USA: California governor signs law prohibiting schools from informing parents about students changing pronouns

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law Monday prohibiting schools from informing parents when students change their pronouns in school. The Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth (SAFETY) Act also imposes responsibilities on the State Department of Education to develop resources to “increase support for LGBTQ pupils.”

According to the California legislature’s LGBTQ caucus, the SAFETY Act is necessary to prevent school boards from outing the gender identity of students. In July 2023 several schools passed so-called “forced outing” policies, which required teachers to notify parents if their child identifies as transgender. The SAFETY Act bans that practice, standardizing the obligations of teachers across California. The bill enjoyed broad support from LGBTQ groups as well as the California Teachers Association, a large teachers union in the state.

Though the SAFETY Act enjoyed support in California’s legislature, it is not without its critics. The California Policy Center, a think tank generally critical of California’s Democratic government, suggested that the law amounts to an unfair infringement on parental rights. They claim that, “while it is certainly prudent to protect the privacy of a child from the public… children do not have a right to privacy that transcends their parents’ well-established rights.”

In response to this sort of worry, proponents of the law have argue that parental rights need not require teachers inform parents about their children. Instead, they write, a student’s gender identity “is generally a matter to be discussed between the child and their parents in the … manner chosen by the family.”

The post California governor signs law prohibiting schools from informing parents about students changing pronouns appeared first on JURIST – News.

US Second Circuit remits an equality law exemption application to district court

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Friday that Emilee Carpenter, a religious wedding photographer seeking an exemption to the New York Human Rights Law under the First Amendment, had enough factual basis for a claim and could proceed to the district court.

Carpenter sought a preliminary injunction for the New York law from the court because she wanted to express her beliefs under the First Amendment that marriage should only be between a man and a woman within her business, thereby denying to photograph same-sex marriages.

The district court had previously dismissed the suit for a failure to state a claim. However, following the 303 Creative LLC v Elenis decision from the US Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that the New York Human Rights Law and New York Civil Rights Law compelled Carpenter’s speech, and will be further remanded to the district court to consider a preliminary injunction and the implications of her other business activities, such as her marketing blog, to see if that also qualifies as compelled speech under the First Amendment.

The court also noted that “What 303 Creative did is clarify and reaffirm that in highly specific factual circumstances, a public accommodations law can be ‘applied peculiarly to compel expressive activity,’ thereby violating the First Amendment.” This ruling does not broadly allow businesses to deny patronage to same-sex couples unless the First Amendment is implicated.

Three provisions of the New York Human Rights Law are at issue because “place of accommodation, resort or amusement” includes any entity that provides a good or service, such as wedding photography. Failing to abide by the New York Human Rights Law is a misdemeanor. Members of a protected class who feel their civil rights have been violated have a cause of action against Carpenter in civil court as well.

The Accommodations Clause makes it unlawful for a place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement, to refuse accommodations or facilities to people in protected classes such as religion, sex, or sexual orientation. The Denial Clause makes it unlawful for public accommodations to publish or circulate any advertisement that the service will be refused to the individual on the grounds of a protected class. The Unwelcome Clause makes it unlawful for providers of public accommodations to publish or provide a notice that people in a protected class patronage are not welcome or acceptable.

The New York Civil Rights Law states that no person shall be “subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights, or to any harassment . . . in the exercise thereof, by any other person or by any firm, corporation or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.”

Previously in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the US Supreme Court stated that a wedding website designer in Colorado could deny the patrons who are in same-sex marriages from using their services because a state law compelled the designer’s speech under the First Amendment.

The post US Second Circuit remits an equality law exemption application to district court appeared first on JURIST – News.

Germany: Schleswig-Holstein Higher Regional Court: Civil registry office must recognise trans man as father

Germany: Schleswig-Holstein Higher Regional Court: Civil registry office must recognise trans man as father

Schleswig-Holstein: Oberlandesgericht: Standesamt muss trans Vater als Vater anerkennen

Das Standesamt Flensburg wollte einen Mann wegen seiner Transidentität nicht als Vater eines Kindes anerkennen. Das war nicht okay, urteilte jetzt das Oberlandesgericht.

Das Oberlandesgericht Schleswig ist die ist die höchste Instanz der ordentlichen Gerichtsbarkeit in Schleswig-Holstein (Bild: liebeslakritze / flickr)

• Gestern, 16:02h 3 Min.

Das in der Stadt Schleswig ansässige schleswig-holsteinische Oberlandesgericht hat klargestellt, dass ein trans Mann als Vater eines Kindes eingetragen werden könne, auch wenn dieser zuvor seinen Geschlechtseintrag von weiblich auf männlich geändert hat und eine biologische Abstammung nicht vorliegt. Das teilte das Gericht am Freitag mit (Az. 2 Wx 11/24).

Im vorliegenden Fall geht es um ein Paar, das 2015 eine gleich­geschlechtliche Lebenspartnerschaft begründet hatte. Kurz nach der Verpartnerung outete sich der heutige Ehemann als trans. 2017 wurde sein Geschlechtseintrag auf männlich geändert. Im Frühjahr 2023 heiratete das Paar schließlich – im Herbst brachte die Ehefrau ein Kind zur Welt, das durch eine Samenspende ermöglicht worden war.

Der Ehemann beantragte dann beim Standesamt Flensburg die Eintragung als Vater des Kindes. Das Amt stellte sich aber quer und wandte sich an das Amtsgericht Flensburg. Dieses ordnete die Eintragung des Vaters als Vater an, wogegen das Standesamt dann eine Beschwerde erhob, die zurückgewiesen wurde. Wegen der grundsätzlichen Bedeutung des Falls wurde eine weitere Beschwerde beim Oberlandesgericht zugelassen, das nun die Entscheidung der Vorinstanz bestätigte.

Das Oberlandesgericht erklärte, dass Paragraf 1592 des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches angewendet werden müsste, in dem es schlicht heißt: “Vater ist der Mann, der zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt des Kindes mit der Mutter verheiratet ist.” Die Entscheidung zur Änderung des Geschlechtseintrags und des Vornamens seien zur Geburt bereits wirksam gewesen, so dass der Antragsteller als Mann anzusehen sei.

Eine Spezialvorschrift aus dem Transsexuellengesetz, wonach das Rechtsverhältnis zwischen Antragsteller und seinen Kindern nicht verändert werden dürfe, sei hier nicht anzuwenden. Denn diese Vorschrift, so der Senat, betreffe nur Konstellationen, in denen entweder der trans Mann vor der Entscheidung über die Änderung der Geschlechtszugehörigkeit bereits eine Eltern-Kind-Rechtsbeziehung innegehabt habe oder in denen es um Kinder geht, die erst nach der Entscheidung über die Änderung der Geschlechtszugehörigkeit genetisch von der trans Person abstammten bzw. von ihr auf die Welt gebracht worden seien.

Dem Kind entstünden keine Nachteile, wenn der trans Mann als Mann behandelt werde. Vielmehr würde es nach Ansicht des Gerichts Nachteile erleiden, wenn an den vormals weiblichen Geschlechtseintrag angeknüpft würde. Dabei zitierte das Gericht Artikel 6 des Grundgesetzes, wonach einem Kind Pflege und Erziehung durch beide Elternteile ermöglichen solle.

Das unter trans Menschen verhasste Transsexuellengesetz aus dem Jahr 1981 wird zum 1. November durch das Selbstbestimmungsgesetz abgelöst (queer.de berichtete). Die Ampel-Koalition plant derzeit außerdem Vereinfachungen im Abstammungsrecht (queer.de berichtete).

Die klagenden Eltern erklärten in einer vor dem Verfahren angelegten Gofundme-Seite, dass der Ehemann inzwischen offiziell als Vater anerkannt worden sei: “Das Standesamt Flensburg hat […] beschlossen, es gut sein zu lassen und keine Beschwerde beim Bundesverfassungsgericht einzureichen, obwohl sie ja eine höchstrichterliche Entscheidung angestrebt haben”, heißt es in einem Eintrag vom Donnerstag. “Wir sind einfach unglaublich dankbar, dass es nun ein Ende hat. Wir haben gekämpft. Nicht nur für uns, sondern für alle anderen, die nach uns kommen.” (dk)

Source: https://www.queer.de/detail.php?article_id=50231&pk_campaign=Nwsl

Aruba and Curaçao: Supreme Court of the Netherlands rejects challenges to same-sex marriage

This afternoon (12 July 2024) the Netherlands Supreme Court in The Hague (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) rejected the final appeals by the government of Curaçao and the government of Aruba in two same-sex marriage cases brought in these semi-dependent countries within the “Kingdom of the Netherlands”. This means that same-sex couples can now get married in the Country of Aruba and in the Country of Curaçao. The only jurisdiction within the “Kingdom of the Netherlands” where same-sex marriage remains unavailable for now, is the Country of Sint Maarten.

The official summary of the Court’s two judgments and links to these judgements are available (only in Dutch) at https://www.hogeraad.nl/actueel/nieuwsoverzicht/2024/juli/hoge-raad-beslissing-hof-aruba-curacao-huwelijk-open-stellen-personen.

Japan High Court approves non-surgically confirmed female identification of transgender woman

Japan’s Hiroshima High Court approved on Wednesday the gender change of a transgender woman who did not undergo the legally required gender confirmation surgery.

While the transgender woman was registered as a male on the family registry, she identified herself as a female. She faced legal challenges as Japanese law required individuals to meet certain conditions if they wished to change their gender on the family registry. For example, the Act on Special Cases in Handling Gender Status for Persons with Gender Identity Disorder previously required individuals to undergo surgery to eliminate reproductive functions and modify genital appearances to ensure the individuals’ appearances aligned with their registered genders.

The court questioned the constitutionality of the mandatory surgery requirement, noting that unconstitutionality may be present if surgery is always necessary for individuals to change their legal gender. The court acknowledged that forcing individuals to either undergo gender confirmation surgery or not to change their legal gender may constitute a violation of the Japanese Constitution. The court also stated that the transgender woman was allowed to change her legal gender to female without undergoing gender confirmation surgery as she had become sufficiently feminine through hormone treatment.

The transgender woman’s lawyer Kazuyuki Minami said that the court’s ruling laid out a framework for determining gender change requirements and that this would impact future rulings in Japanese family courts.

Critics of the decision to eliminate the surgery requirement for gender change expressed strong opposition. The Association to Protect Women’s Space asserted that male genitals do not become complete female genitals through hormone treatment. The association also said that a law should be enforced that disallows individuals with male genitals from using female spaces.

Similarly, the Association to Protect the Gender Identity Disorder Special Law expressed that legal gender change should only be granted if the individual undergoes gender confirmation surgery. The association stated that the ruling may cause confusion in society and adversely affect legal discussions.

Public awareness of sexual minority rights has been growing in Japan, the only G7 country that has not legalized same-sex marriages or civil unions. On October 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of Japan made a landmark ruling in which it held that a law requiring transgender people to be sterilized to legally change their gender was unconstitutional. In June 2023, Japan’s national legislature enforced a law stating that all citizens regardless of gender identity are to be respected as individuals with human rights.

The post Japan High Court approves non-surgically confirmed female identification of transgender woman appeared first on JURIST – News.

ECHR finds Russia custody agreement termination of trans person breached human rights convention

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Tuesday that Russia’s termination of a foster parents’ custody agreement due to the foster parent’s sexual and gender identity violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The court determined that the right to privacy of family life, as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, prohibited Russia from lawfully terminating the custody agreement between the state and applicant Yulia Savinovskikh due to Savinovskikh’s gender status.

Savinovskikh gained custody of two foster children between 2014 and 2016 before Russian authorities requested they be voluntarily returned to the state in 2017. After Savinovskikh refused to surrender the children, the custody agreement was terminated and the children were removed from his care.

The ECHR determined that the termination of the custody and care agreement was primarily due to the applicants’ change of gender and sexual identity and did not arise from any evidence that Savinovskikh was not fit to care for the children nor evidence-backed concerns that the children’s wellbeing would be affected by Savinovskikh’s transition. The court also found that the Russian officials gave insufficient consideration for the interests of those involved, including the children. As the court found a violation of Article 8 of the convention could be established, the majority did not find it necessary to separately determine whether Article 14, related to protection against discrimination, had been violated.

Russia withdrew from the European Convention of Human Rights in September 2022, though the ECHR determined it had the authority to decide this case as the events concerned took place prior to the withdrawal when the state was still obliged to abide by the Articles of the convention.

Russia has been widely condemned for its limited protections of LGBTQ individuals, with a 2024 report by the non-governmental organisation ILGA-Europe ranking Russia as lowest amongst all European states for legislative developments in the area of LGBT rights. Russia’s departure from the convention is one of many recent developments within the state that have decreased the legal protections and social acceptance of LGBT individuals. Earlier this year the state faced harsh criticism internationally after a Russian financial watchdog referred to the LGBT movement as a “terrorist organisation”, only months after the Russian Supreme Court labelled the LGBT movement as “extremist”.

The court ordered Russia to pay €7 500 ($8 120) in damages and €5000 ($5  413) in costs to Savinovskikh. In a partial dissent, Judge  Serghides also found that the children ought to receive compensation as victims of the breach, however, this view was ultimately not reflected in the majority decision.

The post ECHR finds Russia custody agreement termination of trans person breached human rights convention appeared first on JURIST – News.

UK: Christian social worker refused job due to [homophobic] views says he will appeal judgment

An employment tribunal has produced a mixed ruling after Felix Ngole claimed he was discriminated against by a health charity.

Dave Higgens 1 July 2024

A Christian social worker who was rejected for a job after a health charity discovered his views on homosexuality has vowed to appeal after an employment tribunal upheld part of his claim but ruled he was not discriminated against by the failure to employ him.

Felix Ngole, 46, told a hearing in Leeds in April that Touchstone Leeds discriminated against him because of his religious beliefs when they refused him the job as a hospital discharge mental health support worker, based in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, in 2022.

More: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/felix-ngole-christian-sheffield-university-leeds-court-of-appeal-b2571961.html

Guatemala Constitutional Court imposes restrictions on LGBTQ+ Pride Parade

Guatemala Constitutional Court issued a ruling Friday requiring public security authorities to supervise the LGBTQ+ Pride Parade to ensure it conforms to “good customs.” This decision came in response to a legal challenge filed by lawyer Roberto Cano, who claimed the parade contains “immoral, sexual, and depraved scenes contrary to the moral and integral development of children.”

The Court’s ruling, announced in a statement on Friday, granted Cano’s request for a provisional injunction. It directed President Bernardo Arévalo, the Minister of Interior, and public security authorities to implement appropriate surveillance measures.

In line with this decision, the Court exhorted parade organizers and participants to exercise their rights peacefully and in accordance with “good customs,” specifically mentioning concern about the best interests of children. The Human Rights Ombudsman was also instructed to oversee compliance with these measures.

The Parade Organizing Committee swiftly responded to the Court’s ruling, issuing a statement that confirmed the parade would proceed as planned. They denounced the decision as “an attack on the rights of freedom of expression, demonstration, and association of all people, based on hate speech, prejudice, intolerance, and ignorance.” The Committee also expressed concern over the Guatemalan state’s apparent lack of a clear stance in favor of human rights for all individuals, including LGBTIQ+ people, and indicated they were considering legal action against the Court’s decision.

There is tension between the Court’s ruling and international human rights standards. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly, stated that restrictions on peaceful assemblies for the protection of “morals” should be rare. The Committee emphasized that such justifications should not be based on conceptions of morality derived exclusively from a single social, philosophical, or religious tradition, and cannot be imposed in opposition to expressions of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The controversy surrounding the Pride Parade occurs against the backdrop of Guatemala’s complex political and social landscape. President Bernardo Arévalo, who took office earlier this year, had promised the LGBTIQ+ community protection from discriminatory acts and pledged to combat hate speech. However, Guatemala continues to grapple with anti-LGBTIQ+ discourse and a hostile environment for this community. This is evidenced by the increase in hate crimes, with the Observatory for Violent Deaths of Lambda reporting at least 34 such crimes in 2023, a 15% increase from previous years.

The post Guatemala Constitutional Court imposes restrictions on LGBTQ+ Pride Parade appeared first on JURIST – News.

LGBTQ+ at Work – Unveiling the European Parliament’s Archives and Commitments

This new online exhibit explores documents from the European Parliament (EP) between 1987 and 2003 relevant to LGBTQ+ rights. It provides fascinating insights into some of the inner workings of the Parliament, and illustrates the mechanisms citizens have used to make their voices heard at the European level.

More: https://archives.eui.eu/en/audio_visual/exhibitions/28/exhibition_pages/49