Showing posts sorted by relevance for query SEX POSITIVE. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query SEX POSITIVE. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, September 27, 2022

SEX POSITIVE IN A STALINIST COUNTRY
'I'll keep being myself': Newly crowned Miss Hong Kong Denice Lam doesn't fret being called 'nymphomaniac'


SEPTEMBER 27, 2022
ByKHOO YI-HANG

Denice Lam, daughter of 1980s Hong Kong acting legend Wilson Lam, will keep being true to herself.
Instagram/Denice Lam

Her sex life laid bare, recent Miss Hong Kong winner Denice Lam isn't worried about letting the world know about the sexual encounters she's had in the past.

Denice, 27, was declared the winner of the Miss Hong Kong 2022 beauty pageant last Sunday (Sept 25) but her fame has brought her unsavoury remarks labelling her as a "nymphomaniac".More from AsiaOneRead the condensed version of this story, and other top stories with NewsLite.

This is following her candid interview on talk show Abracadabra, where she described at length the more intimate moments of her sex life.

Said Denice during the show: "[Scorpio men] are not just handsome and tall, but they also have many moves and can last long.

"If you want to have a relationship with Scorpio men, it requires a lot of physical stamina. He will flip you around — I was light-headed and sweating profusely."

Adding that she's had five sexual partners, she also recalled an incident where a Pisces man lasted for around three seconds.

Read AlsoDaughter of 1980s Hong Kong heart-throb Wilson Lam crowned winner of Miss Hong Kong 2022


The man purportedly hugged her from behind and started rubbing on her before stating that he was done.

Her blunt anecdotes resulted in netizens flaring up and insulting her, even referring to her as a "nymphomaniac".

According to multiple media reports, Denice has responded to this uproar: "In this era, we don't need to be so secretive; relations between men and women are very common."

She added that previously, when she had one foot in the door of showbiz and was looking for opportunities to perform, she didn't expect to have such a big response.

"This has been a valuable lesson, but even so, I'll keep being myself in the future. As long as one is of a virtuous mind, it shouldn't matter what others say."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_movement

Sex-positivity is "an attitude towards human sexuality that regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, encouraging ...

https://www.ursu.ca/2021/07/28/what-is-sex-positivity

Jul 28, 2021 ... The term sex positivity was first coined in the 1920's by Wilhelm Reich who was a student of Sigmund Freud. Reich shared that sex wasn't as ...

https://www.esquire.com/uk/life/a36554013/fighting-for-the-female-orgasm-wilhelm-reich

May 28, 2021 ... His anti-authoritarian orgasm theory, which stressed the importance of open relationships and sexual freedom with women's economic and bodily ...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jul/08/wilhelm-reich-free-love-orgasmatron

Jul 8, 2011 ... Reich was a sexual evangelist who held that satisfactory orgasm made the difference between sickness and health. It was the panacea for all ills ...

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/marie-louise-berneri-wilhelm-reich-and-the-sexual-revolution

“To the individual with a genital structure, sexuality is a pleasurable experience and nothing but that; work is joyous vital activity and achievement. To the ...

https://www.fkawdw.nl/en/review/image/out_of_the_box_wilhelm_reich_and_the_future_of_sex

For Reich, this wasn't merely a physical process, but a political one. In his 1927 study The Function of the Orgasm, he theorized that the orgasm had healing ...

http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Negpos.pdf

SEX NEGATIVE, SEX. POSITIVE. This polarity owes its inception. toWilhelmReich(1897-1957),whosought ... the exaltation of "sex positivism" per-.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2013/11/57345/sex-positive-meaning

Nov 17, 2013 ... Essentially, way back in the 1920s, Wilhelm Reich, a psychoanalyst and student of Sigmund Freud spread the word that sex wasn't the terrible ...

Thursday, February 15, 2024

 EU HUMAN RIGHTS COMMENT

Protecting the human rights of sex workers



STRASBOURG 15/02/2024

The lived realities of sex workers across Europe raise serious human rights concerns. It is crucial to approach this important and complex issue with a full understanding of the human rights consequences of the experience of high levels of violence and inadequate protection from law enforcement and the justice system; stigma; and multiple layers of discrimination that result in isolation and limited access to essential services, including housing and healthcare. All these factors pave the way for a persistent culture of impunity for crimes committed against sex workers, which in turn leads to even more violence.

After having consulted with sex workers across Europe, their representative organisations, relevant international organisations and experts, I call for an approach to sex work[1] that is firmly based on human rights and focuses on the effective protection of sex workers’ rights, prioritising their safety, agency and bodily autonomy over stereotypes and misconceptions. Sex workers, like all individuals, are entitled to protection against discrimination based on their occupation. They should have equal access to basic human rights, services, and legal protections, regardless of their chosen profession.

Exposure to violence and inadequate protection from law enforcement and the justice system

Across the continent, sex workers often face high levels of violence and abuse. This is mainly due to their marginalisation and unsafe working conditions, as well as harmful attitudes which persist in society. Violence can take different forms, ranging from verbal abuse and threats, stalking and harassment, including online, to robberies, physical attacks, rape and sexual violence, hate crimes and even killings. For the same reasons, sex workers are also at high risk of falling prey to other serious human rights violations such as trafficking in human beings and exploitation.

In many member states, there is a lack of official disaggregated records that would allow the identification and numbering of violent crimes committed against sex workers. The available data is largely based on information shared by NGOs to which sex workers report incidents confidentially to warn others. According to the available information, the range of perpetrators varies. In many countries, sex workers report that police and law enforcement authorities may themselves engage in or perpetuate violence against them. Cases of police harassment and heavy-handed policing against sex workers are reportedly so common that sex workers tend to see the police as a threat rather than guardians of their safety and most have little trust in the police’s ability or willingness to protect them. Sex workers are also often reluctant to report violence and other human rights violations that they have been subjected to or witnessed due to fear of stigmatisation, prosecution, sanctions, or deportation, even in countries where the sale of sexual services itself is not illegal. Therefore, authorities should prioritise the protection of sex workers by ensuring they can report crimes without fear of legal repercussions, and that those who perpetrate violence against them are held accountable.

As noted by GREVIO, the monitoring body of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention), harmful stereotypical attitudes also persist in prosecution services and the judiciary, based on notions implying that “only innocent women and girls can be victims of rape”, which may adversely impact decisions taken in the justice system with respect to sex workers.

Stigmatisation and multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination

Sex workers suffer from the persistent stigma of sex work as shameful and dishonourable. The ensuing high level of socially accepted disrespect, intimidation and discrimination on the basis of their perceived failure to conform to social and gender-based norms of sexual behaviour is obstructive to their efforts to lead self-determined lives. Stigmatisation often leads to sex workers hiding their involvement in sex work and living under constant fear of being outed and exposed to public shaming for themselves and their families. It also prevents them from obtaining adequate health services and can influence their access to housing, education, or childcare.

Particularly concerning is the human rights situation of sex workers who belong to groups facing multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, including migrants, persons facing racial discrimination, transgender (trans) people or persons with disabilities or long-term illnesses. The way their identities or status are perceived place them in a situation of even more acute isolation and helplessness. Persons belonging to these groups are often already marginalised in society and have difficulties in accessing the regular labour market.

Criminalisation of sex work

In many countries, sex work or the involvement by third parties, i.e., the so-called “procurement services”, such as the purchase of sex, “pimping”, “brothel-keeping”, renting out flats to sex workers and advertising, is criminalised or such criminalisation is being considered. Available evidence submitted by international human rights organisations, relevant UN bodies and the accounts from sex workers themselves indicate, however, that the protection of sex workers and their rights cannot be assured via the criminalisation of sex work.

In 2016, the UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice (“the UN Working Group”), noted that criminalisation of women in sex work “places them in a situation of injustice, vulnerability and stigma and is contrary to international human rights law.” It underscored that the enforcement of punitive provisions to regulate women’s control over their own bodies, such as those governing sex work, is a severe and unjustified form of state control and infringes women’s dignity and bodily integrity by restricting their autonomy to make decisions about their own lives and health.

According to sex workers’ organisations and rights defenders, the criminalisation of third parties - even in the absence of criminalisation of sex work itself automatically and directly affects sex workers themselves as their working space overall becomes criminalised, with increased stigmatisation of their work and greater risks of violence. In this respect, the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”), in its admissibility decision in the case of M.A. and others v. France, found that the applicants, 261 people of various nationalities lawfully engaged in sex work in France, were entitled to claim victim status under the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case, the applicants claim that the 2016 French law, which criminalises the purchase of sexual relations between consensual adults, pushes them to work in a clandestine manner and in isolation, exposing them to greater risks for their physical integrity and lives. They also claim that it affects their freedom to define how they live their private lives, in violation of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture) and 8 (right to private and family life) of the Convention. The judgment of the Court on whether such violations occurred is pending.

The results of a survey of 185 individuals engaged in sex work across England in 2019 and 2020 show that third-party criminalisation also has an impact on persons such as family, friends, and colleagues who wish to provide assistance to sex workers. In this respect, Front Line Defenders found that such laws further endanger and undermine the work of human rights defenders, including those carrying out anti-trafficking work, as they make it dangerous or illegal for activists to organise health and human rights outreach in brothels or to contact victims for fear of being arrested and accused of criminal activity.

In 2023, the UN Working Group found that “there is now sufficient evidence on the harms of any forms of criminalisation of sex work, including criminalisation of clients and ‘third parties’ related activities”.

Sex work in relation to sexual exploitation and trafficking in human beings

As also recently pointed out by the UN Working Group, highly polarised views on the relationship between sex work, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation, feminism and human rights have restricted any real progress in protecting the human rights of sex workers.

The argument, often advanced in favour of the criminalisation and suppression of sex work, or some aspects of it, which equates sex work involving consenting adults with violence against women, disregards the distinction between sex work and violence in sex work. It also disregards the fact that gender-based violence is already criminalised and that member states are under the human rights obligation to prevent and combat this form of violence, whether the victims are engaged in sex work or not. In addition, it overlooks the diversity of people who engage in sex work and of their lived realities and contexts, without respecting their autonomy and agency in making choices about their bodies and lives.

GREVIO has noted that the Istanbul Convention does not define sex work (prostitution) in itself as a form of violence against women. Instead, it focuses on the support and protection of women who engage in sex work for any instances of gender-based violence that they may experience. In this line, GREVIO has called on states to take into account in their policies and measures addressing violence against women, the specific risk of multiple and intersectional discrimination to which women sex workers are exposed, as well as their challenges in accessing general and specialist support services, including access to shelters. In the same line, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have stressed that the conflation of human trafficking with sex work can result in over-reaching initiatives that can make sex workers and people who have been trafficked more vulnerable to violence and harm. In addition, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that such approaches are successful in addressing trafficking in terms of preventing, identifying and protecting victims and supporting the prosecution of perpetrators.

As far as third-party criminalisation is concerned, proponents argue that such legislation reduces demand, helps decrease the volume of sex work overall and contributes to the fight against gender-based violence and human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. However, there are consistent reports showing that, in some states, not only have commercial sexual services not been reduced but they have possibly even increased in the period following the criminalisation. Moreover, several anti-trafficking organisations, including the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women and La Strada International, consider that the criminalisation of the purchase of sex has no proven impact on preventing and combating human trafficking and may even undermine the identification of victims of trafficking among sex workers and their protection.

These divisive debates and misconceptions also stem from the lack of consultation of the major stakeholders. The sex workers and their representatives I spoke with explained to me that they are either not consulted at all before decisions concerning their work and lives are taken or, even when they are consulted, their views are not seriously considered.

Multiple barriers in accessing rights

A human rights based approach to sex work also means that access to rights of sex workers should be proactively facilitated, whether it concerns access to shelter for victims of violence or trafficking in line with the relevant Council of Europe standards or access to social rights, including health, housing, education and labour rights.

As already stated in the Commissioner’s Issue Papers on the right to health and on women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in Europe, sex workers face important obstacles to securing their right to health, despite their increased health care needs. This results in significantly diminished health outcomes. Alarmingly, sex workers across Europe also face a range of coercive practices and confidentiality infringements that undermine their sexual and reproductive health and rights, with many member states still failing to take effective measures to ensure their equal and unhindered access to these rights.

Even where sex work is not criminalised, the regulation of sex work in some countries can be so restrictive that it causes harm to sex workers’ access to rights and results in most sex work occurring outside the legal framework. This means that sex workers are at risk of sanctions or fines, similar to countries where sex work is criminalised. In Greece, for instance, specific requirements such as being “single, divorced, or widowed” and adhering to regular health testing to work in the few licensed brothels have reportedly resulted in most sex work taking place illegally. Sex workers’ rights defenders report that mandatory health checks in such regulatory models are often perceived as a violation of sex workers’ human rights. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has expressed concern over the mandatory character of health tests for sex workers in Austria, which are carried out by public health officials and have to be paid for in some provinces. In Germany, the extensive and complex regulations in place are reported to lead to the repression and exclusion of many sex workers, in particular migrants, trans people, and otherwise particularly marginalised individuals.

As regards access to employment and labour rights, the particularly high proportion of migrants, trans people and persons with disabilities or long-term illnesses among sex workers appears to reflect the considerable difficulties of persons with specific needs in finding alternative gainful employment that is suited to their conditions. While some member states offer support structures to help those sex workers who wish to find alternative employment, access to these support mechanisms is reportedly often difficult, particularly for the most marginalised sex workers, as support is often subject to special conditions and inadequate. To facilitate access to labour rights and social protection systems for sex workers, all support measures should centre around the sex worker’s specific needs and situation, including with respect to adequate financial support and access to relevant education services.

In a landmark change in legislation adopted in consultation with sex workers, Belgium became the first European country to decriminalise sex work in 2022. As a result, sex workers became able to legally work as self-employed workers and build up social rights. Since summer 2023, a new law has extended labour rights also to sex worker employees, including rules around working hours and payment, the right to refuse clients and the mandatory availability of emergency buttons in every room. The new law also decriminalises third parties, who will no longer be penalised for opening a bank account for sex workers or renting out accommodation, and it allows sex workers to advertise their services.

The way forward: a human rights based approach

Council of Europe member states should adopt a human rights based approach to sex work. Such an approach must ensure sex workers’ protection from violence and abuse, their equal access to health and other social rights, as well as their rights to private life and to participate in public and political life.

All policy measures must consider the distinctive exposure of sex workers to discrimination, including on intersecting and multiple grounds, such as ethnic origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, migration status and disability.

Member states should take action to ensure that everyone can enjoy access to an adequate standard of living, health and education, to safe and non-exploitative work environments, as well as to guarantee equal access to social protection and to the full range of other social rights.

Member states should also strengthen training programmes for law-enforcement officials, judicial authorities, public health professionals and social services on the need to address stigma against sex workers and to protect sex workers’ rights, to guarantee equal access to these services, while promoting the implementation of programmes that eliminate prevailing stigma against sex workers in society.

A human rights based approach also means that consensual sexual relations between adults for remuneration should not be criminalised. Criminalisation and the enforcement of punitive provisions against sex workers, clients or third parties has significantly reduced sex workers’ access to rights and essential services and has led sex workers to live and work in a clandestine manner and in isolation, in fear of the justice system. Conversely, decriminalisation of consensual adult sex work has had positive effects on the safety of sex workers and on their access to social protection and health services, resulting in improved health outcomes. The UN working Group also noted that a decriminalised framework is most conducive to the protection of sex workers’ rights to participate in public and political life.

Consensual adult sex work should not be conflated with violence against women or trafficking in human beings. Instead, sex workers should be protected from violence, human trafficking and exploitation. As noted by Amnesty International, the decriminalisation of sex work does not mean the removal of laws that criminalise exploitation, human trafficking or violence against sex workers. On the contrary, these laws must remain, and should be strengthened. To better address the protection needs of victims of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation and of gender-based violence, whether or not they are engaged in sex work, member states must ensure that their laws are in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (in particular, Article 2 on the right to life, Article 3 on the prohibition of torture and Article 4 on the prohibition of slavery) as interpreted by the Court, and with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the Istanbul Convention, and effectively implement them in accordance with the recommendations provided by their respective monitoring bodies.

Finally, no-one can speak better for sex workers than sex workers themselves, no-one knows the environment better, nor the reasons that lead individuals to engage in sex work. For effective and truly empowering and protective human rights based policies to be developed and implemented, it is indispensable that greater attention and visibility is given to their voices and rights. To do so, sex workers in all their diversities and their representative organisations must be duly consulted and included in the policy-making process, as their experiences and perspectives are essential for developing effective policies and interventions that support their human rights and dignity.

 

[1] For the purposes of this Human Rights Comment, sex work is understood as the consensual exchange of sexual services for payment among adults.

Monday, October 18, 2021

Sex workers speak out against German prostitution law

It has been five years since the German government enacted the prostitution protection act. Lawmakers say it protects vulnerable people; many sex workers say it is discriminatory, stigmatizing and has increased risks.



During the coronavirus pandemic lockdowns, unregistered sex workers in Germany were unable to claim compensation

Olivia, who has been a sex worker in Berlin for almost a decade, is pragmatic when asked about the regulation of her industry.

"It's not without reason that people say it is the oldest profession in the world," she says, smiling. "People will always find a way to do sex work."

The job was not always her plan. She moved to the German capital from a small city in the east of the country looking for a more exciting life and fell into the work after a friend recommended it. Now in her late 20s, she has undertaken just about every kind of sex work possible in Germany: with a luxury escort service, as an erotic masseuse, in a brothel and self-employed in her own home.

"There are different levels," she explains — with highly different incomes and safety measures attached. Through her work, she has found a community, also with the Black Sex Workers' Collective, a US-founded initiative for people of color. She is also a member of a sex workers' union.

But she is one of hundreds of thousands of unregistered sex workers in Germany who, for the last five years, has risked prosecution to keep working.


Olivia, an unregistered sex worker in Berlin, wants to stay anonymous

Over 90% are unregistered

When she began, sex workers' rights in Germany were relatively well protected. The 2002 Prostitution Act formally regulated sex work and aimed to protect sex workers' access to benefits such as health care and unemployment insurance.

But some lawmakers were concerned that the law was too lax. "There are stricter rules to open up a snack bar than a brothel in this country," former Families Minister Manuela Schwesig, from the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), told German newspaper Die Zeit in 2014. A year later, her coalition government presented the bill of a new law that would require all sex workers to apply to register their work. The law was enacted on October 21, 2016, and came into force on July 1, 2017. 

For sex workers, this means handing over private data like your address, contact details and real name and going through regular compulsory health consultations. People who do not register, some because of privacy concerns and others because they do not have an address or legal residency status in Germany, are breaking the law.

The act also requires condoms to be used during sex work and requires anyone running a sex work business, like a brothel, to have a permit.

The last federal official statistics from 2019 showed that there were around 40,000 sex workers in Germany legally registered under the Prostitution Protection Act, but unofficial estimates say the real number is over 400,000. This means over 90% of sex workers in Germany are unregistered — and technically illegal.

The vast majority of legally registered sex workers work in brothels, suggesting also that most of those who are unregistered work from home or on the streets.


The 2017 law is unpopular among sex workers: 'No registration of sex workers'
 says this sign


Privacy concerns


The aim of the law was to improve conditions for sex workers and reduce the possibility of human trafficking, exploitation and slavery. But sex workers say it has actually made their position more vulnerable.

"People who have no idea about sex work say: 'It's just a pass, that's not so bad.' But sex work is still a very stigmatized job in Germany. And that means that many people can't really 'out themselves,' or know that their data is being recorded somewhere," Ruby Rebelde, a spokeswoman for the Hydra organization, explained.

The Berlin-based advocacy and counseling service for sex workers was founded over 40 years ago and has opposed the law since it was enacted.

Many sex workers in Germany come from other countries, and the bureaucratic hurdles of the registration process may prevent them from carrying it out. EU members Romania and Bulgaria are the two most common countries of origin for registered non-German sex workers, but Rebelde from Hydra believes that foreign sex workers are less likely to register than Germans.

"And it means people who come to Germany to work as sex workers are additionally 'made illegal' under the prostitution protection act," Rebelde said. Among other things, this meant that all unregistered sex workers could not receive government aid when they were unable to work during the coronavirus pandemic lockdowns. The number of registered sex workers also significantly decreased during this time.
'Working together is safer'

Under the law, sex workers could not live and work together as a pair or larger group — a common arrangement offering security to sex workers if clients prove violent or attempt blackmail — because technically a shared apartment or house would constitute a brothel.

"If I can only work alone at home, in theory, that puts me in more danger," Olivia said. She has experienced more blackmail and abuse attempts in the years since the law was introduced than before when working alone in her apartment.

"Working together is much safer because you can keep an eye on each other and share experiences," explained Ruby Rebelde.

But supporters of the law say it has made sex work less opaque and in fact increased safety.

"With the registration according to the Prostitution Protection Act, the state has the opportunity to shed light on people's rights in the field of sex work," said Ann-Kathrin Biewener, sex work spokeswoman for the city of Berlin and elected representative for the SPD. She is responsible for overseeing the registration process for the whole city of Berlin.

"With registration, sex work does not take place in secret and thus helps to improve working conditions for sex workers," she added.


A 2019 'Whore Parade' in Berlin aimed to fight stigma against sex workers

The Nordic model?

During the pandemic, when sex work was banned under social distancing rules, lawmakers from the SPD and from Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right Christian Democrat party took the opportunity to call for an even longer closure to brothels and overhaul of the sex work industry.

The solution touted by them and many others is the so-called Nordic model, under which paying for sex is illegal but selling sex is not.

But Olivia does not believe that such an arrangement could work in Germany and would just send sex work even more underground.

"It would not stop anything. The prices would become more expensive; there would be more criminality and violence, blackmail, more human trafficking," she said. "I cannot see a positive side."

A federal evaluation of the act is planned to be completed by 2025; an interim report covers only the years 2017 and 2018. So far, there is not enough evidence to show whether any of the act's laws, for example in reducing human trafficking, have been successful.

Several states have published their own evaluations in the meantime. The evaluation of the city-state of Bremen from December 2020 describes the smoothing running of the registration process in Bremen but also notes: "Sex workers and professional politicians criticize that the law does not meet the requirements of better protection against trafficking and an improvement in the situation of prostitutes. They fear stigmatization and discrimination as a result of the obligation to register with the authorities and state. They say prostitutes, in particular, remain unprotected because the law is not geared to their needs."

Lawmakers like Ann-Kathrin Biewener in Berlin have worked to collect feedback at a series of "round table" events for sex workers over the years. For Rebelde from Hydra, it is vital that whatever the next steps are, the voices of sex workers are taken into account during the upcoming federal evaluation.

"Talking about sex workers without talking to sex workers — that is not OK," she said.

Tuesday, May 14, 2024

 

Same-sex marriage has caused no harms to different-sex couples


New analysis finds that extending marriage rights may have grown support for marriage overall


RAND CORPORATION




Over the 20 years that same-sex couples have been able to marry in the U.S., there have been no negative effects on marriage, divorce or cohabitation among different-sex couples, according to new report from RAND and UCLA.

 

In addition, the few significant effects observed by new analyses of the issue suggest a slight increase in overall marriage rates and provide some evidence of improved attitudes toward marriage among young people in states after same-sex couples were granted legal status.

 

Researchers also reviewed nearly 100 studies that have examined the consequences of same-sex marriage on multiple measures of family formation and well-being, and found consistent results indicating significant benefits to same-sex couples and no harm to different-sex unions.

 

“Some of those who opposed the granting of marriage rights to same-sex couples predicted that doing so would undermine the institution of marriage, resulting in fewer couples marrying, more couples divorcing and an overall retreat from family formation,” said study coauthor Benjamin R. Karney, a UCLA psychology professor and adjunct researcher at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “Overall, the fears of opponents of same-sex marriage simply have not come to pass.”

 

The study found that after states legalized marriage for same-sex couples, the number of marriages increased in those states at rates greater than what could be accounted for by the new marriages of same-sex couples alone.

 

“We find no evidence for a retreat from marriage,” said Melanie A. Zaber, coauthor of the report and a RAND economist. “In fact, there is evidence suggesting that by extending marriage rights to a greater number of couples, interest in marriage increased. And that finding isn’t limited to same-sex couples -- this is also true for the broader population.”

 

The first state-sanctioned marriage licenses for same-sex couples were issued in May 2004 in Massachusetts after its supreme court held that the state’s constitution guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry.

 

Over the next 11 years, same-sex marriages were sanctioned in several other states before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2015 that state-level bans on marriage for same-sex couples violate the federal constitution, extending the right to marry to same-sex couples nationwide. Surveys now find about 70% of Americans support same-sex marriage.

 

Researchers from RAND and UCLA reviewed existing research that has examined how any form of legal status, including marriage and civil unions, affects the well-being of LGBT individuals, their children and the general public.

 

Across 96 studies reviewed by the project, researchers found that extending marriage and other forms of legal recognition to same-sex couples has been consistently positive for same-sex couples and LGBT individuals, their children and the general population.

 

For LGBT individuals and same-sex couples, research has found that the “marriage benefit” that has been well-documented in different-sex couples extends to same-sex couples as well. This includes lower psychological distress as compared to same-sex couples with other forms of legal status or no legal status.

 

The physical health of LGBT individuals in states that approved marriage between same-sex couples also improved, as demonstrated by higher levels of health insurance coverage, and declining rates of sexually transmitted infections and problematic substance use.

 

When states legalized marriage for same-sex couples, same-sex households in those states experienced more stable relationships, higher earnings and higher rates of home ownership.

 

To address limitations in earlier studies, researchers from RAND and UCLA examined multiple national data sets to study how changes in the legal status of same-sex marriages across and within states affected trends in family formation between 2000 through 2014. 

This included the causal effects of state-level policy changes on different-sex couples’ marriage rates, divorce rates and cohabitation rates.

 

The study found no evidence of an increase in cohabitation by unmarried different-sex couples, and some evidence of a statistically significant decline, consistent with increased interest in marriage. Similarly, researchers found no consistent evidence of an increase in divorce as a consequence of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples.

 

Researchers also analyzed information from an annual survey of high school seniors that asks them a series of questions about their attitudes toward marriage and family formation. While the changes in attitudes were small, researchers suggest that issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples had, if anything, led to a small positive impact on marriage attitudes among high school seniors.

 

“The only changes we detect are suggestive of a renewed salience of marriage among the broader public,” Zaber said. “There is no empirical basis for concerns that allowing same-sex couples to marry has negatively affected different-sex couples and families.”

 

Support for the study was provided by Centerline Liberties. 

 

The report, “20 Years of Legal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in the United States: Evidence Review and New Analyses,” is available at www.rand.org. Other authors of the report are Molly G. Smith, Samuel J. Mann, Marwa AlFakhri, Jessie Coe, Jamie L. Ryan, Catria Gadwah-Meaden, Christy Mallory, Brad Sears and Chandra Garber.

 

The RAND Social and Economic Well-Being division seeks to actively improve the health, and social and economic well-being of populations and communities throughout the world.

 

Monday, December 04, 2023

India: Is Legislature the Only Way to Legalise Same-sex Marriage?




Lakshita Bhagat
December 4th, 2023

The recent judgement by the Supreme Court of India to deny equal marriage rights to same-sex couples has re-opened the debate about the role of the judiciary, alongside the legislature, in protecting the rights of minorities, and ensuring equal rights for all citizens. Lakshita Bhagat examines the judgement in light of rights of same-sex marriage in other countries, as well as earlier interventions by the judiciary to ensure equal rights for minorities in India.

On 17 October 2023, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India headed by the Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, unanimously declined to legalise same-sex marriage. The Court delivered its judgement on the Supriyo & Supriya Chakraborty & Anr vs Union of India (2023) case after hearing a batch of petitions seeking to bestow on same-sex couples the right to marry on par with heterosexual couples. This post analyses how same-sex marriages have been legalised around the world, and where India stands on this issue.

The Legislature has not been the only way to bring marriage equality. In recent years, the Judiciary has played a proactive role in many countries in granting marriage equality to queer couples. The Indian Supreme Court, known for walking the extra mile to protect rights of marginalised citizens, lost a significant opportunity in this judgement.

Is legislature the only way towards marriage equality?

The short answer is ‘No’! Currently, 39 countries/territories recognise same-sex marriages, the newest additions being Estonia and Nepal (Table 1). While the legislative route has been followed by most countries to allow same-sex marriages, in eight countries the judicial intervention resulted in marriage equality.



Table 1: Countries/Territories where Same-sex Marriage is Legal
Country Year Procedure Comments
1 The Netherlands 2001 Legislature Same-sex partnerships recognised in 1998
2 Belgium 2003 Legislature
3 Spain 2005 Legislature
4 Canada 2005 Legislature
5 South Africa 2006 Legislature
6 Norway 2009 Legislature Same-sex civil unions allowed in 1993
7 Sweden 2009 Legislature
8 Argentina 2010 Legislature First country in Latin America to permit same-sex marriage
9 Iceland 2010 Legislature
10 Portugal 2010 Legislature
11 Denmark 2012 Legislature First country in the world to acknowledge same-sex civil unions in 1989
12 Brazil 2013 Judiciary In 2011, the country’s top court allowed same-sex couples to enter ‘stable unions’ akin to heterosexual marriages
13 England/Wales 2013 Legislature
14 France 2013 Legislature
15 New Zealand 2013 Legislature First country in Asia-Pacific to permit same-sex marriage
16 Uruguay 2013 Legislature Civil unions allowed previously
17 Luxembourg 2014 Legislature
18 Scotland 2014 Legislature Civil unions allowed previously
19 Finland 2015 Legislature
20 Ireland 2015 Popular referendum First country to legalise gay marriage by popular vote
21 USA 2015 Judiciary Before this decision, marriage equality varied across states
22 Mexico 2015 Judiciary The court declared the ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional, but it took several years for all states to comply; all the states legitimised same-sex marriages in 2022
23 Colombia 2016 Judiciary Civil unions allowed previously
24 Greenland 2016 Legislature
25 Australia 2017 Legislature Preceded by a postal survey that showed that the majority supported the idea
26 Malta 2017 Legislature
27 Germany 2017 Legislature
28 Austria 2019 Judiciary
29 Ecuador 2019 Judiciary
30 Taiwan 2019 Legislature Parliamentary approval came two years after the judiciary took an expansive view of marriage
31 Northern Ireland 2019 Legislature Legislation passed by UK Parliament during political vacuum in Northern Ireland
32 Costa Rica 2020 Judiciary Judiciary declared the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in 2018; first Central American country to allow marriage parity
33 Chile 2021 Legislature Bill introduced in 2017; civil unions permitted since 2015
34 Switzerland 2022 Popular referendum Two-thirds majority voted in favour of legalisation
35 Slovenia 2022 Legislature Legalisation followed the decision of the country’s constitutional court that outlawed ban on same-sex marriages and adoption; first post-Socialist country to permit gay marriages
36 Cuba 2022 Popular referendum Two-thirds majority voted in favour of legalisation
37 Andorra 2023 Legislature Allowed same-sex marriage and adoption
38 Estonia 2023 Legislature Amended the 2016 Family Law Act, which recognised civil unions
39 Nepal 2023 Judiciary


Source: Compiled by Author.



After various failed attempts spanning two decades to bring a law on marriage equality between same-sex and different-sex partnerships, Brazil became the first country to legalise same-sex unions (and later, marriages) by judicial intervention in 2011 and 2013 respectively. These judicial decisions rest on a long history of legal change and jurisprudence, from outlawing colonial law criminalising gay sex immediately after their independence from Portugal in the 19th century to crafting a new legal notion of family based not just on biological ties but on affection and emotion (‘socio-affective family’) and then extending it to same-same families (‘homo-affective family’). However, the decisions legitimising same-sex families have been controversial and polarising in a country known for its rich religious and ethnic diversity.

Apart from Brazil, five other countries (USA, Colombia, Austria, Ecuador, and Costa Rica) have legalised same-sex marriage via judicial direction. Ireland, Switzerland and Cuba resorted to popular referendum to legalise same-sex marriages. While Mexico City was the first city across Latin America to legalise same-sex marriage through a legislative vote in 2009, the judicial ruling of 2015 paved the way for subsequent legalisation across all other states.

In countries where opinion on same-sex relationships is highly polarised and religiously opposed, stakeholders have often approached the judiciary for expansion and protection of their rights. For instance, the US Supreme Court, in their landmark ruling on Obergefell vs Hodges (2015), extended the right to marry to same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The same year, Mexico’s top court struck down a ban on same-sex marriages, calling it discriminatory and violative of the country’s Constitution. Recently, Sri Lanka and Nepal’s top courts have paved the way for the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

The case of Nepal can serve as a notable example of how things might transpire when the country’s Judiciary rolls the ball into the Legislature’s court. So, in 2007, Nepal’s highest court instructed the government to form a committee to prepare a legal framework to facilitate non-heterosexual marriages. While the Committee submitted its report and recommended same-sex marriages in 2015, successive governments did not follow up with any legislation. Due to such political delays, the court allowed same-sex marriages from this year (2023). Importantly, Nepal and Sri Lanka are the only two countries that allow queer marriage in South Asia. India, despite its growing influence and aspirations in the region and globally, is being left behind by smaller countries that have taken a lead in collapsing the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages.

Why did India’s Supreme Court lose this opportunity?

Putting the Supreme Court’s judgement into perspective reveals various significant insights. First, the Indian judiciary has, on earlier occasions, played an assertive role in filling legislative and policy vacuums to protect the rights of vulnerable people. The Vishaka Guidelines (Vishaka & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Ors 1997) is one a shining example of judicial intervention, along with the Transgender Persons Protection Act (2019), and the declaration of ‘Triple Talaq’ as unconstitutional (2018), to name a few. By refusing to intervene and provide equal marital rights to the queer community, the Judiciary betrays its legacy of positive intervention and upholding the principle of equality.

Finally, it is important to note that family and marriage are not static institutions; they have varied over time and space, and evolved over centuries. It is through the state and legal framework that a specific type of marriage and family have come to be institutionalised, and ultimately legitimised. With changing circumstances, the understanding of marriage also requires revision. The Indian top court had an opportunity to push the narrow boundaries of definition of marriage and family. According to social historian Stephanie Coontz, ‘the institution of marriage has already been in a state of revolution for some time — and the same-sex-marriage movement is one step in a series of huge changes’. Everyone, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, must have the right to form emotional relationships and choose their partner. If not full mile, the Indian Supreme Court lost an opportunity to walk at least half a mile by recognising civil unions for the same-sex couples.

*

The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the ‘South Asia @ LSE’ blog, the LSE South Asia Centre or the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please click here for our Comments Policy.

This blogpost may not be reposted by anyone without prior written consent of LSE South Asia Centre; please e-mail southasia@lse.ac.uk for permission.

Banner image © Sneha Sivarajan, Delhi, 2022, Unsplash.

About the author

Lakshita Bhagat
Dr Lakshita Bhagat is Assistant Professor in Public Policy at Amity University, Noida, India. Her areas of research interest include women’s and gender studies, demography, family sociology and work-family studies.
Posted In: India