The Council of Europe (CoE) and its judicial body, the European Court of Human Rights, are at the forefront of the debate for the redefinition of the notion of ‘family’ in relation to the inclusion of same-sex couples. The recent jurisprudence has demonstrated a change in the Court’s approach to the question of what counts as a family, by terms of Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This much-anticipated development, nonetheless, begs the question of how the ‘right to marry and found a family’ might prove to be a privilege rather than a right. This article tries to shed light on the contradictions underpinning the expansion of the concept of family in the context of the CoE, suggesting the existence of a conflation of both heteronormative and homonormative narratives of kinship in the construction of a notion of the ‘family’ that encompasses same-sex couples.
C. and L.M. v. the United Kingdom [1989], Application No. 14753/89, Commission Decision 9 October 1989.
2.
Chapin and Charpentier v. France [2007], Application No. 40183/07, lodged 6 September 2007, pending.
3.
Di Lazzaro v. Italy [1997], Application No. 31924/96, Commission Decision 10 July 1997.
4.
E.B. v. France [2008], Application No. 43546/02, Judgement 22 January 2008, European Court of Human Rights.
5.
Ferguson and Others v. the United Kingdom [2011], lodged 2 February 2011.
6.
Fretté v. France [2002], Application No. 36151/97, Judgement 26 May 2002, European Court of Human Rights.
7.
Gas and Dubois v. France [2012], Application No. 25951/07, Judgement 15 March 2012, European Court of Human Rights.
8.
Karner v. Austria [2003], Application No. 40016/98, Judgement 24 July 2003, European Court of Human Rights.
9.
Kerkhoven, Hinke and Hinke v. the Netherlands [1992], Application No. 15666/89, Commission Decision 19 May 1992.
10.
Mata Estevez v. Spain [2001], Application No. 56156/00, Judgement 10 May 2001, European Court of Human Rights.
11.
O’Donoghue and Others v. the United Kingdom [2010], Application No. 34848/07, Judgement 14 November 2010, European Court of Human Rights.
12.
Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal [1999], Application No. 33290/96, Judgement 21 December 1999, European Court of Human Rights.
13.
Schalk and Kopf v. Austria [2010], Application No. 30141/04, Judgement 24 June 2010, European Court of Human Rights.
14.
S. v. the United Kingdom [1986], Application No. 11716/85, Commission Decision 14 May 1986.
15.
X and Others v. Austria [2013], Application No. 19010/07, Judgement 19 February 2013, European Court of Human Rights.
16.
X. and Y. v. the United Kingdom [1983], Application No. 9369/81, Commission Decision 3 May 1983.
17.
X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom [1997], Application No. 21830/93, Judgement 22 April 1997, European Court of Human Rights.
18.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 5 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Measures to Combat Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.
19.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1728 (2010), Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
20.
BadgettMV (2003) Money, Myths, and Change: the Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. Chicago, London: Chicago University Press.
21.
BeckerGS (1973) A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy81(4): 813–846.
22.
BegerNJ (2000) Queer readings of Europe: Gender identity, sexual orientation and the (im)potency of rights politics at the European court of justice. Social & Legal Studies9(2): 249–270.
23.
BlackDASandersSJTaylorLJ (2007) The economics of lesbian and gay families. The Journal of Economic Perspectives21(2): 53–70.
24.
BrandzelAL (2005) Queering citizenship? Same-sex marriage and the state. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies11(2): 171–204.
25.
ButlerJ (2002) Is kinship always already heterosexual?Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies13(1): 14–44.
26.
Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (2011) Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
27.
DugganL (2003) The Twilight of Equality: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Reprint. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
28.
EngDL (2010) The Feeling of Kinship: Queer Liberalism and the Racialization of Intimacy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
29.
FinemanMA (2009) The sexual family. In: FinemanMAJacksonJERomeroAP (eds) Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, pp. 45–64.
30.
FrankeKM (2006) The politics of same-sex marriage politics. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law15(1): 236–248.
31.
JohnsonP (2012) Homosexuality and the European Court of Human Rights. London, UK: Routledge.
32.
KandaswamyP (2008) State austerity and the racial politics of same-sex marriage in the US. Sexualities11(6): 706–725.
33.
MatsaganisMFerreraM, CapuchaL (2003) Mending nets in the south: Anti-poverty policies in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Social Policy & Administration37(6): 639–655.
34.
McCluskeyMT (2009) How queer theory makes neoliberalism sexy. In: FinemanMAJacksonJERomeroAP (eds) Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, pp. 115–134.
35.
MottaCMottaC (2011) We Who Feel Differently. Bergen: Publishing.
36.
PolikoffND (2005) For the sake of all children: Opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage both miss the mark. New York City Law Review8: 573–681.
37.
PuarJK (2007) Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
SmithAM (2009) From paternafare to marriage promotion: Sexual regulation and welfare reform. In: FinemanMAJacksonJERomeroAP (eds) Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, pp. 329–348.
40.
SpadeD (2011) Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law. Brooklyn, NY: South End Press.
41.
SchroederS (2004) Queer parents: an oxymoron? Or just moronic? In: Bernstein Sycamore M (2004) That’s Revolting!: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation. Berkeley: Soft Skull Publishing, pp. 100–104.
42.
TaylorY (2009) Lesbian and Gay Parenting: Securing Social and Educational Capital. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
WaaldijkK (1994) Standard sequences in the legal recognition of homosexuality: Europe’s past, present and future. Australasian Gay and Lesbian Law Journal4: 50.
44.
WaaldijkK (2000) Civil developments: Patterns of reform in the legal position of same-sex partners in Europe. Canadian Journal of Family Law17: 62.
45.
WaaldijkK (2004) Others may follow: The introduction of marriage, quasi-marriage, and semi-marriage for same-sex couples in European countries. New England Law Review38: 569.
46.
WarnerM (1999) The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
WestonK (1997) Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
48.
WintemuteR (1997) Sexual Orientation and Human Rights: The United States Constitution, the European Convention, and the Canadian Charter. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
49.
WintemuteRAndenæsMT and Centre of European Law (2001) Legal Recognition of Same-sex Partnerships: A Study of National, European, and International Law. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
