Test 2

Please select your preferred language.





Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile


More About Us

26 Jun 2012

Marriage, more and more

Is marriage now a sure thing? Recent developments show major change. Doug Sanders reflects on the present possibilities.

We have been through three phases.

(1) Pre-2001. Same-sex relationships slowly got recognised, on an issue by issue basis, in some western countries. Benefits under health insurance and pension schemes and successor rights to rent controlled apartments got extended to same-sex partners. This was followed by recognition through registration systems – done first by Denmark in 1989. ‘Registered partnerships’ or ‘civil unions’ became a ‘non-marriage’ kind of marriage. Registration became increasingly popular with politicians in the West, for it avoided the loaded word ‘marriage.’ Some systems gave all the benefits of ‘marriage’ – others gave only some.

(2) 2001 – 2011. The Netherlands broke the ice, and introduced marriage in 2001. A number of countries followed the Dutch lead, now including Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. It was a big deal when New York joined the club in 2011. California got marriage – lost marriage – got marriage again – but it’s currently suspended, awaiting a further court appeal.

(3) 2011 and on. The tide has clearly turned. We have tipped over a tipping point. Andrew Sullivan, the conservative Anglo-American writer and columnist, long ago pointed out that marriage was a conservative issue. We were seeking part of the existing heterosexual package of legal privilege and moral approval.

If conservatives condemned gay promiscuity, that was a reason to legalise marriage (though heterosexual unions were increasingly unstable – perhaps, actually, not the best model to follow). Sullivan, to the horror of many more radical gay leaders, had seen the future.

In October, 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced his support for opening marriage:

“Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”

The British government has just gone through a three month public consultation on opening marriage. We may see legislation later in the year.

In May Francois Hollande was elected President of France. In his campaign he pledged to open marriage, continuing the policy of his predecessor as Socialist party leader, Segolene Royal. He and Royal had been in a long-term relationship, with children, but had never married. They separated shortly after Royal was defeated in the previous presidential election. Hollande is in a newer relationship, again unmarried. So French.

And, of course, Barrack Obama came on board in May – better late than never. In a carefully staged interview he (a) affirmed that he and his wife are both “practicing Christians”, (b) that he had discussed the issue with his wife and his two daughters – the daughters conveniently had school mates with same-sex parents, (c) that on his staff were gays and lesbians, in committed relationships, who were raising children, and (d) reminded listeners that gays could now serve openly in the armed forces. He had concluded that such dedicated family types should be able to take on the legal commitments of marriage.

The Obama administration no longer supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act, popularly known as DOMA. In any litigation government lawyers will tell judges that the administration considers that DOMA is unconstitutional. Otherwise Obama does not have to deliver anything. Marriage is a matter for the individual states, not the federal government. Progress, from now on, is up to state governments and the courts.

Three of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council now have heads of government that support opening marriage – the United Kingdom, France and the United States. The other two, China and Russia, may take a while longer to come on board. 

Another new development was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization meeting in Chicago this spring. For the first time there were two heads of government who were openly gay or lesbian – Elio Di Rupo from Belgium and Johanna Sigurdardottir from Iceland. 

In June, 2012, Denmark, which had pioneered ‘registered partnerships’ in 1989, moved on to full marriage. The 1989 legislation was a world-changing event. Now it was oddly old-fashioned and a ‘separate but equal’ arrangement at best. Those already in registered partnerships can continue that arrangement, or convert to marriage. No new registered partnerships will be possible. 

And Asia? The first places where marriage may be possible are Taiwan and Nepal. No time frame yet for either one. 

Doug Sanders is a retired Canadian law professor, living in Bangkok. He can be contacted at sanders_gwb@yahoo.ca 

Reader's Comments

1. 2012-06-26 23:50  
so sad to be here in Philippines where fake conservatives are alive...
2. 2012-06-27 00:02  
He forgot Brazil, where it has been legalised by the courts, and which has a population of around 200 million. Also parts of Mexico, such as Mexico City. In the UK, Scotland and England are making separate progress, but it's likely to be fully legalised in both countries in the near future.

But it's a nice,though brief, outline of events.
3. 2012-06-27 04:23  
so sad i cant marrry my bf who lives in Philippines anywhere in Asia ive visited him 3-times now and I hope sponsor him to Canada
Asia is so far behind for getting married compared with some Western countries.
it just needs one Asian country to allow it then the rest might follow i hope!
4. 2012-06-27 05:16  
Let's never lose track of the various aspects of the gay marriage issue. It is a political issue, an economic issue, and a romantic issue. Political: it's an important aspect of equal treatment. Economic: marriage gives fiscal advantages and inheritance rights, as well as other recognition rights (visiting your partner in the hospital if s/he is ill, etc.) Romantic: many people dream to have a committed relationship which is officially acknowledged by the society.

But let's also not forget that marriage may change the nature of a relationship, turn it sour and lead to divorce. Almost half of straight marriages end up in divorces: for the US, see


and we also see this happening now for new gay couples. No need to describe the agony of divorce, the legal mess, consequences for children...

Personally, that's why I don't believe in marriage, gay or straight. (Committed union is different.) In spite of this, I support the right to gay marriage from a political viewpoint, and of course everybody has his or her own sensitivities on the questions. But let's not forget the pitfalls of marriage.
5. 2012-06-27 07:49  
The Obama administration is ridding the fence. The states can decide the legality of marriage true, but the 14th Amendment makes legal contracts (marriage is a legal contract) that is valid in one state binding in all states and to the federal government. Why doesn't this part of the constitution apply to marriage. Furthermore a straight marriage is eligible for a fiance visa, green card and naturalization, and tax credit (all controlled by the federal government) if Obama truly supported gay marriage at the very least he would push to open the federal marriage benefits up to those citizens of states with gay marriage.
6. 2012-06-27 09:33  
If marriage was a used car we wouldn't buy it. Perhaps it is like a an old house. Gays will renovate it maybe.
Two things I don't like about it are:
Churches use it as a platform to preach their hatred of gay people. An us against them position.
Neo-conservatives say that children can only be healthy with a father and a mother. They allow for no other model. Yet these same nasty people send countless fathers off to wars just and unjust, often never to return to their children. What about these children without two parents of opposite gender?
7. 2012-06-28 15:52  
we here in asia definitely far behind with the change in law in relation to human rights. let's hope we are moving forward and for the better.
Comment #8 was deleted by an administrator on 2012-06-29 11:53
9. 2012-06-29 18:39  
Brazil is a situation where the highest court has held that equal rights should be extended to same-sex couples, but "marriage" is not involved.
10. 2012-06-29 21:47  
@9, if you google it, you will find that in fact the judges throughout Brazil are regularly converting civil partnerships into marriages, so in practise there is equality in Brazil, whether or not it is a constitutional right, which is a separate question.
11. 2012-06-30 12:21  
Indeed some judges are converting civil same-sex partnerships into marriage in Brazil --- but some other judges are refusing to do so. I am told that the matter is working its way up to the Supreme Court which will settle the question - probably by allowing the conversion. My information comes from a law professor in Rio. Dilma, the current President, signed a pledge during her election campaign that she would not press for marriage and would not legalize abortion.
12. 2012-07-01 01:31  
In France , Mr. François Hollande , the new social democrate President , his new government and the new national deputees assembly , declared yesterday that the civil marriage and children adoption rights for gay people would be voted before the end of year 2012.
Comment #13 was deleted by its author on 2012-07-01 01:32
14. 2012-07-06 11:03  
just married....
15. 2012-07-28 12:18  

Please log in to use this feature.

Select News Edition

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!


View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook


 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia