The Cultural Power of Law and the Cultural Enactment of Legality: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage

This paper examines the legal consciousness of same-sex couples with respect to marriage. Data from an interview-based study of 71 members of same-sex couples reveal strong consensus on the desirability of having samesex relationships legally recognized, and considerable variation in couples'attempts to enact marriage culturally through various practices, including the use of marriage-related terminology and public commitment rituals. I argue that some of these efforts to enact marriage culturally should also be read as attempts to enact legality in the absence of official law. The findings from this study challenge the idea that marginalized social actors will tend toward a resistant legal consciousness: Rather than seeking to avoid and evade legality in their everyday lives, most same-sex couples seem to embrace legality for its practical and symbolic resources, even as they stand "against the law" in their opposition to the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of legal marriage. Approaching marriage from the perspective of same-sex couples, this research demonstrates that the legal and cultural aspects of marriage are deeply intertwined. Cultural enactments of marriage enact legality even in the absence of official law, and many actors ascribe to law a cultural power that transcends its specific benefits and protections, the power to produce social and cultural equality.     

论同性伴侣婚姻家庭权利的保护

传统观念认为婚姻是一男一女的结合，而同性恋者的性活动或性吸引力则指向同性的人群，所以同性伴侣就被排除在了婚姻法的保护范围之外。虽然就社会整体而言，同性恋群体是一个相对隐蔽的少数群体，但是同性伴侣的权益保护问题还是应当引起社会的重视，引起法律的关注。即使在我国当前从婚姻法上确认同性伴侣合法配偶身份的时机还不成熟，但我们还是应当鼓励和引导同性伴侣通过订立合同等其他方式保护自己的婚姻家庭权利。     

Pacs Seven Years on: is it Moving Towards Marriage?

The French government has recently taken advantage of the reformof the law of succession (June 23, 2006) to reform the Pactecivil de solidarité which allows for a form of civilpartnership between two adults (same sex and opposite sex) andprovides a legal status for their relationship. The introductionof Pacs in 1999 was controversial but since then it has becomepopular, mainly with heterosexual couples. Gradually same-sexcouples are being granted more rights and heterosexual couplesare taking advantage of these changes so that the institutionmight be seen as becoming closer to marriage. This article arguesthat, while the flexibility of Pacs should remain for thosewho do not want commitment, a legal status should be createdfor same sex couples which would give them the same rights andprotections as a married couple.     

Regulating Marriage and Cohabitation in 21st Century Britain

This article assesses the legal regulation of marriage and cohabitation in Britain and outlines a growing need and desire for the currently confused law to be amended despite what has been termed 'the normal chaos of family law'. It adds to the topical debate about 'couple regulation' and argues that law should protect the function rather than the form of relationships. This argument is supported by recent Nuffield Foundation funded research, which draws on a major attitudinal survey of over 3000 respondents' views about marriage, cohabitation and the law and a number of in-depth interviews with current and former cohabitants. This research supports the view that cohabitation is now an accepted parenting and partnering structure across Britain, and that this ought to be reflected in a 'reflexive' approach to legal regulation in this sphere.     

涉外同性婚姻法律适用问题研究

世界范围内,同性婚姻为一些国家法律认可的事实,与中国大陆对该身份领域的变化,仅存于学者呼吁应保护少数人人权的现状,则提出了在中国大陆涉外同性婚姻的法律适用问题。依据我国"涉外民事关系法律适用法"的有关规定,同性结合存在的客观事实,医学上界定其不是一种疾病的科学论断,及公平与正义、且具有全球视野的、与时俱进的现代意识,我们在法律观念与法律制度上应倾注切实可行的法律人文性。在一定的条件和法律环境下,适宜的冲突法或者直接调整方法运用于该领域,是保障人的自由权、契约身份权,维护依法设立的民事关系的稳定性,内外有别地对待与处理涉外民事身份关系的需要。     

Marriage and the Moral Bases of Personal Relationships

Marriage is a legal institution. Current debates about whether it should be extended beyond its traditional heterosexual constitution, and whether many of its legal incidents should apply to couples who live together without marrying, and about the introduction of civil partnership (modelled closely on marriage) for same-sex couples, make an examination of its contemporary role particularly timely. This article is about the interplay between the institution of marriage and ideas of obligation within personal relationships. It takes as its starting point some commonly held opinions. First, that the sense of obligation which hitherto guided people's behaviour in their personal relationships has much diminished or even disappeared. Second, that this diminution is reflected in the decline in marriage. We will then examine what the evidence of an empirical study conducted by the Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy reveals about the way people in married and unmarried relationships understand the nature of their personal obligations. In doing this it will be seen that the moral bases which underpin people's personal relationships is complex and does not correspond in a simple way with formal, external social categories.     

Regulation of Cohabitation, Changing Family Policies and Social Attitudes: A Discussion of Britain Within Europe

This article considers the differing legal and policy responses to the common trends of family restructuring away from marriage within Britain and Europe. Conceding that Europe is in the process of losing heterosexual marriage as a universal epicenter of family law at the very time when legal harmonization within Europe is being promoted, it goes on to explore the best way forward for regulating same- and different-sex cohabiting couples. It concludes that the legal response to these trends should be "de-moralized" but principled. A plurality of legal regulative structures to accommodate the now diverse family forms that are found within our less marriage-centric societies should be put in place providing at least some default protection for all families, yet allowing people to opt out and make their own arrangements.     

Abolishing Marriage: Can Civil Partnership Cover it?

This paper argues that all adult intimate relationships should be regulated under one single statute. This statute should be the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (which currently applies to same sex couples). The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (which applies to opposite sex couples), should be repealed; it should not be amended to include same sex couples. There would, as a consequence, be no such thing as (legal) marriage. Marriage as a legal construct is a heterosexual and patriarchal institution and is therefore so fundamentally flawed it is beyond the possibility of successful reform or repair. The present system of having two distinct legal means of relationship recognition is akin to sexual apartheid and is therefore unsustainable in the long term. Having a legal system which recognises only one form of legal partnership would therefore formally end a discriminatory system. Despite its drawbacks, Civil Partnership does not have the same extent of symbolic and practical degree of flaws as Marriage.

The Tide in Favour of Equality: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and England and Wales

The tide in favour of legal equality for gay and lesbian individualsand couples continues to roll forward on both sides of the Atlantic.In Canada, the federal Parliament recently passed legislation(the Civil Marriage Act) (CMA) that extends the legal capacityto marry for civil purposes to same-sex couples throughout thecountry. This change in the law was driven not by the executiveand legislative branches of government but by the courts, interpretingand applying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (theCharter). On the other side of the Atlantic, in England andWales, the Westminster Parliament in 2004 passed legislation(the Civil Partnership Act) (CPA) that will enable same-sexcouples to obtain legal recognition of their relationships,and to access most of the legal rights and responsibilitiesoffered to married couples. However, unlike the Canadian legislation,civil marriages between same-sex couples will still not be legallyrecognized. This article considers whether the English courtswill also facilitate the legal recognition of same-sex civilmarriage, like their Canadian counterparts. The author concludesthat, in light of recent case law, there is an increasinglystrong argument that the opposite-sex marriage requirement inEngland and Wales violates Article 14 (the equality provision)of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which isincorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act, 1998. However,the author also concludes that there are a number of reasonsto be cautious that a positive result would flow, at this point,from a domestic court challenge to the opposite-sex marriagerequirement.     

UNTIL DEATH DO US PART? WHY COURTS SHOULD EXPAND PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS TO INCLUDE TEN‐YEAR MARRIAGES

It has become apparent that marriage, while still strongly valued by society and government, has become less appealing to Americans as a whole. The changes taking place in society, whether economic or moral, have resulted in married couples becoming the minority in the United States. This decrease demonstrates that there is a need for reform, and that couples need to be provided with new options that will incentivize them to choose this union over cohabitation. This Note will discuss how expanding prenuptial agreements to allow couples to contract to the length of their marriage may help to accomplish that goal. This expansion will give couples the ability to tailor their relationship to fit their individual expectations and quell the reservations commonly associated with formalized relationships. Furthermore, such an expansion would be consistent with current law regulating premarital agreements and would still allow state governments to remain involved in regulation, making it less drastic of a reform than privatization.     

Regulation of Cohabitation and Marriage in Canada

Marriage in Canada had lost much of its legal significance because of the extension of many of the incidents of marriage to unmarried cohabitants of the same or opposite sex. This process has resulted in large part from decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status is constitutionally impermissible. In a decision that seemed to many a surprising reversal of this trend, the Supreme Court of Canada in 2002 ruled that legislators could constitutionally exclude unmarried couples from family property laws. The effect of this decision has been to revive the legal significance of marriage. At the same time, courts have resurrected the social significance of marriage by accepting the argument of same-sex marriage advocates that a "separate but equal" civil union institution would not respect the constitutional guarantee of equality and by endorsing the constitutional right of same-sex couples to the symbolic value of marriage as a public and legal celebration of a relationship. Same-sex marriages may now be legally celebrated in three Canadian provinces, and the federal government has made a commitment to open up civil marriage to same-sex couples across the country. While some same-sex couples and unmarried cohabitants have fought for spousal or marital status, others have sought to avoid the burdens associated with spousal status. After the same-sex marriage debate is concluded, Canada will be ready to move on to consider whether all of the legal privileges and burdens now assigned to those in conjugal relationships, whether married, unmarried, same-sex or opposite-sex, can be justified.     

From lack of status to contract: assessing the French Pacte Civil de Solidarité

It has been suggested that the nature of marriage could be varied by private contract. In France a similar effect has been achieved by allowing couples to enter into an institution delimited by law but regulated by contract. Thousands of cohabiting couples have chosen to register a Pacte Civil de Solidarité . This suggests a strong desire for a real alternative to marriage and raises important issues about commitment in modern relationships. It is speculated that PaCS is likely to rank below marriage but above cohabitation in terms of relationship quality, stability and protection of the weaker party.     

Legal reforms appropriate for cohabitants and LATs

Cohabitants and LATs (couples who “live apart together”) do not fit the traditional categories and rules of our family law system. This article describes what we know about both cohabitants and LATs in the U.S., compares the two institutions, and makes recommendations about legal reforms with respect to each. For cohabitants the reforms would assimilate cohabiting couples to marriage after the passage of time, based on the evidence of their economic interdependence and the probability that there are children in their households. As to LATs, the reforms proposed are limited to those that would support the caretaking functions LATs perform for each other, resulting in benefits to society as a whole.     

Political Liberalism, Marriage and the Family

Can and should political liberals recognize and otherwise support legal marriage as a matter of basic justice? In this article, we offer a general account of how political liberals should evaluate the issue of whether the legal recognition of marriage is a matter of basic justice. And, we develop and examine some public reason arguments that, given the fundamental interests of citizens, could justify various forms of legal marriage in some contexts. In particular, in certain conditions, the recognition of some form of legal marriage may be the best way to protect the fundamental interests of women as citizens in freely chosen associations. Or, it may be that, in certain conditions, to secure the social conditions necessary for gays, lesbians and bisexuals to be free and equal citizens, some form of legal marriage can or should be recognized.     

The polyamorous threat to nonmarriage

Some progressive U.S. Cities and several Canadian provinces now provide mechanisms for polyamorous families to register as such with state authorities. More than a million people in the United States identify as polyamorous and many more practice some form of ethical nonmonogamy. This article suggests that the growing recognition of polyamory poses a substantial threat to a simultaneous development in family law: the call by scholars and the Uniform Law Commission for courts to enforce a more implied contract, implied partnership and equitable claims in the context of non-marital conjugal cohabitation. Non-marital cohabitants argue that courts can infer marital-type commitments to share property from the fact of conjugal cohabitation. They argue that their nonmarriage should entitle them to the kinds of relief afforded to divorcing couples. But polyamorous conjugal cohabitation involves very different norms and commitments to reliance, partnership and transparency than does traditional marriage. Marital-type relief maps awkwardly, if at all, onto the reality of most polyamorous relationships. By bringing into relief that which we cannot necessarily assume about conjugal cohabitation, the recognition of polyamory questions what many proponents of more legal protection of nonmarital couples ask courts to assume about conjugal cohabitation, namely that it gives rise to reasonable reliance on a status quo and an intent to share property. Moreover, by providing a means for polyamorous households to register their relationships, polyamorous registration normalizes the idea of non-marital relationship registration. The more normal and expected it is for people who want rights as some form of family to register their familial intent with the state, the harder it is for those who have not so registered to argue that the state must treat them as some sort of family.     

The Legal Position of the Married and Unmarried Father Under English and Dutch Law: Sharing Parenting or Just Going Dutch?

This article addresses the issue of the legal position of the married and unmarried father under English and Dutch law. The legal position under English Law in the UK for the married and unmarried father may be familiar to English family lawyers. The situation for unmarried fathers can be seen as more 'precarious' and less legally secure than that of the married father in terms of the legal recognition of fatherhood and the exercise of parental responsibility. Fathers who are not married to the mothers of their children are not recognised as 'fathers' in law in the same way as the married father. They will possess the automatic parental responsibility that the married father has, as a result of the implementation of new legislation which acts as a 'gateway' to the effective exercise, in legal terms, of 'fathering' activities. Whilst there have been some reforms, this are set in the context of problems and difficulties in regulating unmarried relationships in general. There is disparity in legal treatment between the married and the unmarried relationship, fatherhood in particular, but this distinction shows signs of diminishing, as it has done under Dutch law. In The Netherlands, as in a lot of other European countries, family law has been subject to continual law reforms, as a consequence of social developments. Also decisions of the European Court of Human Rights have forced the Dutch government to adapt legislation. Due to the equality principle, many benefits of marriage are now also granted to unmarried people. Since the extended law reform in 1998 the terms 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' child – for children born inside and outside of marriage – no longer exist. Instead the term 'family ties' was introduced. This article will discuss the major issues which concern the legal position of the married and the unmarried father under English and Dutch law.     

Transformation: the Progression of Immigration Petitions for Transgender Spouses

U.S. citizens who marry foreign nationals may petition for their spouses so that the couple can reside permanently together in the United States. The guidelines set forth in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudicator's Field Manual provide guidance to immigration officials for determining whether to grant or deny spousal petitions. Previously, the Adjudicator's Field Manual imposed a requirement that transgender individuals undergo costly and dangerous sex reassignment surgery in order to qualify as married for the purposes of a spousal petition. However, revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual issued in April 2012 provide transgender binational couples the opportunity to remain together in the United States without forcing one partner to undergo sex reassignment surgery. Given the history of discrimination against transgender individuals under U.S. immigration law, these revisions are a significant step in equality for transgender couples. Although these revisions provide many transgender binational couples with a means to remain together in the United States, this Note proposes that, to continue on the path toward equality for transgender couples, special guidelines should not be applied to marriages involving transgender partners if their marriage is deemed a valid heterosexual marriage in the state where solemnized. The goals of U.S. immigration law and compliance with the federal definition of marriage can be achieved without implementing individualized guidelines for transgender binational couples.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Transgender spouses of a binational couple should not be subjected to additional guidelines when submitting spousal petitions that, if granted, would afford the couple the opportunity to reside together in the United States
• Transgender individuals should not be subjected to disparate treatment solely because the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services seeks to enforce discriminatory provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act
• A marriage should be recognized by immigration law if it is a valid marriage under the law of the state where the marriage was celebrated
• In order to achieve U.S. immigration law's mission of family unification, nontraditional couples should be afforded the same opportunity to remain together in the United States without additional scrutiny

     

上海文化立法规划和文化法律思想研究

中华人民共和国成立以来,虽然在调整人们的社会文化关系和文化事业管理的一些重要方面,初步做到了有法可依、有章可循,但是,也必须看到,这只是很初步的;长期以来,国家的文化法制建设明显滞后,立法数量偏少,立法层次偏低,是个突出的问题。这离“依法治国”、“实现社会主义法治国家”的基本方略和要求还有一定的距离。离依法有效地、公平地、稳定地促进和调控文化事业和一切文化活动的改革开放要求,还是有相当差距的。就上海乃至全国而言,加快文化立法进程,以逐步形成较为完备的文化法规体系,是十分必要的。在此进程中还必须明确有关的文化法律思想,厘清有关文化发展与文化法制建设中的若干基本关系。     

Law, Space, and Place: Reframing Comparative Law and Legal Anthropology

In her book Mapping Marriage Law in Spanish Gitano Communities (2006) , Susan Drummond challenges the disciplinary perspectives of comparative law and legal anthropology in her study of Gitano marriage practices. By reframing the way in which the "local" or "locale" is viewed—through an ethnographic study of Gitanos—she displaces the traditional boundaries ascribed to comparative law, with its focus on taxonomy and structure, and with legal anthropology's approach to culture. Her study not only elucidates how national and transnational law intersect, but highlights the complex interconnections between local law and the larger systems of law that attempt to regulate it. This detailed interdisciplinary depiction of the spatial and temporal dimensions of law demonstrates the importance of taking account of scale, projection, and representation that requires both comparative law and legal anthropology to rethink the nature of space and place and their relationship with law from both their macro- and microperspectives.     

婚约法律问题研究

婚约是婚姻关系建立前的习惯性程序,经历了从罗马法、寺院法到近现代法的不同发展时期,产生的法律效力也各有不同。婚约在我国是一种重要的民事习惯,历代封建统治者都十分重视对婚约关系的调整。婚约的成立应以当事人自愿自行订立、具有完全民事行为能力、未婚及无禁止结婚的血亲关系为条件,依法成立的婚约对双方当事人及第三人均产生一定的法律效力。婚约存续期间双方互赠的财物,在婚约解除时应按不当得利予以返还。一方擅自解除婚约或因他方过错而解除婚约的,无过错方可请求损害赔偿。将婚约视为纯粹的道德问题,不仅人为地缩小了民法的调整范围,也不利于财产纠纷的解决,应通过民法典的制定予以规范。