Showing posts with label same sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label same sex marriage. Show all posts

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Same sex marriage still widely regarded as repugnant in Egypt, and a little less so in China

Two prohibited same sex marriages, one in Egypt and one in China (in the British embassy there) draw very different reactions.

The BBC has the story from Egypt.

Arrests over Egypt 'gay wedding'

The Egyptian authorities have arrested seven men accused of appearing in a video apparently showing a gay wedding.
The video, showing a group of men celebrating on a Nile river boat, was widely shared on social media.
The men could face charges of inciting debauchery and spreading images that violate public decency.
Homosexuality is not explicitly outlawed in Egypt, but gay men are periodically accused of charges such as scorning religion or debauchery.
line
Gay rights around the world
Map showing anti-gay laws around the world
line
(The link goes to an interactive version of the above map, where you can mouse-over to see the sometimes chilling state of affairs in far flung places.)


The Telegraph has the story from China

British diplomat's gay marriage draws attention in China

Gay marriage at residence of British ambassador to Beijing goes viral on Chinese internet

"A British diplomat has become a gay icon in China after marrying his American partner on the lawn of the ambassador's residence in Beijing.
...
"Gay unions are not legal in China, where the government adopts a "three nots" approach to homosexuality: not approved, not disapproved, not promoted."

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Ancient repugnancies can change fast: Ten years of same sex marriage in the U.S.

NY Times June 27, 2014:  Same-Sex Marriages, 10 Years Later
"On May 23, 2004, The New York Times printed 41 wedding announcements that included 5 same-sex couples, the first legal gay marriages to appear in these pages. (It began publishing same-sex “celebrations” two years earlier.)
"Earlier that week, Massachusetts had become the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia do so now and on Wednesday, a federal appeals court struck down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban."


Sunday, April 20, 2014

Monday, April 7, 2014

Fast and slow on changing views of formerly repugnant transactions: same sex marriage, and marijuana

Readers of this blog know that I've been following the change in public attitudes towards a number of formerly repugnant transactions. Recently two articles in the NY Times caught my eye, about the speed of change, and cautious attitudes even among supporters of change, regarding the legalization of marijuana, and same sex marriage. Basically both of these are gaining momentum, and mainstream politicians and corporate leaders sometimes feel caught in the middle.

Despite Support in Party, Democratic Governors Resist Legalizing Marijuana

"LOS ANGELES — California voters strongly favor legalizing marijuana. The state Democratic Party adopted a platform last month urging California to follow Colorado and Washington in ending marijuana prohibition. The state’s lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom, has called for legalizing the drug.

But not Gov. Jerry Brown. “I think we ought to kind of watch and see how things go in Colorado,” Mr. Brown, a Democrat, said curtly when asked the question as he was presenting his state budget this year.

At a time of rapidly evolving attitudes toward marijuana legalization — a slight majority of Americans now support legalizing the drug — Democratic governors across the country, Mr. Brown among them, find themselves uncomfortably at odds with their own base."

*************
And here's a recent column by Frank Bruni: The New Gay Orthodoxy

"TO appreciate how rapidly the ground has shifted, go back just two short years, to April 2012. President Obama didn’t support marriage equality, not formally. Neither did Hillary Clinton. And few people were denouncing them as bigots whose positions rendered them too divisive, offensive and regressive to lead.

But that’s precisely the condemnation that tainted and toppled Brendan Eich after his appointment two weeks ago as the new chief executive of the technology company Mozilla. On Thursday he resigned, clearly under duress and solely because his opposition to gay marriage diverged from the views of too many employees and customers. “Under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader,” he said, and he was right, not just about the climate at Mozilla but also, to a certain degree, about the climate of America.

Something remarkable has happened — something that’s mostly exciting but also a little disturbing (I’ll get to the disturbing part later), and that’s reflected not just in Eich’s ouster at Mozilla, the maker of the web browser Firefox, but in a string of marriage-equality victories in federal courts over recent months, including a statement Friday by a judge who said that he would rule that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state.

And the development I’m referring to isn’t the broadening support for same-sex marriage, which a clear majority of Americans now favor. No, I’m referring to the fact that in a great many circles, endorsement of same-sex marriage has rather suddenly become nonnegotiable. Expected. Assumed. Proof of a baseline level of enlightenment and humanity. Akin to the understanding that all people, regardless of race or color, warrant the same rights and respect."

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Same sex marriage in England and Wales

The first same sex marriages in England and Wales were performed Friday. Here's the story from the NY Times: First Gay Marriages Take Place in England and Wales

"LONDON — Same-sex couples began marrying in London a minute after midnight on Friday, signifying the culmination of a campaign to end a distinction many British gay couples said made them feel like second-class citizens.

"Saturday was the first day that gay couples were allowed to tie the knot in England and Wales after the government legalized same-sex marriage in July.

"Gay couples have been allowed since 2005 to enter “civil partnerships,” conferring the same legal rights as marriage, but campaigners say the distinction gives the impression that society considers gay relationships inferior.
...
"Gay marriage has faced opposition from most religious groups despite shifting public attitudes in Britain in favor of it.

"The Church of England, which leads the world’s 80 million Anglicans, has struggled to reconcile rifts within its ranks over homosexuality as it seeks to tackle rising secularism and falling attendance rates.

...
"The leading Muslim, Catholic and Sikh groups in Britain were all against the passage of the same-sex marriage law.
...
"While the number of countries legalizing gay marriage has grown significantly since the Netherlands made the first move in 2000, only 17 currently allow gay couples to marry.

"France legalized it last year despite several protests drawings hundreds of thousands onto the streets of Paris.
"Scotland, which will hold a referendum on independence from Britain in September, was the latest country to pass same-sex marriage legislation last month, despite strong opposition from the Scottish Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

"In some other parts of the world, governments have been moving in the opposite direction, clamping down on gay rights.

"Uganda attracted international opprobrium in December when it passed a controversial law that makes some homosexual acts punishable by life in prison. Homosexuality is illegal in 37 African countries.

"Russia also faced criticism over a law signed by President Vladimir V. Putin last year banning the spread of “gay propaganda” among minors.

"In England and Wales, homosexuality was decriminalized in 1967, starting off a series of reforms to give gay people the same rights as everyone else."

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Commercial surrogacy: legal in California, illegal in NY

I woke up in England this morning preparing to give the second of two Marshall Lectures, in which I'll talk about kidney exchange, and repugnant transactions. What better to see in the NY Times then the story about a same sex married couple in NY that had a child via gestational surrogacy in California, because it's illegal in NY. But one of the husbands is a NY State Senator who is introducing legislation in the hope of changing that.

And Surrogacy Makes 3: In New York, a Push for Compensated Surrogacy
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS FEB. 19, 2014

"They had their baby in California because if they had had her in New York, they would have been breaking a 1992 New York law that bars commercial surrogacy contracts and equates them with baby-selling — a legacy of the notorious Baby M case of the 1980s.*

"Now Mr. Hoylman, as a novice state senator, is in a position to do something about it. He is the co-sponsor of a proposed law that would overturn the current law and make compensated surrogacy legal in New York State.

"Surrogate baby-making has long been a path taken by the affluent and celebrities, partly because it takes good legal advice and money to accomplish. But in recent years, it has been growing among gay men, who in a fundamentally conservative embrace of family values, see having children and building a family as the logical next step after getting married.

“Not to be cliché, but you know how the phrase goes — first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby and the baby carriage,” said Allison Steinberg, a spokeswoman for the Empire State Pride Agenda, which has endorsed the bill.

The bill’s supporters argue that it makes no sense for New York, which has a large number of fertility clinics, not to mention a flourishing gay community, not to be able to offer commercial surrogacy to those who want it. And they say that making surrogacy more widely available could reduce the exorbitant costs, easily as much as $100,000 per baby."
...
*"The Baby M case, in which Mary Beth Whitehead, left with her husband, Richard, refused to give up custody of a baby girl she agreed to bear for a New Jersey couple, led to a New York law prohibiting paid surrogacy."
...
"Surrogate births are a small but growing part of the in vitro fertilization industry. Conservatively, about 1,600 babies a year in the United States are born through gestational surrogacy (which now accounts for almost all surrogacies), more than double the number in 2004, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
...
"But driven by the law of supply and demand, a first-time egg donor could be paid $8,000 to $10,000, and a first-time surrogate $30,000 and up, bringing the cost of a no-frills contract to $75,000 to $120,000 with medical, legal and agency fees.

“You basically have to take out a loan to have a child,” Mr. Hoylman said.

"Agencies prefer to contract with surrogates who are married with children, because they have a proven ability to have a healthy baby and are less likely to have second thoughts about giving up the child.

"Conversely, gay couples are popular among surrogates. “Most of my surrogates want same-sex couples,” said Darlene Pinkerton, the owner of A Perfect Match, the agency in San Diego that Mr. Hoylman used. Women unable to become pregnant often go through feelings of jealousy and loss, she said. But with gay men, that is not part of the dynamic, so “the experience is really positive for the surrogate.”

"Or as her husband, Tom, a third-party reproductive lawyer, put it, “Imagine instead of just having one husband doting on you, you have three guys now sending you flowers.”

"New York has one of the harshest surrogacy laws in the country, along with Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska and the District of Columbia.
...
"It is legal in New York for a volunteer to carry a baby without pay, known as altruistic or compassionate surrogacy. And New Yorkers find ways around the law by shipping frozen embryos to clinics in nearby surrogacy-friendly states — Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts — for implantation. In New Jersey, paid surrogacy is still considered risky because of case law going back to Baby M. In 2012, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a law that would have permitted some types of payment, saying he wanted more discussion of such “profound change in the traditional beginnings of a family.”

"Historically, the legal aversion to surrogacy stems from a sort of Margaret Atwood, “Handmaid’s Tale” fear that it lends itself to unnatural social engineering and the subjugation of women. This led to an unusual alliance of feminists, civil libertarians and the Catholic church in the early 1990s, when the New York Catholic Conference joined with the New York Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women to oppose surrogacy.

"The Baby M case led to a pioneering court ruling on the validity of a surrogate-mother contract, and its outcome had a strong impact on New York because it played out across the river in New Jersey. Mary Beth Whitehead was a young homemaker with two children, in a rocky marriage to a sanitation worker, when she agreed in 1985 to have another man’s baby for $10,000.

"Soon after giving birth, she took the baby to Florida and renounced her fee, saying she wanted to keep the child.

"On appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court restored her parental rights while leaving custody of Baby M with her biological father and his wife. “This is the sale of a child, or at the very least, the sale of a mother’s right to her child, the only mitigating factor being that one of the purchasers is the father,” the high court said.

"“So much has changed since Baby M,” said Sonia Ossorio, president of the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women.

For one thing, Ms. Whitehead was artificially inseminated using her own egg and the prospective father’s sperm, a process now disdained as “traditional” surrogacy. Today, the pregnancy would involve a third-party egg, so the surrogate would not be genetically related to the baby.

The new technology has given rise to a whole new language — gestational carrier, instead of surrogate mother, “intended parents,” “collaborative reproduction.”

Friday, February 7, 2014

Same sex marriage comes to Scotland

The BBC  has the story: Scotland's same-sex marriage bill is passed

"MSPs voted by 105 to 18 in favour of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill.

The Scottish government said the move was the right thing to do but Scotland's two main churches were opposed to it."

HT: Peter Biro

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Repugnance watch: same sex marriage isn't coming soon to Uganda

Yesterday's post noted that New Mexico had become the 17th U.S. state to recognize same sex marriage. At the same time it noted that even more U.S. states have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting it. However the battle over whether same sex marriage--or same sex sex for that matter--should be considered repugnant transactions takes a far more lethal turn in Africa. Here's the latest on that from the BBC:
Ugandan MPs pass life in jail anti-homosexual law

"Uganda's parliament has passed a bill to toughen the punishment for homosexual acts to include life imprisonment in some cases.

"The anti-homosexuality bill also makes it a crime punishable by a prison sentence not to report gay people.

"The prime minister opposed the vote, saying not enough MPs were present.

"The bill has been condemned by world leaders since it was mooted in 2009 - US President Barack Obama called it "odious"."

Friday, December 20, 2013

And then there were 17 states that have same sex marriage

New Mexico Becomes 17th State to Allow Gay Marriage

"The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously affirmed on Thursday the right of same-sex partners to marry in the state, reasoning that the “protections and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally” to them and to opposite-sex couples.

"With the ruling, which takes effect immediately, New Mexico becomes one of 17 states and the District of Columbia to permit same-sex marriage. Thirty-three states limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. "

United States Map

Monday, November 11, 2013

Formerly repugnant transaction watch: Ilinois looks to be number 15 to recognize same sex marriage

Illinois House Votes to Allow Same-Sex Marriages

"SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A historic vote Tuesday in the Illinois House positioned that state to become the largest in the heartland to legalize gay marriage, following months of arduous lobbying efforts by both sides in President Barack Obama's home state.

Fourteen states plus Washington D.C., allow same-sex marriage. Most recently, New Jersey, Minnesota and Rhode Island have legalized it.

The road to the Illinois vote was long with stalled attempts earlier this year, something that frustrated activists in the state where Democrats lead the House, Senate and governor's office. Chicago Democratic Rep. Greg Harris, who is the sponsor of the bill, decided not to bring the bill for a vote in May because he said he simply didn't have the support.

Then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to strike down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, something he said resonated with lawmakers. Backers also launched a furious campaign, hiring a lobbyist from the state's largest union, the former head of the Illinois Republican Party and field organizers spanning the state.

"To treat all our citizens equally in the eyes of the law we must change this," Harris said on the floor. "Families have been kept apart."

Debate lasted more than two hours, and the final roll call was met with hearty cheers and applause. Supporters' speeches echoed themes of equality and civil rights with mentions of Obama, Martin Luther King Jr. and Matthew Shepard, a gay college student whose 1998 death sparked numerous hate crime bills.

Polls show support for gay marriage has surged since 1996, when Gallup found that 27 percent of Americans backed it. Now Gallup finds the majority support giving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry."

Friday, August 30, 2013

Fading repugnance watch: Marijuana and same sex marriage

Two stories in yesterday's NY Times were about repugnant transactions that are in the process of becoming less repugnant:

U.S. Says It Won’t Sue to Undo State Marijuana Laws
"The Obama administration on Thursday said it would not sue to undo laws legalizing marijuana in 20 states, although it will monitor operations in those states to make sure they do not run afoul of several enforcement priorities."

I.R.S. to Recognize All Gay Marriages, Regardless of State
"All legally married same-sex couples will be recognized for federal tax purposes, regardless of whether the state where they live recognizes the marriage, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service said Thursday."

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

And then there was France...

but the opposition to same sex marriage in France hasn't vanished: Huge anti-gay marriage protest march in Paris

Map showing countries where same-sex marriage has been approved

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Same sex marriage in Latin America

Things are changing all over the Americas regarding this no longer so repugnant transaction: How Latin Culture Got More Gay

"BRAZIL is potentially poised to become the third and largest country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, following a judicial order on Tuesday. Argentina was the first, in 2010, after the government brushed aside objections from Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, now the pope. The Uruguayan legislature followed suit last month. Mexico City has allowed such unions since 2010, and the Mexican state of Quintana Roo since 2011.
...
"These developments not only undermine stereotypes about machismo, but also the assumption that the prominence of Catholicism makes progressive change impossible. Same-sex marriage is legal in Belgium, Portugal and Spain, and Ireland recognizes civil unions. As the United States Supreme Court debates same-sex marriage, perhaps it should consider the precedent set by other nations of the Western Hemisphere."

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

And Minnesota makes 12 (states that have legalized same sex marriage)

As more states legalize same sex marriage, its status as a repugnant transaction isn't yet history. Minnesota's move was hardly bipartisan: Minnesota Senate Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage

"Gay couples will be permitted to wed in Minnesota starting in August, making it the 12th state to permit same-sex marriage and the first in the Midwest to take such a step outside of a court ruling.

"The State Senate, controlled by Democrats, voted 37 to 30 on Monday to allow same-sex marriages, after approval by the State House last week. Gov. Mark Dayton, also a Democrat, had urged lawmakers to pass the measure and said he would sign the bill on Tuesday afternoon.
...
"Nationally, advocates of same-sex marriage lauded Minnesota’s move, saying it would add momentum to similar efforts elsewhere, including in at least one other Midwestern state, Illinois, which is considering a provision legalizing same-sex marriage. Critics of the Minnesota measure, meanwhile, predicted that the vote on Monday would carry a lasting political price for the state’s Democrats in coming elections. They also said that barring a sweeping ruling by the United States Supreme Court establishing same-sex marriage as a right, other states were not likely to follow Minnesota’s lead in a sudden wave of legislative changes.

"In a way, Monday’s vote was a startling shift in the conversation in this state. For much of 2012, Minnesotans had been debating an amendment to the state Constitution that would have done the opposite — define marriage as between a man and a woman. While 30 states have adopted such provisions, Minnesotans in November rejected the amendment and sent majorities of Democrats to both chambers of the State Legislature, setting off an intense new push to legalize same-sex marriage.
...
"The issue had pitted this state’s most urban area, around the Twin Cities, against rural sections of the state where lawmakers said support was more uncertain. In both chambers, voting fell along largely partisan lines.

In the end, four Republicans in the State House and one in the State Senate voted to allow same-sex marriage, while two House Democrats and three Senate Democrats voted no."

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Gay marriage in France

Here's the story from the Guardian about what appears to be the end to a contentious transition in France from an illegal, repugnant transaction (actually, not just marriage, but also adoption, so two repugnant transactions) to transactions fully sanctioned by law, although still with substantial numbers of opponents:

France approves same-sex marriage: Passing of law allowing gay couples to marry and adopt children comes after heated debate in parliament and weeks of protest

France has become the 14th country to legalise same-sex marriage , pushing through François Hollande's flagship social change after months of street protests, political slanging matches and a rise in homophobic attacks.
After 331 votes for and 225 votes against, there were chants of "Equality. Equality." in the French assembly, where the Socialists have an absolute majority. But thousands of riot police and water cannons were in place near the parliament building in Paris in advance of planned demonstrations against the law.
The right to marriage and adoption for everyone regardless of sexual orientation has proved bitterly divisive in France, triggering the biggest conservative and rightwing street protests in 30 years. Recent weeks have seen more than 200 arrests as police teargassed late-night demonstrators near parliament. More than 172 hours of heated debate in the assembly and the senate meant the bill was one of the most debated in recent history, with furious clashes and a near fist-fightbetween politicians.
One rightwing MP warned the government was "killing children" by allowing same-sex married couples to adopt and one senator warned gay marriage would open the way to people being able to marry animals or objects. MPs in favour of the bill received death threats, skinheads attacked a gay bar in Lille, and gay rights groups reported a rise in homophobic attacks.
Before the vote, the speaker of the assembly ordered the expulsion of noisy protesters from the public gallery, calling them "enemies of democracy".
The vote makes France the ninth country in Europe to legalise same-sex marriage and the first ceremonies could take place this summer.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Same sex marriage legislation under consideration in Britain, France and Rhode Island

Three legislature, three bills, three pictures...



Gay Marriage Bill Approved in Rhode Island House Vote (now on to the State Senate)



And across the sea, Thousands Rally in Paris For Same-Sex Marriage (as the legislature prepares to consider a bill supported by the new government).


and
British House of Commons Approves Gay Marriage (not wit)hout a lot of dissent from the governing party


update: and it's not over til it's over:

Tory rebels may scupper gay marriage in the Lords

David Cameron faces another bitter battle over his plans to introduce gay marriage, with more than half of Conservative peers expected to vote against the move.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Same sex marriage in France: protest and counterprotest

Protests erupt in France over same-sex marriage

"More than 100,000 protesters organized by Catholic groups staged separate demonstrations in French cities over the weekend to protest against government plans to legalize same-sex marriage next year.
"Most of them took to the streets on Saturday, backed by the French Catholic Church and joined by several senior clerics, and several thousand more paraded with ultra-traditionalist Catholics in Paris on Sunday."
************
Topless activists clash with an anti-gay marriage protest in France

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Repugnance is not immutable

In a New Yorker article called Love on the March, Alex Ross writes

"I am forty-four years old, and I have lived through a startling transformation in the status of gay men and women in the United States. Around the time I was born, homosexual acts were illegal in every state but Illinois. Lesbians and gays were barred from serving in the federal government. There were no openly gay politicians. A few closeted homosexuals occupied positions of power, but they tended to make things more miserable for their kind. Even in the liberal press, homosexuality drew scorn: in The New York Review of Books, Philip Roth denounced the “ghastly pansy rhetoric” of Edward Albee, and a Time cover story dismissed the gay world as a “pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life.”
...
"By the mid-eighties, when I was beginning to come to terms with my sexuality, a few gay people held political office, many states had dropped long-standing laws criminalizing sodomy, and sundry celebrities had come out. ...But anti-gay crusades on the religious right threatened to roll back this progress. In 1986, the Supreme Court, upholding Georgia’s sodomy law, dismissed the notion of constitutional protection for gay sexuality as “at best, facetious.”
...
"Today, gay people of a certain age may feel as though they had stepped out of a lavender time machine. That’s the sensation that hit me when I watched the young man in Tempe shout down a homophobe in the name of the President-elect. Gay marriage is legal in six states and in Washington, D.C. Gays can serve in the military without hiding their sexuality. We’ve seen openly gay judges, congresspeople, mayors (including a four-term mayor of Tempe), movie stars, and talk-show hosts. Gay film and TV characters are almost annoyingly ubiquitous. The Supreme Court, which finally annulled sodomy laws in 2003, is set to begin examining the marriage issue. And the 2012 campaign has shown that Republicans no longer see the gays as a reliable wedge issue: although Mitt Romney opposes same-sex marriage, he has barely mentioned it this fall. "


*********

Here's a different kind of repugnant transaction, that affected a much smaller part of the population: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/10/the-sex-lives-of-conjoined-twins/264095/

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Some old repugnance fades: same sex marriage and marijuana

Votes still being counted in some states...but here's the NY Times: In Maine and Maryland, Victories at the Ballot Box for Same-Sex Marriage

"Voters in Maine and Maryland approved same-sex marriageon an election night that jubilant gay rights advocates called a historic turning point, the first time that marriage for gay men and lesbians has been approved at the ballot box.

"While six states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage through court decisions or legislative decisions, voters had rejected it more than 30 times in a row.
Results for the other two states voting on same-sex marriage, Minnesota and Washington, were still coming in late Tuesday..."


And here's the headline over at Slate: Gay Marriage Legalized! What an Amazing Day To Be an American.
*******************

On a different matter, Marijuana legalization passes in Colorado, Washington

"Voters in Washington and Colorado passed ballot initiatives Tuesday to legalize marijuana for recreational use, the biggest victory ever for the legalization movement.
...
"But in many ways, it's just the beginning of the battle. Marijuana is still illegal in the eyes of the federal government, which overrules states' rights."

Friday, September 21, 2012

Same sex marriage in the different states of the European Union

In Europe as in the U.S. different states have different laws about same sex marriages, and some states don't recognize the same sex marriages performed in other states:
On Gay Marriage, Europe Strains to Square 27 Interests

"The European Commission, the guardian of European Union treaties, has been working on ways to make life easier for people who move across borders.

"But although for two years it has been studying ways to facilitate the free circulation of civil status documents, including birth, death and marriage certificates, the proposal is still awaiting action. And when it goes forward later this year, the plan may not cover marriage. “For now, I think it is important to take one step at a time,” Viviane Reding, the European justice commissioner, said in an e-mailed response to questions.

"Opponents of gay marriage argue that any attempt in Brussels to require countries to recognize same-sex marriage certificates issued in another member state would, in effect, require them to introduce gay marriage whether they wanted to or not.

“A general application of the rule of mutual recognition of civil status documents will result in a situation where the political and social choices of some member states would be imposed on all the others,” CARE for Europe, a Christian lobby group, argued in its submission to the commission, echoing numerous opponents.

"So for now, gay couples and families are fighting their own battles — often at considerable expense."