union represents, in some ways, the mirror image of the United States experience. The EU 'legislators' - represented by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament - have adopted 'progressive' legislation, including laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The European Court of Justice, however, has provided very narrow interpretations of the content of these 'equal rights' guarantees. In particular, the Court of Justice has ruled that discrimination against same-sex couples - in denial of employment rights available to opposite-sex unmarried couples, for example - does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation. This article traces the development of the EU position, and compares and contrasts it with similar developments in the US courts and legislatures.","PeriodicalId":170753,"journal":{"name":"Tulsa Law Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial Impediments to Legislating Equality for Same-Sex Couples in the European Union\",\"authors\":\"Bruce Carolan\",\"doi\":\"10.21427/D74196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the United States, the state and federal courts often has been the first port of call for activists hoping to advance the cause of same-sex couples. State courts, in particular, have ruled on occasion that guarantees of equal rights or due process contained in state constitutions require recognition of same-sex marriage or civil unions. These court decisions, in turn, have sparked a legislative backlash. Legislators and voters have rejected these court decisions by amending state constitutions to limit the rights of same-sex couples. The European Union represents, in some ways, the mirror image of the United States experience. The EU 'legislators' - represented by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament - have adopted 'progressive' legislation, including laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The European Court of Justice, however, has provided very narrow interpretations of the content of these 'equal rights' guarantees. In particular, the Court of Justice has ruled that discrimination against same-sex couples - in denial of employment rights available to opposite-sex unmarried couples, for example - does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation. This article traces the development of the EU position, and compares and contrasts it with similar developments in the US courts and legislatures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":170753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tulsa Law Review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tulsa Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21427/D74196\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tulsa Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21427/D74196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在美国,州法院和联邦法院往往是希望推动同性伴侣事业的活动人士的第一站。特别是,州法院有时裁定,州宪法中包含的平等权利或正当程序的保障要求承认同性婚姻或民事结合。这些法院判决反过来又引发了立法上的反弹。立法者和选民通过修改州宪法来限制同性伴侣的权利来拒绝这些法院判决。在某些方面,欧盟代表着美国经验的镜像。欧盟的“立法者”——由部长理事会和欧洲议会代表——已经通过了“进步”的立法,包括禁止基于性取向的歧视的法律。然而,欧洲法院对这些“平等权利”保障的内容提供了非常狭隘的解释。特别是,法院裁定对同性伴侣的歧视- -例如拒绝给予异性未婚伴侣就业权利- -不构成基于性取向的歧视。本文追溯了欧盟立场的发展,并将其与美国法院和立法机构的类似发展进行了比较和对比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Judicial Impediments to Legislating Equality for Same-Sex Couples in the European Union
In the United States, the state and federal courts often has been the first port of call for activists hoping to advance the cause of same-sex couples. State courts, in particular, have ruled on occasion that guarantees of equal rights or due process contained in state constitutions require recognition of same-sex marriage or civil unions. These court decisions, in turn, have sparked a legislative backlash. Legislators and voters have rejected these court decisions by amending state constitutions to limit the rights of same-sex couples. The European Union represents, in some ways, the mirror image of the United States experience. The EU 'legislators' - represented by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament - have adopted 'progressive' legislation, including laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The European Court of Justice, however, has provided very narrow interpretations of the content of these 'equal rights' guarantees. In particular, the Court of Justice has ruled that discrimination against same-sex couples - in denial of employment rights available to opposite-sex unmarried couples, for example - does not constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation. This article traces the development of the EU position, and compares and contrasts it with similar developments in the US courts and legislatures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mutual Mistake or Excuse: Which Approach to Pursue When Seeking Judicial Relief From Contractual Obligations on the Basis of Supervening Knowledge? Our Proudest Boast Two Theories of Deterrent Punishment Reclaiming the Primary Significance Test: Dictionaries, Corpus Linguistics, and Trademark Genericide Taming the Wild West: Online Excesses, Reactions and Overreactions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1