The 2015 Marriage Act enacted the Thirty-Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland into law, which legalized same-sex marriage. Previously, same-sex couples could enter into civil partnerships under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. The Marriage Act amended the Civil Registration Act 2004, inter alia, by adding a provision that allows anything that applies to marriage between two people of the opposite sex to apply to marriage between people of the same sex (Section 5). The Act also provides that nothing therein obliges a religious body to recognize a particular form of marriage ceremony or to solemnize a marriage (Section 7). It also provides for the recognition of certain foreign marriages and registered foreign relationships (Sections 12 and 13) and amends the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 to allow a married couple of the same sex to adopt a child (Section 16).
Women and Justice: Keywords
Legislation
Under the Civil Code, same-sex marriages are prohibited. In case of a divorce by mutual consent, the marriage can be dissolved if over a year has elapsed, the spouses have made a contract regarding divorce consequences, and they have full active legal capacity. If a couple has children, they have equal rights and duties as parents, regardless of whether they were married, divorced, or separated. A parent cannot surrender their rights or responsibilities over underage children. An unmarried person can adopt a child only in exceptional cases, and unmarried persons may not adopt the same child. In addition, the adopter must be under the age of 50. Moreover, the Code states that an unmarried adult can change their designated gender if it is feasible medically with conditions for the change prescribed by law. Essential to mention, there is no existing legislation setting out the requirements for gender reassignment (see L. v. Lithuania, even though the case is from 2007, legislation efforts have been stalled to this day). English translation available here.
Pagal civilinį kodeksą tos pačios lyties asmenų santuokos yra draudžiamos. Santuoka gali būti nutraukta bendru sutarimu, jei praėjo daugiau nei metai, sutuoktiniai sudarė sutartį dėl santuokos nutraukimo pasekmių ir jie turi teisinį veiksnumą. Jei pora turi vaikų, jie turi lygias teises ir pareigas kaip tėvai, nepriklausomai nuo to, ar jie susituokę, išsiskyrę ar gyvena skyrium. Tėvas ar motina negali atsisakyti teisių ar pareigų savo nepilnamečiams vaikams. Nesusituokęs asmuo gali įvaikinti vaiką tik išimtiniais atvejais, o nesusituokę asmenys negali įvaikinti to paties vaiko. Be to, įvaikintojas turi būti jaunesnis nei 50 metų. Taip pat, kodekse nustatyta, kad nesusituokęs suaugęs asmuo gali pakeisti paskirtą lytį, jei tai įmanoma mediciniškai, įstatymų nustatyta tvarka. Svarbu paminėti, kad iki šiol nėra galiojančių teisės aktų, nustatančių lyties keitimo sąlygas (žr. L prieš Lietuvą).
International Case Law
Keegan v. Ireland European Court of Human Rights (1994)
The applicant’s child was adopted without his consent, but with the permission of the mother. After two years of domestic litigation and in consideration of his daughter’s best interests, he no longer sought to overturn the adoption, but requested damages from the government for the violation of his rights. The European Court of Human Rights found that the adoption of a child of unmarried parents without the father’s knowledge or consent was in accordance with Irish law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the child. However, the Court found that the law violated the European Convention on Human Rights because it interfered with the applicant’s right to family life under Article 8(1), which would be permissible only if the interference were “necessary in a democratic society.” The Court found that the Irish Government had advanced no reasons relevant to the welfare of the child to justify such a departure from the principles governing respect for family ties. The Court also considered that Article 8 was not restricted to families based on marriage. Finally, because the applicant had no rights under Irish law to challenge the adoption decision either before the Adoption Board or in court, there was a violation of his right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6(1) of the Convention. The Court awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as well as legal costs and expenses.
Domestic Case Law
File No. PL. ÚS 24/14 Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky (Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic) (2014)
In Slovakia, a petition signed by at least 350,000 voters may initiate a referendum as long as the questions relate to public interest. However, the subject of the referendum may not be basic rights and freedoms. The Constitutional Court reviews whether the subject of the referendum conforms to the Constitution. In 2014, 408,000 voters signed a petition asking the President to announce a referendum on the following questions: 1) Do you agree that the term “marriage” may not be used to designate any other form of cohabitation of persons other than the union between one man and one woman?; 2) Do you agree that pairs or groups of persons of the same sex may not be allowed to adopt children and subsequently to bring them up?; 3) Do you agree that no other form of cohabitation of persons other than marriage should be accorded the special protection, rights and obligations which are accorded solely to marriage and spouses by the legal system as at 1 March 2014?; and 4) Do you agree that schools may not require children to attend lessons in the field of sexual behavior or euthanasia, if their parents and the children themselves do not agree with the teaching content? The President asked the court to consider whether the first, second, and third questions were admissible as they related to the right to privacy, and whether the last question was admissible as it might interfere with the right to education. The Constitutional Court balanced the inalterability of constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms with the impossibility of rejecting every question which might minimally affect a right or freedom. The court held that the irrevocability of human rights means the standard of human rights is as set in the constitutional text. Any referendum questions that would lead to a broadening of human rights would be constitutionally acceptable, and any that would reduce human rights would not be constitutionally acceptable. Thus, the first, second, and fourth question were declared acceptable, and the third unacceptable. This case is available through the search function on the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic website here by searching for the case file number (PL. ÚS 24/2014).
Law of 5 May 2014 (2014)