"Gay Marriage?"
tian opposition parties, and particularly the ruling VVD, will react when the bill reaches parliament. Dutch traditions -strong party discipline on the one hand and 'dualism' (autonomy of parliamentary groups from their ministers) on the other - mean that parties can sometimes reject as a bloc compromises that are reached in the cabinet by their own members. Biological parenthood
The cabinet's second proposal is to allow same-sex marriages, but without parental rights tor partners who are not biological parents. This proposal would leave virtually unchanged the grotesque situation that a sperm donor who has never seen 'his' child or done anything for it remains its legal father, while the birth mother's lesbian partner who was present at its birth and helped care for it from day one has no parental rights.
True, another recent law allows the second parent to be granted partial parental rights as a 'co-guardian'. The new adoption law would also make it possible for her to adopt - but the court will consult the sperm donor before agreeing to adoption, even if the donor has not 'recognised' the child and is thus not the legal father!
The cabinet proposal raises another peculiar issue. If the law passes, there will be no substantive legal difference between marriage for same-sex couples and registered partnership. Does this mean that registered partnership should be abolished for same-sex partners, only two or three years after it was intro-
The cabinet says that registered artnership will continue to exist for al least five years. But then the whole institution of registered partnership might be allowed to "wither away': new partner registrations might be ended, and currently registered partners would be allowed to marry. Registered partners would find themselves members of an anomalous, dwindling group. The choices would again be limited to marriage or nothing
But what about the 800 opposite-sex couples who have registered their partnerships under the new law? Under the cabinet's latest proposal, there would still be a difference between marriage and registered partnership for oppositesex couples: husbands and wives have automatic parental rights for children born during marriage, while registered "Building blocks"
These twists and turns are the result of two constraints. First, the major parties insistence on a biological definition of parenthood is ultimately incompatible with true equality for same-sex couples. Second, registered partnership has been viewed mainly as a secondclass imitation of marriage, rather than as 26 International Viewpoint #308 February 1999
11
a first step towards introducing a genuine diversity of legal options for couples. Forward to the past
For many years, the main current of the Dutch lesbian and gay movement called for a 'building blocks' model, in which the state would offer several different bundles of rights and responsibilities for couples (or larger groups): the rights and responsibilities of sharing a home, the rights and responsibilities of an economic partnership, the rights and responsibilities of raising children together, and so on. Couples would be free to use some of the "building blocks' and reject others, rather than all couples being forced to fit into a single, rigid box.
Large parts of the lesbian and gay movement abandoned this "building blocks" approach in favour of Krol's promarriage campaign. But a return to the original strategy would seem to offer a positive way out of the current tangle. * * Thanks to Gea Zijistra for checking the references to Dutch legislation.
After the failure of parliamentary initiatives by the Communist Party and the Socialist Party youth group, Portugal's recently-formed lesbian and gay movement is moving towards a more dynamic, campaigning strategy. Sérgio Vitorino In June 1997 the Communist Party and the Socialist Party youth group both made proposals to extend the civic rights of "de facto unions'.
The proposal put forward by the Communist Party (PCP) only covered heterosexual couples. But the proposal from the young socialists spoke of people,' rather than 'men and women' or "different sexes'. So, gay men and lesbians were included, but only by default.
In the clause about adoption however, the proposal is that only heterosexual couples would be able to adopt or get artificial insemination. The proposal would give cohabiteesoner even
A new movement heterosexual - fewer rights than married people. But it would at least create 'marriage-like' rights in questions of housing, social security and taxation. Maintenance rights could also be sought if a relationship broke down. There would be common responsibility for debts and other financial obligations.
Even these rather limited proposals provoked a violent reaction from the Roman Catholic Church, which still has a significant and profoundly reactionary influence in Portuguese society. The right wing parties immediately announced that they would vote against both propositions.
Like their French counterparts, the governing Socialist Party was totally divided. They worried that being seen to champion lesbian and gay rights would further damage the popularity of the government.
They had already put forward a proposal for the decriminalisation of abortion which had been rigorously opposed by the Church hierarchy.
That offensive split the socialist deputies. Although the abortion vote was won in parliament, the socialists then agreed with the Social Democrats
Portugal
(despite the name, a right wing party) to hold a referendum on the question.
In the end the measure was defeated because the Socialist Party failed to put its full weight into the referendum campaign in support of a woman's right to
Similar backsliding on the question of 'de facto unions' means that the rights of lesbians and gay men will not be enshrined in law. The left's divided engagement
The Communist Party put forward two arguments for not integrating lesbians and gay men into its proposal. A debate on partnership, they argued, should not be mixed up with the question of lesbian and gay rights because thousands of heterosexual Portuguese families needed these rights. If the question of homosexuality were included, the law would be defeated and a majority would suffer because of a minority.
The Communist Party also promised that they would later present a law exclusively about gay and lesbian partnerships. In fact, the party's modest proposal on heterosexual cohabitees was defeated by Parliament.
The PCP accused the socialists of presenting a law about homosexuals at a time when the relationship of forces in the parliament was unfavourable. Portuguese society was not ready to discuss this, they argued, and theretore a debate on this issue would only whip up more homophobic feelings. They also argued that the references to 'family' in the Portuguese constitution referred only to heterosexual households.
Portuguese lesbians and gay men are used to the homophobic positions of the Communist Party's leaders so this was nothing new. But it still made the homosexual movement very angry. Not only was the PCP willing to sacrifice this "minority', but it defended itself by promising to propose a special law just on homosexual partnerships. Legislation that - according to the PCP's own arguments - would never be approved because it was only about homosexuals.
In fact, it was clear that the PCP would never bring forward such a project and was being dishonest in saying so. Its voters are too conservative to support such legislation. But in any case, Portuguese gays and lesbians did not want an specific law when they could be included in a general law on "de facto unions'.
The far left Socialist Revolutionary Party (PSR) was the first organization to put forward queer issues in Portuguese politics, at the beginning of the 1990s. At that time, there wasn't a single gay or lesbian organization, let alone a movement. The PSR is still the only political party that takes up lesbian and gay issues as part of its overall platform. This gives the party a very good position inside the movement. From the rest of the left, gays and lesbians expect nothing but silence. (After years of implementing neo-liberal policies, the Socialist Party lost the right even to be considered left.)
The right wing and the church have presented fundamentalist arguments. They falsely suggested that this was a debate about lesbian and gay marriage and raised the spectre of the destruction of the family in a profoundly homo-
The church hierarchy started appearing on television and making statements to the press saying that - like homosexuals - the law was 'an aberration'. If it were to be passed, they claimed, it would mean the end of family values and civilised society' as we know it.
In the end the Communists' project was defeated. The Socialist Youth with-
VIEWPOINT social
ecological teminist anti-militarist democratic CIVIC a different Europe
AGAINST
A Marxist and feminist analysis of the
European Union.
From taxation to transport policy, the
International Viewpoint team analyse and explain the process of capitalist integration of Europe, and the costs involved for working people, women and youth.
We ask what alternative policies the left can put forward, and make a few modest suggestions of our own. *
Price: E1/S2 plus 10% postage charge for orders of 1-4 copies. Order from your local agent, or directly from International Viewpoint
PO Box 27410, London SW9 9NQ, Britain
<international_Viewpoint@compuserve.com> International Viewpoint #308 February 1999 & 27
----- photo credits and running heads -----
D
"Gay Marriage?"
drew their proposal before the discussion began in parliament, when they realised that not even a majority of Socialist Party deputies would vote for it. So in the end no measures were passed that would take forward partnership rights even a little. The failure of the lesbian and gay movement
But what was perhaps more worrying was the failure of the lesbian and gay movement to answer adequately the arguments put forward by their bigoted
There were two main reasons for this. The queer movement in Portugal only developed recently and is still extremely small. The level of organisation and political debate is chronically low.
There are only active organizations. One of them is very small and unrepresentative. The second, ILGA Portugal, is lacking in politics and democratic discussion. The group has existed for three years and has many militants. although its base is very heterogeneous, it is very close to some sectors of the