Divorce Attorneys
Spain’s same-sex marriage law faces court challenge
|
|
Spain’s political opposition, the Popular Party, has lodged a legal appeal challenging the country’s new law allowing same-sex marriage. In July, Spain became the third country (following the Netherlands and Belgium) to give same-sex unions all the legal status of marriages. The bill approving same-sex marriage was approved despite strong opposition from minority Popular Party and the Catholic Church. Opponents of the legislation have argued that the new law violates a provision of Spain’s constitution which guarantees the integrity of marriage. As the Popular Party announced its legal appeal, secretary-general Agnel Acebes said: “The Popular Party is in no doubt over the issue of gay marriages, which is why we are challenging the constitutionality of the government’s legislation allowing them.” Eduardo Hertfelder, the president of the Family Policy Institute, welcomed the appeal of a laws that he characterized as “regressive and unjust toward the family and children.” He acknowledged, however, that despite the constitutional arguments against the law, judges might be under considerable political pressure to uphold it. Still, Hertfelder also called attention to the rapid development of a grassroots pro-family movement in Spain, which may counteract that political pressure. |
Related Articles from Attorney for Divorce
Spain’s Gay "Marriage” Law to Face Constitutional Challenge
The new Spanish legislation calling homosexual partnerings 'marriage' is to be subject to a legal challenge by a judge who refused to participate in such a 'wedding.' Judge Laura Alabau of the city of Denia in southwestern Spain refused to "marry" a lesbian couple and has filed a legal challenge against the reform of Spain's Civil Code allowing same-sex couples to contract "marriage." Judge Alabau is basing her argument on article 32 of the country's Constitution, which says, "Men and women have the right to contract marriage with full juridical equality." The constitution also allows judges to file constitutional challenges. The
Sham marriage law faces challenge
Immigration campaigners say the law is discriminatory and want it overturned on human rights grounds. The Home Office introduced the rules last year saying they were essential to crack down on sham marriages for immigration. Under the rules, the Home Secretary has the power to block a proposed marriage if he believes it may be bogus. The rules mean people born outside of the EU and some bordering European nations who have only six months' permission to be in the UK must seek special permission from the Home Office to marry, irrespective of the status of their partner. More : news.bbc.co.uk
Supreme Court turns aside challenge to gay marriage law
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to the only state that allows gay marriages, declining to hear an appeal aimed at overturning the Massachusetts law that prompted a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex unions.
2 sides clash on legality of amendment
The following are responses from supporters of Amendment 3 to commonly asked questions about the effects of the proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage in Utah. Why do we need this amendment now? SUPPORTERS: The state's marriage law already limits marriage to heterosexual couples, but amendment supporters say recent court decisions around the country have exposed the state to a legal challenge to traditional marriage in Utah. The amendment would eliminate the possibility of a state court challenge and strengthen the state's case in a federal court challenge. That challenge could come from same-sex couples married in other states that sanction those unions. Precedence
Suit to Challenge 1913 Mass. Marriage Law.
Eight same-sex couples and at least 13 municipalities said Thursday they will mount a legal challenge to the 1913 law used to block out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. The groups said they would file two lawsuits Friday claiming the state law is unconstitutional and that it's discriminatory to enforce it against same-sex couples. After the state's Supreme...