Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated 6.30pm
MARIAN FINUCANE’S RTÉ Radio One show is using “stopwatches” to measure how much time is being given to the Yes and No sides when discussing the same-sex marriage referendum on air.
On today’s show, veteran broadcaster Finucane told the guests at about 12.40pm during a discussion on the referendum:
We must give another one-and-a-half minutes to the Yes side, because as I explained to you, we’re on stopwatches today.
There were four guests in studio, two for the Yes side and Two for the No side.
As the show wrapped up, Finucane was keen to ensure that when she said “perfect” to two Yes supporters on her show after they spoke about why they intend on voting Yes, she wasn’t saying this to promote their point of view.
“We get fanatical about referendums in here,” she said.
A spokesperson for RTÉ said the broadcaster has already said its coverage of the upcoming referendum is going to be balanced.
She said that using stopwatches “is the choice that show has made” but did not know how other shows are going to measure balanced coverage.
The mention of a stopwatch did not go unnoticed among Marian’s listeners:
Broadcasting guidelines
The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland released its latest guidelines in respect of coverage of referenda in March of this year.
The BAI urged broadcasters to focus on the facts, and in its guidelines said that presenters should not endorse a Yes or No vote.
At the launch of the guidelines, Michael O’ Keeffe, Chief Executive of the BAI, said:
The requirement to treat the views of referenda interests in a fair, objective and impartial manner remains an essential requirement.
A moratorium on referenda coverage will come into effect from 2pm on the day prior to the opening of polling stations. It will end after the polling stations close their doors.
Section five of the guidelines states that fairness, objectivity and impartiality can be achieved “by a variety of means”.
It also says that focusing on the issues “does not mean that interest groups should not be treated equitably in terms of airtime and the requirement to treat their views in a fair, objective and impartial manner remains an essential requirement”.
The section goes on to state that broadcasters are encouraged to seek out the widest range of opinions on the issues raised by the proposed constitutional amendment(s).
It goes on:
There is no obligation to automatically ‘balance’ each contribution on an individual programme with an opposing view. Further, there is no requirement to allocate an absolute equality of airtime to referenda interests during coverage of the referenda.
However, the approach taken must be equitable to all interests and undertaken in a transparent manner. This may require an inclusion of an opposing view and/or an equal allocation of airtime.
Why use a stopwatch?
This ‘stopwatch’ system is not new – back in 2012, the broadcaster also used it for aspects of coverage of the Children’s Rights referendum, and has used it in news broadcasts to ensure campaigners from Yes and No sides are given precisely equal amounts of airtime regarding previous referenda.
A Supreme Court ruling in 1995 said that State spending in favour of either side of a referendum was an illegal use of public funds.
Because of this, RTE introduced a strict rule on giving both sides of a referendum campaign equal prominence and airtime.
In September 2012, Minister Michael Noonan asked RTÉ to reconsider this protocol for the Children’s Rights referendum, saying he feared that with such an overwhelming support for a Yes vote in that particular instance, “it seems to me to almost invent opponents to the amendment”.
Though not a referendum, RTÉ Prime Time showed off the stopwatches it used during the Presidential Debate in 2011 on Twitter:
- Additional reporting Paul Hosford
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Stopwatches are a good solution. You can’t trust people, but you can trust time.
I think either side should have 5 seconds deducted from their remaining time every time someone on their side makes a point not relevant to the exact constitutional change.
@YFG Account
go and do your homework and go play with your friends..
Bad day Billy? Tell me what’s wrong.
Surely you need a timer on how long it takes to press the start /stop button on each timer.
Time moves more slowly as you approach the black hole that is the no side’s heart anyway so the whole measurement system is meaningless.
@YFG Occult
They say that about Enda too.
Time moves even slower reading your comments
Brendan you should stick to reading simpler things in that case – have you ever read the very hungry caterpillar? Good one to start out with.
It’s his parents fault ! They failed ….
They showed him Enda’s behind and he has followed like a puppy since. Poor brown nosed kid.
Billy I thought this was an article about marriage equality not FG. My mistake.
No, Fg is our mistake, won’t happen again.
Laughable that Bill tells YFG to go do their homework when Bill consistently refuses to take on board what the referendum is actually about, refuses to acknowledge that same sex parenting will not be altered by the referendum, constantly provides the same discredited link, refuses to answer any questions put to him, has even stated he does not like to respond directly to “the gays”, and told one commenter not to dare question him!
YFG you talk like the proposed wording and the constitution is infallible.
Demise stop telling fibs..
@Little Jim
Roger Dat.
Where did I fib?
If it was about the inside of an orange you would still bring fg in to it anyway
@Demise Grad
Demis get your minder to read this to you – and pay attention ! Show to as many of your friends (acquaintances in your case) as possible.
Read this http://www.brucearnold.ie/files/unforseen-unintended-consequences.html and this
Then vote NO.
Buce Arnold again, Bill, are you getting royalties for every time you post that meaningless and discredited link, or why do you keep on doing it?
Oh, I forgot, I’m not allowed t ask you a question, lest you feel bullied.
Enjoy your Sunday!
And then read the rebuttal by many of his peers. Unlucky Bill.
Oh Bill! You’re world is going to crumble! You just responded directly to one of the gays!!!! What if you wake up tomorrow with homosexual urges???!!! Posting it again doesn’t make it any less discredited Bill.
Bruce Arnold’s paper makes for fascinating and dare I say it eye opening reading I encourage any undecideds to give it a read.
@Top Cat – where would one find that paper by Arnold?
It’s scaremongering nonsense. Why is it the No crowd have to always approach this from some abstract conceptual point of view? Mothers marrying their daughters -what a load of tripe. The referendum is about the government legislating to cater for how one minority group of Irish citizens organise their lives and families. It’s overdue legislation that lift families from a legal grey area. It requires a constitutional change, hence we need a referendum. The vote on May 22nd will only affect the minority group -gay people. Altering one sentence in the constitution doesn’t open the door to incestual relationships or anything that link claims. This is real people’s lives here. Have a heart, vote yes for families.
It’s available on his website brucearnold.ie I don’t have a direct link to hand sorry Dude. Well worth giving it a glance, Arnold is no right wing conservative he’s a very liberal man.
Bruce Arnold has an opinion, not a paper. Had his peers reviewed it it would have been rejected for the myopic nonsense it is.
It has been rebutted.
http://www.refcom2015.ie/marriage
Top Cat, are you forming a double act with Dude?
I give it 5 minutes, if I was you… Nothing like time Clint Eastwood lol.
Shanti your opinion is as open to a critique as is anyone else’s.
http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/empirical.htm
You and others religiously reliance on peer review papers is bordering on the ridiculous.
These peer reviews are always titled the best available data, so they because they are in the public domain, they are subject to scrutiny.
They are not definitive.
And your answer to the referendum commissions explanation of the referendum?
Let me guess, they’re biased too, for pointing out the actual issue we are being asked to vote on rather than your red herring argument.
The referendum commission who are they?
Would anybody want a poor orphan child adopted and force to spend the childs formative years looking and being force to participate in this stuff —-
https://www.google.ie/search?q=gay+parade&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=X9EyVffZFIbTaNqxgMgL&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1120&bih=533
Thats just wrong so be sure to vote NO for the children.
Bill, really? Exact same link that David Fitz used yesterday!! You’re slipping!
Let’s assume that kids will be coopted into Gay Pride parades. In what way is that objectively worse than wearing silly robes at Mass or caravan holidays?
Emmmmm most of the participants are wearing little or nithing in the gay parade…. disgusting.
Children deserve so much better than that awfulness.
Imagine a child in school explaining to the teacher these are my Two Daddies !
Imagine the abuse the child would get from its peers !
Unfair.
Wrong.
Vote NO.
You mean the abuse it would get from you and you’re children. Pathetic Bill.
Its disgusting !
And very wrong.
And unfair to innocent children.
So vote NO.
Ah David, can you not click the “about us” section on the referendum commissions website?
Hon Mr Justice Kevin Cross of the High Court. Its other members are the Ombudsman, Mr Peter Tyndall; the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr Seamus McCarthy; the Clerk of the Dáil, Mr Peter Finnegan; and the Clerk of the Seanad, Ms Deirdre Lane. That’s who they are.
They have laid out all the facts with no persuasion toward either side. It’s a neutral information website.
If you don’t like the facts I’m afraid that’s down to you.
And guys, check out Bills profile there.. Born last year apparently. And starting to sound very similar to another commenter who wore out their credibility quickly.. Anyone else reckon he’s a fake?
The main thing I take from the article is she is obscenely over paid for the sh#t she dishes out.
Oh I see that thanks.
Bill Dee you are an absolute loon.
Equal time for both so nobody can complain about the debate. Both get their points across equally so people can decide themselves. Can’t be fairer than that.
Surely people who are able to talk faster need to be given a handicap?
No, the velocity of pure sh…e seems to adjust for any thing they have to say?
This marriage equality is an absolute joke. We as nation should have had equality in place years ago. Really is embarrassing. The No camp need to move on from the dinosaur age.
Were you out campaigning for equality years ago?
I was.
*Yay for George* Totally progressive.
Cheers TC!
No I was not and why should I ? I shouldn’t have to if our legislators were awake .
I wish there was a report on how many lies, each lobbiest in each camp told, mistake or non. Some of the stuff in the No camp is rather bemusing at times.
“This has nothing to do with children” is the biggest lie of the lot.
What has it got to do with children? It doesn’t change anything about adoptions. Currently a gay man or women could adopt a child if they could support in all the various ways a child may need.
You’d do Maude flanders proud.
Are you saying a gay person shouldn’t be near children ? Or that they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt?
The Referendum is about marriage – not children. The Children and Family Relationships Bill (2015) deals with child issues. Gay will continue to have children whether married or not.
Protect the children of gay couples through marriage equality. Don’t the children of gays deserved the same married home environment as the children of heterosexuals?
It has nothing to do with children at all….stop your nonsense.
You are seeking to insert an amendment into Article 41 “The Family” you seek to remove gender from “The Family” it absolutely has to do with children.
Cherish all children equally: vote YES!
Family for legal purposes can be defined as two people who come together. A man and a woman presently, can be defined as family, without children. The referendum seeks to make it irrespective of gender so two women/men can be legally called family by entering a civil marriage. As marriage does not require children to be defined as family, and as children can, are, and will be born outside of wedlock, and seeing as the CFRA dealt with all issues concerning parenting and guardianship, bringing children into the marriage referendum debate is wrong.
Don’t be deceived by the the gays telling you that this has nothing to do wit children !
This has EVERYTHING to do with children !!!
Imagine a poor orphan little child getting farmed out to a two gays because they are married and so now are equal to a normal couple .. .. in the eyes of the law.
So sad for a poor little orphan girl to find she has two gay Daddies and no Mammy and may be cut off from her grandparents and condemned to live with gays.
Where was he debate on allowing gays to adopt other peoples children ????
VOTE NO for the sake of the children.
But they are equal Bill, have been since the child and family relationships act was passed recently and the referendum won’t change it one bit. This is the point (one of many) you seem incapable of getting your head around. A fay cohabiting couple married or not is legally on par with a married heterosexual couple in terms of applying to adopt!
Gay not fay autocorrect
If that’s your issue Bill then you should be protesting at the Dáil because they already passed legislation to allow that. The referendum will not change adoption.
No children are “farmed out” to gay couples. Gay/straight couples have to go through stringent checks before they are allowed to adopt which will not change whether it is a yes or no vote. Get educated.
Pontious at present far more damage will be caused by voting no to withhold civil marriage from gay couples than by voting yes to allow it. Slippery slope fallacies are not a valid form of debate. Have you even one likely negative consequence that will come from allowing same sex couples to marry? I can tell you now that not allowing it will be harmful to our lgbt youth and indeed the entire lgbt population of Ireland.
Demise not being able to give preference to traditional MF couples over MM/FF couples will be one large consequence of a yes vote. Teaching homosexual sex in the classroom another.
Allowing men to marry men and women to marry women makes a complete mockery of the institution of marriage.
This half wit government led by a lightweight fairly dim witted Enda Kenny haven’t thought out the implications of allowing gay men to get married to more gay men, relationships that are more often than not short lived, and then to adopt other peoples children at the likely risk of the adopted child not ever knowing who its brothers or sisters or grandparents or aunts or uncles ever were !!!
It’s bonkers stuff – vote NO.
Have a look at this gay mans view on gay marriage – he rinks its mad too !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4iqhU24phs&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
Then vote NO.
Pontius.
Consider the flip side..
If the legislation is gender neutral then perhaps it would bring enhanced fairness for children in family courts. Their best interests should be the only consideration, the gender of their parents should be irrelevant.
Many complain of a bias towards mothers in the family courts, neutralise the gender and hopefully this may cease to be.
Preferences in what capacity topcat? Adoption? That’s already the case since the CFRA was passed. Teaching homosexual sex in classrooms? That’s not going to happen. And even if they did you can’t be taught gay! You’re born gay.
Why should male female couples be given preference?
MF couples are the ideal place for a child to be raised. The ying and the yang of a mother and father.
Of course they will have to teach gay sex in sex ed or SPHE class if the referendum is passed. How could the school “discriminate” against the “children” of FF or MM couples? The kids would be left asking the teacher “how does my daddy and daddy do it” and we know the answer to that.
And so what. Most teens know gay sex exists anyway. They don’t teach sex until children are old enough to understand. As long as it’s done age appropriately what’s the problem? Lgbt youth have a right to appropriate sex ed too. Same sex marriage won’t be the deciding factor on teaching teens about homosexuality.
Above was for top cat
Such as Pontious?
Demise I for one do not want my prepubescent son coming home confused asking why some men choose to do that to eachother.
And we on the yes side are told not to look at exceptions to make the rules? What you have there is a very rare exception. And I’m sure whatever the issue is (which I’m still not sure of?) it could be sorted out. What problem are you suggesting in your example?
The whole broadcasting balance thing is ridiculous almost straight out of yes minister. Clearly, if you wanted to be “unbalanced” you invite an inarticulate imbecile to debate one side and a personable articulate speaker to debate the other. Very simple and very one sided but not at all in violation of the broadcasting laws.
Yes it is ridiculous and no it’s not the ONLY thing keeping us from US style radio / TV ( I presume you are referring to Fox and MSN.. the U.S. Has much deeper political faults , the main one IMHO being the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling which opened the floodgates to unlimited political donations thru PACs.
I see, that’s why Breda O’Brien is rolled out for the no-side every time, to fit the bill of inarticulate imbecile, thanks for clearing that up for me Ian.
Larissa, if you READ my comment you will see that I wasn’t referring to that particular debate. Though I couldn’t be further from her thought process she is neither an imbecile not inarticulate. But thanks Larissa for taking the time to read my comment.
Larry just hears what she wants to hear.
Well, Breda is a teacher, so she’s educated..
I don’t think she’s ignorant, I think she knows full well – just like politicians, that fallacious arguments are a clever way to disguise dishonesty.
She was asked if she thought the referendum commission were biased and said no. Yet their website lays waste to her arguments.
No, she’s not stupid. She just thinks everyone else is.
Larrissa
How long have uou been in ireland to know about the no side and their
constituency and supporters.
You know nothing about them and so you are pre judging them
Have you a vote in this referndum.
What is your unhealthy obsession with me, John Ferry, you seem to hold a personal grudge
Oh would you look at that, Larissa has a name that doesn’t sound Irish, obviously she’s not Irish then, and couldn’t possibly have a stake in this referendum..
Nothing prejudiced about that assumption at all is there??
How outrageous.!!! Why can’t she be be like the Journal.ie and just support the yes side.??
Ye the Journal is pro yes side and completely biased
Every one of us is biased in one way or the other.
Biased just means you’ve managed to form an opinion. I’d be worried about anybody who works in current affairs broadcasting for decades, without having managed to form one.
Isn’t that a fact…
No reputable media outlet should form an opinion and let that opinion govern how they cover an issue. You wouldn’t and don’t expect balanced over from the Journal.ie but we should expect it from the national broadcaster..
The ones to worry about are the ones who have an opinion but conceal it in the name of non-bias. Not the ones who openly show their colours.
The national broadcaster, and in fact any outlet receiving money under threat of jail time or a fine from people is obliged to be neutral.
This is because they must cater to all. After all, we are paying for it.
A private media outlet is beholden to its readership. One funded by advertising needs to cater to page hits, so they will flog an issue that is popular with their readership until it’s no longer popular. That’s merely basic business sense.
Most of the polls here indicate the support for the referendums passing so of course the journal will cater to the readership. Are there many articles on Catholic Comment advocating a yes? I mean ones that are not straw man arguments written by a no voter to misrepresent the yes side? (The Family & Life Marriage leaflet did this)
Private media are within their rights to publish whatever they want. One would hope however that they would have the journalistic integrity to research what they print and ensure that it is true before publishing. That’s really the only rule a news source should have to uphold.
We have members of our species in outer space as we speak, we have observed matter at a level I cant comprehend. We’ve connected ourselves with a world wide web of data and we have thousands of years worth of art and culture to enjoy.
Yet, somehow we’ve let ourselves fall into a society where the will of a few ‘religious’ men govern our existence.
Pfft, ctrl z
The fact is, all RTE programs have a pro-gay marriage tone, and I included Marian Finucane’s program.
Nah, I think RTE is fairly balanced, unlike some other Irish media outlets *cough cough.
Sharon Ni Bheolan took the biscuit on “this week in politics” last week, it was an absolute farce of a debate she’d need more than a stopwatch.
Is that the same RTE that still broadcasts the angelus at six every evening ?
What has that moment of reflection every evening got to do with this referendum?
Wtf is a pro gay tone? Do you mean a socially liberal tone? A tone that strives for equality to all people? One that does not descriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or any other basis for that matter.
What’s wrong with playing the Angelus? There are people on this island that want it, people who have been Irish longer than you, and have contributed more than you. I for one respect my grandparents. They didn’t have a piss easy life like I do, or you.
He said a pro-gay marriage tone not a pro gay tone. I would called it a biased tone by our state broadcaster trying to influence the outcome of a referendum.
I love the angelus, it reminds me the Simpsons are starting on ch4.
You claim bias from RTE in favour of SSM when every evening they broadcast the Catholic version of the call to prayer basically promoting one religion and all that goes with it over all others and you see no problem with that ?Being paid for by the licence fee ????
Can we have the Muslim call to prayer on RTE too?
Only seems fair.
Sure why not have the Scientology boys on aswell.Great bunch of lads. ;-)
It’s no longer a call to prayer and more a moment of reflection a moment to pause in the evening and contemplate life it’s also part of our countries rich culture and heritage but completely and utterly irrelevant to this issue. A bell tolling on the tele is not the same as a biased newscaster trying to influence a referendum while being paid by all the taxpayers not just the yes voters.
If you need your television to tell you when to pause and reflect, there’s something wrong.
Anything of substance to add Neal?
First you redefine marriage to be about children rather than love, now you redefine the angelus to be about reflection rather than a call to prayer. Basically something only means whatever suits your own narrow minded philosophy at the time.
Incorrect Graham as usual. I don’t seek to redefine anything I’m quite happy with the status quo.
What 5 times a day?
Why would we have a Muslim prayer? This is not a Muslim country, and is not part of Irish culture or history.
Sure, it’s only 5 times a day starting at 5am and if you want it done properly it will be done by some guy roaring from a loudspeaker at the entire town/village/city so RTE may need to employ some new buildings and equipment
About time something was done, all I have seen and heard is the yes campaign. People are afraid to mention no ,they have been crucified with bullying and called all sorts.anyway vote no and it will force a GE,guaranteed. Enda to lose 4 referendums ,and by the way they are his referendums, these are the ones out of 22 that he is allowing the people vote on,would be a clear message of no confidence in endas government from the people.remove them before they push through the gag law Spain has brought in where you need permission to hold a public meeting or a protest.
So just ignore what we are voting on so we can try to force an election that will be happening next year anyway?
When this issue effects so many individuals who feel their rights are violated, this is a sickening attitude …
Hold on, if they’re obliged to stick to the facts then surely the entire No sides argument contravenes the rules?
Given that they’re being deliberately dishonest in claiming that this referendum on marriage makes any difference to the child and family relationships act.. Or that because it’s in the section of the constitution on family that this strengthens their argument – the referendum commission have laid out the facts, and the no sides argument is shown up as lies and fear mongering as a result.
Are they broadcasting these lies in a hope to obtain balance? Because surely that contravenes the BAI rules?
‘Whats the point of Marian Finucane and her enormous salary?’
Theres a debate that I’d love to see.
This is off topic but anyway;
Son of the O Donnells was on Marian Finuchane Show yesterday. The amount of air time given was scandalous. Typical- want everything for nothing. Don’t want to pay their debts and bills like ordinary joe soaps
A democracy, George?
It’s a laugh the way the Journal has become a little crying corner for the gays.
Somewhere gays can gather and ‘all together’ call people ‘horrible ‘ names like bigots and eh ..homophobes, because anybody disagreeing with two men getting married and adopting somebody else children is a bigot or a homophobe, according to the gays with a listening ear on the Journal.
Fortunately there are lots of other respectable more hard hitting publications out there with a much broader view of the world and hopefully more of the more open mind aware voters of Ireland will be visiting those sites too and seeing the absolute futility of allowing gay mayhem to take over the long established institution of marriage in Ireland.
Glad it gives you a laugh Bill cos we laugh at you all the time
No one is stopping you frequenting those other publications Bill. You’re the one who chooses to come here and copy and paste the same discredited link over, and over, and over..
Here, take a look at the referendum commission laying out the facts, then tell me there is one single rational point to your objections..
http://www.refcom2015.ie/marriage
I frequent any sites I choose whenever I choose ….. and I never ask the permission of gays but thanks anyway.
Oh and be sure to vote NO !!!
Imagine these guys adopting poor orphan children. https://www.google.ie/search?q=gay+parade&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=X9EyVffZFIbTaNqxgMgL&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1120&bih=533
So unfair.
So mad.
So silly.
So bonkers.
Every child deserves a Mum and a Dad !
Vote NO for the children.
Poor children being subjected to this stuff is WRONG
https://www.google.ie/search?q=gay+parade&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=X9EyVffZFIbTaNqxgMgL&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1120&bih=533
We need to protect children from this awfulness.
Every child deserves a Mum, a Dad and an upbringing away from this gay stuff – see the link.
Vote NO for the children.
ehm… Children have had 2 Dads or 2 Mums or both for many years? With all of the relationship strife and marriage breakdowns. Couples split up and in some cases go on to find new partners, whilst remaining quite cordial with their exes. As such, children in the relationship can frequently end up with 2 sets of parents. Sadly this doesn’t sound weird or abnormal to me?
Children should NOT be forced to live with and be exposed this —-
Imagine a pro child watching her Daddies getting undressed for a gay parade !!!!!
This is awful and all children deserve better.
Vote NO for the sake of the children.
For balance, vote yes on May 22nd.
Imagine a poor orphan child watching her Daddies getting undressed for a gay parade !!!!!
VOTE NO.
Vote yes.
Yeah you’ve got an arrogant spoilt brat thing going on alright Bill, not to mention a closed mind. Have you got small man syndrome or something? Were you bullied as a child? The gays are your target because you see them as fair game as a minority? It’s kind of creepy to see the sheer level of hatred and disgust you have towards gay people. Did one reject you at some point? You definitely have major issues to be capable of displaying the level of homophobia you do. Bet I could get a doctorate using you as a case study!
Bill is a fake account. I’m guessing David Fitzpatricks alter ego. And like David I’m not sure if it’s genuine deluded ramblings or wonderful satire..
How can any decent person condone forcing little children to be part of this disgusting stuff –
The children of our country are worth so much more than this. Lets protect them from this awfulness by voting NO.
I really hope you’re right Shanti. :) A real piece of work otherwise! Don’t understand what he gets from being so nasty. Not good to sink to his level though I suppose. Must try harder not to take the bait!
Proper order.
Catholics are the ones who pay their TV license after all.
Beats the candles any day…
Imagine a POOR INNOCENT adopted child watching her Daddies getting undressed for a gay parade !!!!!
Vote yes
If it were some sort of hetero pride parade. Would it be ok if the parents got “undressed” in front of their children then?… of course not. It would never be ok to do that. And no right minded parent Gay or Straight is going to engage in such visually overt sexual activity around their child.
Incidentally you seem obsessed with Guys? Women can be gay too?
Scandalous that gays think that they should e allows to adopt other peoles children and then force the poor children to witness this disgusting stuff … sooooo unfair !!!
Vote NO for the sake of the poor orphan children who may be cut off from their Granny’s and Grand Dads, Aunts and Uncles, and exposed to this terrible stuff watching their two Daddy’s getting undressed for these embarrassing parades.
Vote NO.
Do you know what an orphan is ? They don’t have any relatives in their life Bill by definition, they wouldn’t be orphans if they had their families…Logic not your strong point I see, although you make up for it with repetition. Getting boring now.
Well spotted Philip, perhaps some latent homosexual tendencies there for Bill. The lady doth protest too much and all that….
Let’s hope they didn’t have anyone from the mysteriously funded Iona Institute on. Timing is fair but its hardly fair to give air time to an organisation, which is basically a PR firm for conservative Catholicism, when other players in the debate are open and regulated in relation to their funding.
Timeline Of Gay and Lesbian Marriage, Partnership or Unions Worldwide
Last updated: Saturday September 21, 2011
RECENT UPDATES
2011 (September). In Australia, the Tasmanian State Parliament voted on September 26 in favour of same-sex marriage, the first in the country to do so. State parliaments, however, have no control over marriage laws which are a federal matter, but it sends a message to Canberra.
2011 (September). Full ‘marriage equality’ in England and Wales came a stage closer when the British Government announced that early next year they would be undertaking “consultation” prior to introducing legislation. Prime Minister David Cameron was reported to want same-sex civil marriage in place by the end of the current Parliament in 2015.
2011 (August): In Scotland, the SNP, which has an overall majority in Parliament, said it would be seeking to introduce same-sex marriage. There would be public consultation in the coming months, the SNP said. Marriage laws are one of the many aspects that have been ‘devolved’ by the British Parliament to Scotland.
2011 (July). Civil Unions for same-sex couples in Rhode Island (USA) was signed into law by Governor Lincoln Chaffe on July 2 after being passed 21-16 by the State Senate earlier in the week
2011 (June). On June 24 in the United States, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the Marriage Equality Act which legalises gay marriage minutes after the Senate voted 33-29 to pass the legislation. The Bill comes into effect on July 24, 2011.
2011 (June). In the Principality of Liechtenstein, 68.8 percent of voters approved the law for in introduction of Registered Partnerships in a binding referendum In March, the Landag (parliament) approved the measure.
2011 (June). In Illinois (USA), Civil Unions became legal on June 1 when licences were issued. Civil Unions are available to both same-sex and ‘straight’ couples. The first ceremonies were on June 2.
2011 (May). On May 5, the Supreme Court in Brazil ruled 10-0 that same-sex partnerships must be legally recognised. The decision grants gay couples most of the rights enjoyed by heterosexual partners, including pension benefits, inheritance and, some lawyers say, possibly the right to adopt children.
2011 (April). In the USA, the Delaware legislature approved Civil Unions for same sex couples who would enjoy all of the rights and benefits of marriage under state law.
2011 (March). In the tiny Principality of Liechtenstein (population 35,000), the Landag (parliament) finally approved legislation for the introduction of Registered Partnerships, similar to the arrangements in Switzerland. The process started in 2007. Registered Partnerships should come into effect from September 1, 2011. But a group is petitioning to have a referendum, and have until mid-April to collect the 1,000 signatures required under the constitution. The required number of petitioners was reached and the referendum is to be held, probably in June.
2010 (December). Application for Civil Partnerships in Ireland will be able to be made from January 1, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Dermot Ahern TD, announced on December 23. Couples must give three months notice to the Civil Registrar before having a civil partnership ceremony. So the first ceremonies will be in April (as in the case for civil marriage, at least three months notice is required by law). However, couples who have a wide range of foreign same-sex civil marriages and same-sex civil partnerships will automatically have their legal marriage/partnership recognised in Ireland from January 3. On April 5 in Dublin, Barry Dignam and Hugh Walsh became the first same-sex couple to have a civil partnership.
This “timeline” has been compiled by UK Gay News, with invaluable assistance from readers in Australia, Canada and Austria, from many websites. It reflects all known legislation worldwide, whether “strong” or “weak” that impacts on same-sex couples in a long-term relationship from 1979 to the present time. It should be noted that there are varying degrees of “equality”
If there are any omissions, inaccuracies or new legislation, please let us know (editorial at ukgaynews.org.uk – remove the spaces and “at” etc).
Please note that this listing is NOT copyright and can be freely used – credit of source is appreciated.
1979. The Netherlands introduced the “Unregistered Cohabitation” law which was the framework for the introduction over several years of limited legal rights for same-sex couples in areas such as income tax, social security, rent law, immigration rules and state pensions
1989. Denmark becomes the first country in the world to legally recognise gay relationships with its Registreret Partnerskab, with most (but not all) rights enjoyed by married couples. But church ceremonies are not permitted neither is adoption.
1993. Norway introduces Registrert Partnerskap which is similar to Denmark.
1994. Sweden introduces Registrerat Partnerskap – based on the Danish “model”.
1996. Iceland introduces Staðfest Samvist, again similar to Denmark.
1996. Greenland, a self-governing part of Denmark, introduces Registrert Partnerskap.
1996. Hungary becomes the first country in the former Eastern European Bloc to introduce benefits for same-sex couples. The Unregistered Cohabitation Amendment to Civil Code gave all unmarried “common law” couples, including same-sex couples, limited rights and benefits which have to be applied for to the local government. Partnership legislation currently being discussed
1998. The Netherlands introduces Geregistreerd Partnerschap (registered partnerships) for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, giving couples the same rights and responsibilities as for married couples.
1999. France introduces a Pacte Civil de Solidarité or PaCS (civil contract) that gives some rights to cohabitating couples of all sexualities. Taxation, inheritance and adoption are not included in these rights.
2000. Vermont becomes the first state in the USA to introduce legislation recognising same-sex couples. Vermont Civil Unions give same-sex couples the same life insurance, health care and child custody benefits as married couples.
2000. Belgium introduces Cohabitation Légale/Wettelijke Samenwoning/Gesetzliches Zusammenwohnen (Legal Cohabitation) for same sex couples giving them the same rights and responsibilities as for married couples.
2001. In January in Canada, what is thought to be the world’s first ‘gay marriage’ in a church took place in Toronto (the MCC church in the city on January 14, Douglas in Toronto kindly tells us). The ceremony was subsequently ruled “legal” by three Ontario Court of Appeal judges (2003). Other Canadian provinces introduced same sex marriage until earlier this year when the Parliament brought-in same-sex marriage nationally, confirming judicial rulings in some, but not all, provinces. A footnote to the Ontario Court of Appeal … Canada’s leading national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, named the three jurists as “Nationbuilders of the Year” for their decision.
2001. The Netherlands becomes the first country in the world to introduce full civil marriage for same sex couples.
2001. Portugal introduces União de Facto / Economia Comum (Union of Fact/Common Economy) which extends to same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples living in a de facto union for more than two years. Very limited rights.
2001. Germany introduces Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft (Registered Life Partnerships) for same-sex couples. This includes the same inheritance and tenant rights as enjoyed by married couples.
2002. Finland introduces Rekisteröity Parisuhde which is similar to Denmark to almost complete the Nordic countries recognition of same-sex couples in a partnership – the exception being the Faroe Islands (self-governing part of Denmark).
2003. Belgium introduces full same-sex marriage.
2003. In Canada, an Ontario court rules that same-sex marriages are legal (the 2001 wedding at the Toronto MCC church was now legal). British Columbia and Québec embrace same-sex marriage.
2003. In Croatia, a law comes into force for same-sex civil unions whereby partners who have been together for at least three years can enjoy the same benefits as unmarried cohabiting opposite sex couples which are limited.
2003. In Buenos Aires, Argentina same sex partnerships were introduced. While the 350 or so same-sex couple in the capital city have taken advantage and enjoy most of the rights enjoyed by married couples (it does not include the right to adopt or inheritance rights, as these are federal matters), the remainder of the country is without any recognition. However, the Argentine Congress is currently going through the legislative process of implementing a new form of marriage aimed at same-sex partners, but will also be available to heterosexual couples. When passed, it will apply to the entire country.
2003. On the orders of the European Court of Human Rights, Austria gives cohabiting same-sex partners all the rights of unmarried cohabiting heterosexual partners (Karner v Austria)
2003. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the USA ordered state authorities to issue marriage licences for same-sex couples – and in 2004 this became effective. However, while same-sex marriages are legal, there are moves to ban them.
2004. The city of Portland in Oregon (USA) began issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples. But an amendment to the state constitution was passed by the electorate in a referendum. The same happened in San Francisco, but this was short-lived following a court case.
2004. Luxembourg introduces Loi Relative aux Effets Légaux de Certains Partenariats (Law Relating to the Legal Effects of Certain Partnerships) which is based on the French PaCS.
2004. Brazil/Rio Grande do Sul – Civil union (see below)
2004. Tasmania in Australia introduces registered relationship or civil unions for all, regardless of sexuality, but with strict residency conditions. Tasmania’s Relationships Act gives same-sex relationships equal status to heterosexual marriages under nearly all state laws, and covers areas such as property transfers and superannuation.
2004. Switzerland introduces Eingetragene Partnerschaft/Partenariat Enregistré/Unione Domestica Registrata (registered partnerships) which give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples in terms of pension, insurance and taxation. Adoption by same-sex couples is specifically not included.
2004. The United Kingdom Parliament passes legislation for “Civil Partnerships” which closely mirrors the Civil Marriage Act, but does not allow religion to form part of any ceremony. Civil Partnerships are virtually same-sex marriage in all but name and the legislative process was perhaps one of the least provocative anywhere, probably because the word “marriage” was not used. Under a different law, adoption by same-sex couples is permitted (adoption by gay men or women as individuals has always been permitted, but law was amended so that both people in a civil partnership can jointly adopt).
2004. New Zealand Parliament passes an act that permits Civil Unions between same-sex couples.
2005 (March). Andorra introduces Unió Estable de Parella (stable union of [a] couple). This is open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Proof of a stable relationship is required to register with the ‘Registry of Stable Unions’. Registered couples have most – but not all – of the rights enjoyed by married couples.
2005 (April). New Zealand civil union law comes into force.
2005 (April). Connecticut becomes the second state in the USA to permit same-sex civil unions, despite the state constitution specifically defining “marriage” as being between a man and a woman.
2005 (June). Spain passes legislation permitting same-sex marriage, with couples able to adopt. The legislation was enacted within weeks.
2005 (June). Slovenia introduces Zakon o Registraciji Istospolne Partnerske Skupnosti or ZRIPS (Law on the registration of same-sex unions/partnerships) for “Registered Same-Sex Partnerships”. Very limited rights around property, the obligation to support the weaker partner and partial inheritance rights. Not included are next-of-kin or social security rights.
2005 (June). Canada introduces legislation that includes same-sex couples in marriage (and it applies throughout the country) following a bitter debate in Parliament which came close to bringing down the government. Some provinces had already introduced same-sex marriage, with the United Church of Canada, the MCC and Unitarian churches offering ceremonies. Adoption by same-sex couples is permitted. Where Canada arguably has the best legislation in the world is in the fact that anyone can get married in Canada, regardless of nationality or country of residence. However, there is no right of a Canadian citizen to bring a spouse into the country if he or she married outside of Canada. See also 2001 for Canada’s (and probably the world’s) first same-sex marriage in a church) and 2003 for first “legal” recognition..
2005 (November). Australian Capitol Territory (Canberra) in Australia approves civil unions for same-sex couples. But unlike the legislation in Tasmania, there is no residency requirement. The Federal Government blocked the Civil Unions Act six months later on the grounds it contravened the Commonwealth Marriage Act.
2005 (December). The Australian Defence Force (military) introduced for same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual partners in areas like housing and education assistance, and relocation. The areas of inequality that remain unaddressed are superannuation and Veterans Affairs (compensation upon death or injury)
2005 (December). Belgium introduces legislation that allows same-sex couple to adopt children.
2005 (December). High Court in South Africa rules that preventing same-sex couples from getting married was unconstitutional – and gives the government 12 months to bring into effect the necessary legislation. National Assembly passed the Civil Union Bill on November 14, 2006.
2005 (December). UK Civil Partnership Act 2004 becomes law. Same sex couples are permitted to give “notice of intention” of registering civil partnerships from December 5. First civil partnership registrations/ceremonies in the UK are on December 19 in Northern Ireland, with Scotland following the next day, and England and Wales on December 21. However, in the Western Isles region of Scotland, registrars are refusing to perform civil partnership registrations on moral grounds – and the council is backing the registrars
2005 (December). Latvia becomes the first country in Europe and the European Union to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Constitutional Amendment passed its Parliamentary process on December 15 and now goes to the President for final approval.
2005 (December). Czech Republic Partnership Bill passed by Chamber of Deputies on December 16. The Bill now has to go before the Senate by mid-January 2006. If it fails at the Senate, it returns to the Deputies and then, after further approval, it can go directly to the President for signing.
2006 (January). Czech Republic Partnership Bill passed by the Senate (January 26) with a 45-14 majority (six Senators abstained). BUT … President Vaclav Klaus has indicated (January 29, 2006) he will not sign the Bill into law.
2006 (February). Czech Republic Partnership Bill vetoed by President Vaclav Klaus (February 16)
2006 (March). Czech Republic Partnership Bill saved by the Chamber of Deputies in Parliament when President’s veto was set aside, with 101 of the 171 deputies present voting in favour (March 15). To overturn a presidential decision, the Chamber of Deputies has to record an absolute majority of its 200 elected members – so the reversal was ‘won’ by one vote – the absolute minimum.
2006 (July). Slovenia’s Zakon o Registraciji Istospolne Partnerske Skupnosti or ZRIPS (Law on the registration of same-sex unions/partnerships) came into effect. Severe restrictions include no one, including family, can attend the registration. Very limited rights around property, the obligation to support the weaker partner and partial inheritance rights. Not included are next-of-kin or social security rights.
2006 (October). In the United States, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that “the State must provide to committed same-sex couples, on equal terms, the full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples”. The court ordered politicians to either amend the existing marriage laws to include same-sex couples or to introduce same-sex “civil unions” within 180 days.
2006 (November). In South Africa, the National Assembly passed the Civil Unions Bill by a more than convincing 230-41 margin on November 14. The Bill now has to be approved by the National Council of Provinces before it can be signed into law by President Thabo Mbeki. The deadline set by the Constitutional Court for introduction is Thursday November 30, 2006.
2006 (November). In Mexico City, a local law was passed recognising same-sex civil unions. The legislation was published in the ‘Official Gazette’ on November 16 after being signed by the Mayor of Mexico City three days previously. The law comes into effect in February 2007 – and does not apply throughout Mexico.
2006 (November). In South Africa, the Civil Unions Bill passed National Council of Provinces on November 28 to complete its legislative process. The voting margin was 34-11 (with one abstention). The Bill was signed into law by Acting President Phumzile Mlamblo-Ngcuka and is now an Act – and has immediate effect.
2006 (December). Australian Capitol Territory (Canberra) in Australia tables a revised bill to legally recognise same-sex relationships (see November 2005 above).
2006 (December). The New Jersey Assembly on December 14 voted 56-19 to introduce Civil Unions, which would give same-sex couple all the rights of a married couple. Later in the day, the State Senate approved 23-12. Gov. Jon Corzine signed the legislation on December 21 and Civil Unions for same-sex couples becomes law on February 19, 2007. It will give all the rights and responsibilites of marriage, but not the title.
2007 (January). In Switzerland, the federal Partnership Law came into effect on January 1. Eingetragene Partnerschaft/Partenariat Enregistré/Unione Domestica Registrata gives pension, inheritance and tax rights and obligations to same-sex couples who register their parnerships..
2007 (January). Norway introduced a law (January 1) that will allow The Norwegian Humanist Association to perform “marriages” between same-sex couples. The Humansists have been conducting legal marriages of heterosexuals couples since December 2004, providing that one of the partners was a Humanist member (there have been more than 1,000 such ceremonies). The new law removes the membership requirement – and is expanded to include same-sex couples whose commitment will be legally recognised as a Registrert Partnerskap.
2007 (January). Mexico. The northern state of Coahuila introduced “Civil Solidarity Union” (same sex unions). The law was passed on January 11 and Coahuila was the second area of Mexico to introduce such legislation (Mexico City was the first – see November 2006). In February, Coahuila amended its law to allow same-sex couple throughout Mexico to register their unions in the State.
2007 (February). Italy. In a special Cabinet meeting on February 8, the Italian government approved a ‘same sex union’ measure similar to that in France. The new legislation, which has to be passed by Parliament, will recognise relations between gays as well as unmarried heterosexual couples and others who choose to live together, granting rights in areas like inheritance and health care.
2007 (May). Oregon (USA). Governor Ted Kulongoski signed House Bill 2007 – Oregon Family Fairness Act on May 9. This Bill introduces domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and is effective from January 1, 2008.
2007 (December). Hungary’s Parliament approved same-sex partnerships. From January 2009, same-sex couples may register their civil partnership and have the same rights as married heterosexual couples in inheritance, taxation and other financial matters. Constitutional Court overturned the legislation – see 2008 (December)
2007 (December). In Uruguay, the Senate unanimously approved legislation to introduce Civil Unions for both same-sex couples and heterosexuals. Couples will be eligible to form civil unions after living together for five years. They will have rights similar to those granted to married couples on such matters as inheritance, pensions and child custody. President President Tabare Vazquez signed the legislation on December 28. The law is effective from January 2008.
2008 (April). The first “gay marriage” in Latin America took place in an Uruguay courthouse when Adrian Figuera and Juan Carlos Moretti exchanged vows in front of judge Estrella Perez.
2008 (May). California looks to becoming the second state in the USA to recognise gay marriage following a 4-3 decision by the State Supreme Court ruling on May 15 that it is unconstitutional to deny same sex couples the right to marry. First same-sex marriages could take place in mid-June, if there is no further court challenge. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he accepted the ruling of the court.
2008 (June). In USA, the first same-sex civil marriages in California took place just after 5pm (local time) on Monday June 16 in a handful of counties. However, most counties started issuing licences on June 17. Massachusetts already has same-sex marriages, but there are residency qualifications. In California there are no restrictions.
2008 (June). Legislation was passed in Norway that gives same-sex couples the legal right to marry. The upper house of the Norwegian parliament passed the legislation by a 23-17 majority on June 17. The lower house of the Norwegian parliament (Odelstinget) passed the law on June 11, 2008 by a vote of 84 – 41. Since 1993, same-sex couples have been able to enter into Civil Unions (see above). The new law, which includes adoption and artificial insemination, will come into effect on January 1, 2009.
2008 (August). In USA, the The Coquille Nation in Oregon adopted a law that recognising same-sex marriage, despite an amendment to the state constitution in 2004 that defined marriage as being a man and a woman. Some say the the US federal government will have to recognise these marriages as the Coquille Nation is itself federally recognised as a Native American “tribe”. Others say that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 takes precedence over any federal native American laws. The lawyers could well be having a “field day”. The first Coquille Nation same-sex marriage is expected early next year.
2008 (September). The new constitution approved on September 28 in Ecuador opens the way to legal recognition of same-sex couples. The new constitution says that all monogamous same-sex couples living together shall have the same rights as married heterosexuals. But the constitution says that marriage itself must remain for heterosexual couples.
2008 (October). In Connecticut, USA, the state’s top court ruled that civil marriage should be available to same-sex couples. These civil marriages should become available in November.
2008 (November). The electorate in California, USA, voted in favour of ‘Proposition 8′, which writes into the state’s constitution that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman only. Same-sex marriages ceased on November 5 throughout the state. Until the legal tangle is worked out, it is not clear the status of those same-sex couples who were married between June 16 and November 4.
2008 (November). The first same-sex civil marriages were registered in Connecticut on November 12.
2008 (December). The Hungarian Constitutional Court ruled on December 15 that it had annulled the law, passed by Parliament in December 2007, that would give rights to domestic partners because it would diminish the importance of marriage. The court says the new legislation was unconstitutional as it would give unmarried heterosexual couples practically the same rights as married ones, “downgrading” the institution of marriage. But the court says, in its decision announced Monday, that a law allowing domestic partnerships for gay couples would not be unconstitutional — as long as it applied only to them and not to heterosexual couples. Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsny immediately instructed the Minister of Justice and Law Enforcement to prepare a new bill on registered partnership taking into account the opinion of the Court.
2009 (January). Sweden. A Bill was presented to the Riksdad (Parliament) that will make marriage available to same-sex couples. Three of the political parties in the four-party governing coalition have tabled a motion that is expected to pave the way for gay marriage in Sweden from May 1 this year. The country has recognised same-sex couples with Registrerat Partnerskap since 1994. Most, but not all, rights enjoyed in civil marriage are features in Registrerat Partnerskaps.
2009 (January). Colombia. Following a court ruling, civil unions are to be introduced. There are no details yet as to what rights same-sex couples will have, but it is expected that the country will have the “strongest” rights for same-sex couples in South America.
2009 (April). Sweden. On April 1, the Swedish legislature passed its “gender neutral” marriage bill by a 261 – 22 margin. Marriage will be available to same-sex couple from May 1, 2009.
2009 (April). USA. The Supreme Court of the State of Iowa ruled on April 3 that same sex couples had the right to marry. “The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision. Same-sex marriages will begin on April 27.
2009 (April). USA. The State of Vermont, which was the first to legally recognise any form of same-sex relationships when it introduced Civil Unions in 2000, became the first State to legislate to include same-sex couples in their marriage laws. Following a veto on the Bill by the Governor, both the legislature’s House and Senate voted on April 7 to over-ride the Governor’s veto – in the case of the House the vote was 100-49, just enough to reach the required two-thirds majority. The new legislation will become law on September 1, 2009, when no more Civil Unions will be registered. Those who have registered a Civil Union will continue to to have them recognised, but may “convert” them to marriage.
2009 (April). USA. The State of Washington Legislature voted 62-35 on April 15 to introduce an “everything but marriage” bill that grants same-sex couples all the rights and benefits the state offers married couples. The bill now goes to Governor Chris Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law.
2009 (April). Hungary. The Hungarian Parliament passed the same-sex partnership bill on April 20 by a 199-159 (with eight abstentions) margin. The bill, which does not give same-sex couple the right to adopt children, is expected to come into force in July.
2009 (May) USA. The Governor of Maine signed the Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom on May 6. The law will become effective 90 days after the adjournment of the legislative session which is expected around the end of June. However, plans are on hold as a petition to hold a referendum on the matter got the required number of signatories and it goes to public vote in November.
2009 (June). USA. New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalise gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch — who personally opposes gay marriage — signed the legislation on June 3. The new law will come into force on January 1, 2010, the second anniversary of the introduction in New Hampshire of Civil Unions.
2009 (June). The French overseas territory of New Caledonia in the Pacific finally approved the PaCS (Pacte Civil de Solidarité) law, ten years after it was first introduced in France. Same sex couples were able to register their ‘pacte’ from the first week of the month.
2009 (November). USA. Voters in Maine overturned the decision of the State Senate, House and Governor to introduce gay marriage.
2009 (November). Australia’s first legal civil partnership was registered in Canberra (Australian Capital Territory) on November 25. Warren McGaw and Chris Rumble, who have been together for almost 20 years were the first couple to register. ACT is the only place in Australia to have any form of legal partnership recognition for same-sex couples.
2009 (December). The Austrian Parliament passed, by a 110-64 margin, legislation on December 10 allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. It is expected to become law on January 1, 2010. While civil unions will give many rights enjoyed by married couples, the legislation does not give the right to adoption or artificial insemination.
2009 (December). In the USA, the Washington DC City Council approved 11-2 the introduction of gay marriage, and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty signed the Bill on December 18. By law, the US Congress has to review the Bill within “30 legislative days”.
2009 (December). Mexico. A measure to legalise same-sex marriage was passed 39-20 by the Mexico City Assembly. The change, Associated Press reported, would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, apply for bank loans together, inherit wealth and be included in the insurance policies of their spouse, rights they were denied under civil unions allowed in the city. The Mayor is likely to sign the measure, applicable only in Mexico City. into law.
2009 (Decenber). In Argentina, the constitution is silent on whether marriage must be between a man and a woman, effectively leaving the matter to state and city officials, the Associated Press Reported when Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre were married in front of state and federal officials in Ushauaia, the state capital ofTierra del Fuego on December 28. Same sex partnerships have been legal since 2002 in Buenos Aires.
2010 (January). USA. In New Hampshire, same-sex civil marriage became law on January 1 when couples who had already registered civil unions could exchange vows for the second time.
2010 (February). Portugal. Parliament approved the final wording of a gay civil marriage Bill on February 24. The Bill now goes to the President Silva, a Catholic who has said he opposes the legislation. He has eight days to approve the Bill and pass it on to the Constitutional Court, or 20 days to veto it. The Government has vowed to over-ride any Presidential veto.
2010 (March). USA. Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia (Washington) become legal on March 3, the first date that a same-sex couple can apply for a marriage license. With the three clear business days “waiting period”, the first ceremonies are due to be held on March 9.
2010 (March). In Mexico, same sex marriage became legal on March 4 in Mexico City only. The legislation also includes provision for married same-sex couples to adopt.
2010 (May). President Silva of Portugal signed the same-sex marriage Bill on May 17 (International Day Against Homophobia). The Act was published in the Diário da Republica on May 31, with the first ceremony taking place on June 7 when Teresa Pires and Helena Paixão became the first same-sex couple to marry in the country.
2010 (June). The Althingi (Parliament) in Iceland voted unanimously (49-0) to amend the wording of the civil marriage law so that marriage is the legal union of two individuals and not only of a man and a woman and at the same time struck down the registered partnership law. The Bill now goes to the President Olafur Grimsson to sign into law. This is seen as a formality as the Icelandic President has only twice sent a bill to public referendum in the 56-year history of the Republic of Iceland. The Bill has to be sent to the President within two weeks of being passed by the Althingi. The legislation specifically states that ministers of religion will “be free to perform [same-sex] marriage ceremonies, but never obliged to”.
2010 (June). In Iceland, the new ‘gay marriage law’ came into effect on June 27. Among the first to take advantage was Icelandic Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir and her partner writer Jonina Leosdottir. In 2002 the couple had registered a civil union, which have now been ‘struck down’ under the new civil marriage law.
2010 (July). In Ireland, the Civil Partnership Bill passed all stages in the Dáil without a formal vote on July 1, easily clearing its first hurdle. It is expected to be law by autumn.
2010 (July). Following a marathon debate, the Senate passed a Bill legalising same-sex marriage in Argentina. President Cristina Fernandez signed the Bill into law on July 21 making Argentina the first country in Latin America to recognise same-sex marriage throughout the country.
2010 (December). Both houses of the legislature in Illinois approved legislation allowing civil unions in the State – the House approved the measure on November 30, with the Senate approving December 1. Governor Pat Quinn has said he will sign the bill early in 2011, with the first civil unions, also available to heterosexual couples, on June 1, 2011.
2010 (December). Application for Civil Partnerships in Ireland will be able to be made from January 1, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Dermot Ahern TD, announced on December 23. Couples must give three months notice to the Civil Registrar before having a civil partnership ceremony. So the first ceremonies will be in April (as in the case for civil marriage, at least three months notice is required by law). However, couples who have a wide range of foreign same-sex civil marriages and same-sex civil partnerships will automatically have their legal marriage/partnership recognised in Ireland from January 3. On April 5 in Dublin, Barry Dignam and Hugh Walsh became the first same-sex couple to have a civil partnership.
2011 (March). In the tiny Principality of Liechtenstein (population 35,000), the Landag (parliament) finally approved legislation for the introduction of Registered Partnerships, similar to the arrangements in Switzerland. The process started in 2007. Registered Partnerships should come into effect from September 1, 2011. But a group is petitioning to have a referendum, and have until mid-April to collect the 1,000 signatures required under the constitution. The required number of petitioners was reached and the referendum is to be held, probably in June.
2011 (April). In the USA, the Delaware legislature approved Civil Unions for same sex couples who would enjoy all of the rights and benefits of marriage under state law.
2011 (May). On May 5, the Supreme Court in Brazil ruled 10-0 that same-sex partnerships must be legally recognised. The decision grants gay couples most of the rights enjoyed by heterosexual partners, including pension benefits, inheritance and, some lawyers say, possibly the right to adopt children.
2011 (June). In Illinois (USA), Civil Unions became legal on June 1 when licences were issued. Civil Unions are available to both same-sex and ‘straight’ couples. The first ceremonies were on June 2.
2011 (June). In the Principality of Liechtenstein, 68.8 percent of voters approved the law for in introduction of Registered Partnerships in a binding referendum In March, the Landag (parliament) approved the measure.
2011 (June). On June 24 in the United States, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the Marriage Equality Act which legalises gay marriage minutes after the Senate voted 33-29 to pass the legislation. The Bill comes into effect on July 24, 2011.
2011 (July). Civil Unions for same-sex couples in Rhode Island (USA) was signed into law by Governor Lincoln Chaffe on July 2 after being passed 21-16 by the State Senate earlier in the week.
2011 (August): In Scotland, the SNP, which has an overall majority in Parliament, said it would be seeking to introduce same-sex marriage. There would be public consultation in the coming months, the SNP said. Marriage laws are one of the many aspects that have been ‘devolved’ by the British Parliament to Scotland.
2011 (September). Full ‘marriage equality’ in England and Wales came a stage closer when the British Government announced that early next year they would be undertaking “consultation” prior to introducing legislation. Prime Minister David Cameron was reported to want same-sex civil marriage in place by the end of the current Parliament in 2015.
2011 (September). In Australia, the Tasmanian State Parliament voted on September 26 in favour of same-sex marriage, the first in the country to do so. State parliaments, however, have no control over marriage laws which are a federal matter, but it sends a message to Canberra.
■ NOTES
Brazil. It is difficult to fit this country into a “timeline” as there is no specific national legislation for same-sex unions. However same-sex couples do have many rights that come as a result of anti-discrimination laws, and via the courts.
Brazilian law gives same-sex couples the right to inherit their partner’s pension and social security benefits. Providing they can establish with the National Social Security Institute they are in a “stable union”, they will be treated no differently from a married couple on retirement or death. The policy also allows people in same-sex relationships to declare their partners as dependents on income tax returns. All this is as a result of a court ruling and is not enshrined in specific law.
The state of Rio Grande do Sul has a “civil union registry” as a result of a court decision in March 2004. Same-sex couples in committed relationships are able to register at any notary public office. Although it does not affect federal rights, it gives same-sex couples more equality in many areas. Same-sex couples who register have the right to jointly own property, establish custody of children, and claim the right to pensions and property when one partner dies.
USA. Another complex country, in this case as a result of having 50 states, all with differing laws. Many states have implemented some degree of equality, especially in the workplace/pensions/health fields with domestic partner benefits. The majority of states have implemented constitutional amendments or laws defining “marriage” as being between a man and a woman, thus preventing in introduction of “same-sex marriage”. As noted above, Connecticut has this definition, but this year introduced a form of civil partnership for same sex couples. Massachusetts introduced same-sex marriage on the order of the state’s Supreme Judicial Court in 2004. There are moves to bring into effect either a redefinition to a “partnership” or bring in a law/amendment that would in effect reverse the court decision. Vermont was the first state to introduce same-sex partnerships/unions (2000). On October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court in New Jersey ruled that politicians must either amend the State’s existing marriage laws to include same-sex couples or to introduce ‘Civil Unions’ – within 180 days. On December 14, the Civil Union measure passed the State Assembly and Senate with substantial majorities. Gov. Jon Corzine signed the legislation on December 21, 2006 and the law will be effective from February 19. In Oregon, Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the State’s “Domestic Partnership” legislation (House Bill 2007 – Oregon Family Fairness Act) on May 9, 2007. It become effective on January 1, 2008. The New Hampshire legislature has approved Civil Unions, and the measure is awaiting the signature of Gov. John Lynch – he has said he will sign it. Two years later, the legislature approved ‘marriage equality’ and same-sex couples were able to have a civil marriage from January 1, 2010 – the first State to introduce same-sex marriage via legislation. California introduced same-sex civil marriage on June 16, 2008, following a ruling from the state’s supreme court. But it was short-lived as less than five months later, on November 4, Californians narrowly approved ‘Proposition 8′ which would later the constitution of the state to define marriage (including civil marriage) as between a man and a woman only. Although not a state, but rather a ‘district’ that comes under the ‘eye’ of the US Congress, the District of Columbia introduced same-sex marriage on March 3, 2010. In Delaware, both the state Senate and the House of Representatives approved the introduction of Civil Unions in April 2011. Civil Unions will provide same-sex couples with all of the rights and benefits of marriage under state law. June 1, 2011, saw Civil Unions, available to both same-sex and ‘straight’ couples became legal.
States and Districts that offer same-sex marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia.
States that have other names (“unions” etc) for their legal recognition of committed same-sex couples: New Jersey, Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington.
States offering same-sex couples legal recognition, but with limited rights: Hawaii, Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine, and Rhode Island.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task force has an “Anti Gay-Marriage Measures in the USA” map which shows states that is correct to November 15, 2005.
See also the Freedom to Marry website for information on USA.
I didnt realised it was possible to get that much text in one post.
have your say