On 3 March 2021 the German Federal Government adopted its LGBTI Inclusion Strategy to promote the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people (LGBTI) in foreign policy and development cooperation
The text can be found here: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/2445310/f2e5b24810f9c8870ce9ad2602b34bea/210226-inklusionskonzept-pdf-data.pdf
United Nations Free & Equal : Stand Up for LGBTIQ+ Migrants!
| Dear friends, United Nations Free & Equal is launching a new mini-campaign today, this time focusing on the lives and experiences of those of us who are often left unheard – LGBTIQ+ migrants. For many LGBTIQ+ people, leaving their communities in search of a safer and more welcoming place to call home is the only way to find a job, get access to healthcare or find safety from poverty, family rejection, criminalization, threats and violence. For some, this means moving from a small town to the big city. For others, it can require moving from one part of the world to another – surviving a dangerous journey and staggering odds in order to try to find a place where they can live openly as their true selves. But discrimination doesn’t always stop upon arrival at their destination. Many continue to face prejudice, harassment and violence both based on where they were born as well as based on their sexual orientation, gender identity/expression or sex characteristics. Unable to find a community where they are truly accepted, LGBTIQ+ migrants often struggle with loneliness, helplessness and depression. Even everyday acts that most of us take for granted, such as going to the doctor or opening a bank account, can be dangerous for those who are undocumented because they can lead to deportation or imprisonment. For those who also face marginalization for other reasons, such as their race, ethnicity, age, gender, disabilities, religion or other characteristics, the situation can get even more precarious. Every human being deserves the freedom to simply be themselves, without facing violence and discrimination. Together we can create a future free from prejudice, where everyone truly belongs – no matter who they are, whom they love or where they come from. Help us spread these stories of determination and resilience by sharing our latest videos with the people in your life! In solidarity, Team UN Free & Equal and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) |
Male Rape in Armed Conflicts: Why We Should Talk About It
By Saipira Furstenberg | 1st July 2014
Sexual violence represents one of the most serious forms of violation of an individual’s human rights. Although statistics for sexual violence against women are significantly higher than for men, it should not be forgotten that rape not only affects the female
population, but is also a concern for many men and boys who have been exposed to it, particularly in warfare conflicts.
The issue of sexual assault of men and boys on the current global agenda is not raised nearly enough, and remains largely underreported. The cultural barriers to recognising and addressing male sexual abuse are currently under-researched, and remain
primarily a taboo topic. In addition, the lack of widespread institutional recognition of male rape, combined with feminist movements, defining sexual violence as exclusively a women’s issue, has resulted in the failure to include this section of the population in policy and research agendas of governments, donor agencies and academic institutions. This framework has created a lack of attention to male victims in sexual abuse scenarios. Most of the international and national institutions barely acknowledge sexual violence against men that occurs in armed conflicts.
Because the topic of male rape in our often male- dominated culture remains largely unaddressed, there is little understanding about the issue and hence it is considered for many to be an unmentionable subject. As a result, cases of reporting such abuse
remain rarer than those for women, mainly because of shame and fear of stigmatisation.
Research focusing on male sexual violence also reveals that there is a lack of adequate services in place to respond to the victim’s needs. A study carried out in 2002 notes that out of 4076 non-governmental organizations that worked in the area of war rape
and other forms of political and sexual violence, only 3% mentioned sexual violence against men and boys ‘in their programs and informational literature’. Similarly, there are reports that many international initiatives, while addressing the issue of war rape, lack clear understanding and consensus around the topic in general, and as such remain poorly designed for addressing war rape abuses against men and boys in particular. In the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict (September, 2013), there is only one line mentioning that men and boys are also subject to sexual violence. In many of the UN’s key documents, sexual violence is considered solely as a gender issue involving only women and girls. This reflects the lack of mobilisation and understanding by the UN agencies, governments and NGOs on the topic of sexual violence perpetuated against men and boys in conflict zones.
There is a need to address causes of sexual violence and to create greater emergency responses. For our society to end sexual violence around the world, organisations such as the UN should first recognise that men can be as vulnerable as women. It should
not be forgotten that although there is a higher prevalence of sexual violence against women in war zones, ultimately both form part of the gender dimension of conflict. The need to put more emphasis on men and boys as victims of sexual violence in the UN
Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict can perhaps be the first starting point. It is insufficient simply to state that ‘men and boys are also subject to sexual violence’. There is indeed a need to create awareness not only about women’s rights, but more generally about human rights. Only then can we start to break down the wall of silence and adopt proper strategies to bring change in this field.
Saipira Furstenberg is a Doctoral Researcher at the Research Centre for Eastern European Studies at the University of Bremen, Germany. Her current research is focused on the topic of transparency within authoritarian regimes
Source: “Male Rape in Armed Conflicts: Why We Should Talk About It”_2014. Global Perspectives on Human Rights. Oxford Human Rights Hub. Oxford University Press. 253-254.
European Union: Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-490/20 – V.M.A. v Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’
Opinion of the Advocate General in the case C-490/20
Stolichna obshtina, rayon “Pancharevo”
Citizenship of the Union
With regard to the recognition in the European Union of the parentage of a child of a married same-sex couple, Advocate General Kokott recommends that a balance be struck between the national identity of the Member States and the right to freedom of movement of the child and of his or her parents
The full text of the Opinion is available here (only in French): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62020CC0490&from=en
With regard to the recognition in the European Union of the parentage of a child of a
married same-sex couple, Advocate General Kokott recommends that a balance be
struck between the national identity of the Member States and the right to freedom
of movement of the child and of his or her parents More specifically, a Member State must recognise the parentage of a child for the purposes of the exercise of the rights conferred by EU law on European Union citizens. It may, by contrast, rely on its national identity and its concept of a traditional family in order to refuse to recognise that
parental relationship for the purpose of drawing up a birth certificate in accordance with its national law The dispute concerns a married couple consisting of two women, one of whom, V.M.A., is a Bulgarian national, while the other is a national of the United Kingdom; they had a child in Spain, their Member State of residence. In the birth certificate issued by the Spanish authorities, the two women are designated as ‘mothers’ of the child.
V.M.A. therefore applied to the competent Bulgarian authority to issue her with a birth certificate for her daughter, a document which is necessary for the issuing of a Bulgarian identity document, mentioning the two women as parents. The municipality of Sofia (Bulgaria), however, requested her to indicate which of the two spouses is the biological mother, stating that the model Bulgarian birth certificate provides only one box for the ‘mother’ and another for the ‘father’, and that each of those boxes may include only one name. Following V.M.A.’s refusal to supply the requested
information, that authority rejected her application.
That rejection is based, according to the municipality of Sofia, on the absence of information concerning the biological mother and on the fact that the registration of two female parents in a birth certificate is contrary to the public policy of Bulgaria, which does not authorise marriages between persons of the same sex. V.M.A. brought an action against that decision before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia).
That court essentially asks the Court of Justice whether the refusal of the national authorities to register the birth of a Bulgarian child which occurred in another Member State and is attested by a birth certificate in which that Member State designates two mothers is contrary to EU law.
As a preliminary point, Advocate General Juliane Kokott notes that, contrary to what the national court states, it cannot be asserted with certainty that the child is a Bulgarian national. That assertion was contested by the Bulgarian Government, given that Bulgarian nationality is acquired automatically by any person who has at least one Bulgarian parent, whereas in the present case the identity of the biological mother is not known.
The Advocate General states that, even if the child is not a Bulgarian national and is therefore not a European Union citizen, the situation does not fall outside the scope of EU law. In that case, the question remains whether a European Union citizen, V.M.A., who has exercised her right of free movement and has become the mother of a child with her wife pursuant to the law of another Member State, may request that her Member State of origin recognise that situation and issue a birth certificate designating the two women as the child’s parents.
Next, Advocate General Kokott points out that EU law does not govern the rules relating to the establishment of a person’s civil status and, in particular, his or her parentage. Member States must nevertheless exercise their powers in that regard in compliance with EU law. She notes that the right to freedom of movement in the European Union includes the right to lead a normal family life in both the host Member State and the Member State of origin of an EU citizen. In the present case, V.M.A. and her wife validly acquired the status of parents of the child pursuant to Spanish law and they lead an effective family life with their daughter in Spain. The absence of recognition of
those family relationships would, however, create serious obstacles to a family life in Bulgaria, even to the point of deterring V.M.A. from returning to her country of origin.
The same considerations apply to the situation of the child, provided that she is Bulgarian and thus enjoys the status of an EU citizen. Moreover, pursuant to Bulgarian law, the issuing of a birth certificate is a prerequisite for the issuing of a Bulgarian identity document: a refusal to issue it would therefore undermine the effective exercise of the child’s right to freedom of movement.
The Advocate General is therefore of the view that the refusal of the Bulgarian authorities to draw up the requested birth certificate constitutes an impediment to the rights which EU law confers on V.M.A. and, in so far as her child is a Bulgarian national, on that child.
Next, the Advocate General verifies whether the national identity relied on by Bulgaria may justify that refusal. According to that Member State, the adverse effect on the national identity lies in the fact that the requested birth certificate disregards the concept of a ‘traditional’ family affirmed by the Bulgarian Constitution, which, in that Member State’s view, necessarily means that a child can have only one mother (or father). The Advocate General considers that family law is the expression of a State’s self-image on both the political and social levels. The definition of family relationships
for the purposes of domestic family law is therefore liable to form part of the fundamental expression of a Member State’s national identity. This means that a restriction of the intensity of the Court’s review is necessary in order to preserve the existence of areas of substantive powers reserved to the Member States. Consequently, in so far as that essence of national identity is at issue, reliance on that identity may not be subject to a review as to its proportionality.
Nevertheless, according to the Advocate General, the obligation to recognise the family
relationships established in Spain for the sole purpose of applying the EU secondary law1) relating to the freedom of movement of citizens does not alter the concept of parentage or marriage under Bulgarian family law; nor does it lead to the introduction of new concepts.
Consequently, such an obligation does not threaten the fundamental expression of national identity, while removing a significant number of the obstacles to freedom of movement, such as the uncertainties surrounding the right of residence of the child’s British mother or the possibility for that mother to move freely with the child. Having regard to the limited impact of that obligation on the Bulgarian legal order, the refusal to recognise the parentage of the child as regards V.M.A. and her wife for those purposes goes beyond what is necessary to preserve the objectives relied on by
Bulgaria.
Bulgaria thus may not refuse to recognise the parentage of the child for the purpose of
applying the EU secondary law relating to the free movement of citizens on the ground that Bulgarian law does not provide for either the institution of same-sex marriage or the maternity of the wife of a child’s biological mother. If the child is a Bulgarian national, that means, in particular, that Bulgaria must issue her with an identity document or a travel document referring to V.M.A. and her wife as the parents, in order to allow the child to travel with each of her parents individually.
1) In particular Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC,
75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.(OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-04/cp210062en.pdf (press release in English)
Latvia: Constitutional Court: Higher administrative fee for non-married couples discriminates against same-sex couples
On 8 April 2021 the Latvian Constitutional Court delivered a decision stating that the state fee for testamentary or contractual heirs, which is significantly higher for persons who are not married spouses, discriminates against same-sex couples; in particular, the Latvian state has failed providing proper protection to same sex families.
Case No 2020-34-03
On Compliance of Para 13 of the Cabinet Regulation of 27 October 2009 No. 1250 “Regulation Regarding State Fee for Registering Ownership Rights and Pledge Rights in the Land Register” with Article 91, Article 105 and Article 110 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia Adjudicated Applicant: Tiesībsargs Date of the judgment: 08.04.2021. Official publication: 12.04.2021.
USA: Arizona House passes opt-in requirement for gender and sexuality school education
The Arizona House of Representatives passed SB 1456 Bill on Wednesday, which requires parental permission before school districts provide gender and sexuality related education to school children. The bill, sponsored by Republican Senator Nancy Barto, was approved 16-14 by the Arizona Senate last month and now passed the Arizona House with a vote of 31-28.
In its move to strengthen parental rights over children, the bill modifies the requirements and prohibitions surrounding sex education instruction in schools. It also places a complete ban on providing any sex education-related instruction to pupils before grade 5. Section one requires the school governing board to notify the parents in advance about any instruction relating to sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression which it decides to give to its pupils. Section two states that such instruction can ultimately only be provided if parents give their written and signed consent by opting-in for their children.
Section two furthermore provides parents with the right to review sex education curricula which shall be used while providing sex education instruction, while section three obligates the school district or school to make the curricula available to parents, either online or in-person, at least two weeks before offering any sex education instruction. The bill additionally makes a similar opt-in requirement mandatory for any instruction to a pupil on the subject of AIDS or HIV, while again vesting with the parents a similar right to receive a description of the course curriculum to be used for AIDS or HIV instruction.
The bill now goes to Republican Governor Doug Ducey to be signed into law.
The post Arizona House passes opt-in requirement for gender and sexuality school education appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
USA: Florida House passes bill prohibiting transgender student athletes from female designated teams and sports
The Florida House of Representatives passed HB 1475 Bill on Wednesday, requiring public institutions to designate athletic teams and sports based on “biological sex.”
The bill, which passed the House with a vote of 77-40, inserts Section 1006.205, titled “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” into Chapter 1006 of the Florida Statutes 2018. This, in effect, bans the participation of transgender female athletes either as part of an athletic team designated as a “female team” or in any sport designated as a “female sport.”
The insertion requires the designation of athletic teams and sports based on biological sex into one of the following three categories: males, men, or boys; females, women, or girls; or coed or mixed. It states that the athletic teams and sports “designated for females, women, or girls, may not be open to students of the male sex.” In its move to designate sex-specific athletic teams and sports and with the intent “to maintain [equal] opportunities for female athletes,” the bill allows physical examination of a student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup or testosterone levels, should there arise any dispute regarding a student’s sex.
Kara Gloss from the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida reacting to the vote stated:
Transgender athletes have the right to participate in school sports. They have a right to find a sense of belonging and to be part of a team . . . [the bill compromises] the health, social and emotional development, and safety of trans students. If passed into law, [it] would alienate trans students, embolden discriminatory behaviors from staff and other students and make for hostile school environments.
The bill is now pending approval from the Florida Senate. If approved by the Senate and subsequently signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis, it would take effect on July 1, 2021.
The post Florida House passes bill prohibiting transgender student athletes from female designated teams and sports appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
I am looking forwards to teaching the first course on Sexuality, Gender Identity and International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law as a visiting professor at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com Next Tuesday the course will start in the framework of the LLM in […]
I am looking forwards to teaching the first course on “Sexuality, Gender Identity and International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law” as a visiting professor at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law — Andreas R. Ziegler
Cameroon security forces cracking down on LGBT people, Human Rights Watch says
Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Wednesday said that Cameroonian security forces, in a crackdown on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, have threatened, arrested, and assaulted at least 24 since February.
Among the arrested persons, at least one has been subjected to HIV testing and anal examination. Both the Cameroonian Penal Code and the Law Relating to Cybersecurity and Cybercriminality criminalize homosexual acts and propositions. Under section 347-1 of the penal code, sexual relations between people of the same sex are penalized with six months to five years of imprisonment and payment of a fine.
According to Cameroonian non-governmental organizations, there has been increased police action against LGBT people in the country. On February 24, the police invaded a center that provides HIV prevention and treatment services, and arrested 17 people, who were accused of homosexuality, including center staff. One of those arrested, a 22-year-old transgender woman, said, “Police told us we are devils, not humans, not normal. They beat a trans woman in the face, slapped her twice in front of me.”
There have also been instances where prosecutors have introduced medical evidence from forced anal examinations, which have led to increased convictions based on homosexual conduct.
HRW documented two additional arrests in 2021 and one mass arrest in 2020. In Bertoua, on February 14, gendarmes arrested 12 youths, including at least one teenager, on homosexuality charges, and subjected them to ill-treatment before releasing them the same day. On February 8, gendarmes arbitrarily arrested two transgender women in Douala, targeting them in the street based on their gender expression. They were charged with homosexual conduct, lack of identity cards, and public indecency. In May, the police in Bafoussam arrested 53 people on homosexuality charges at a hotel gathering hosted by an LGBT organization, and subjected at least 6, including minors, to forced anal examinations and HIV tests.
“These recent arrests and abuses raise serious concerns about a new upsurge in anti-LGBT persecution in Cameroon,” said Neela Ghoshal, HRW’s associate LGBT rights director. “The law criminalizing same-sex conduct puts LGBT people at a heightened risk of being mistreated, tortured, and assaulted without any consequences for the abusers.”
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides for non-discrimination and equality before the law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Cameroon is a party, also protects the rights to equality, non-discrimination, and privacy.
HRW shared its findings with the relevant Cameroonian government officials but is yet to receive a response.
The post Cameroon security forces cracking down on LGBT people, Human Rights Watch says appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
Mutter, Mutter, Kind?!
by Berit Völzmann (https://verfassungsblog.de/mutter-mutter-kind/)
Es geht ein Ruck durch das Abstammungsrecht. Gleich zwei Gerichte haben am 24. März 2021 dem Bundesverfassungsgericht die Frage vorgelegt, ob das geltende, mehrheitlich biologistisch verstandene Abstammungsrecht mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar ist. Beide Fälle betreffen die rechtliche Elternschaft zweier miteinander verheirateter Frauen, deren Kind mittels anonymer Samenspende gezeugt wurde – und könnten der Auftakt für ein grundlegendes Umdenken rechtlicher Elternschaft sein.
Wird ein Kind in eine Ehe hinein geboren, so werden die Eheleute Eltern des Kindes (vgl. §§ 1591, 1592 Nr. 1 BGB). Voraussetzung dafür ist jedoch, dass es sich bei den Eheleuten um eine Frau und einen Mann handelt (§ 1592 Nr. 1 BGB). Ist die gebärende Frau mit einer nicht-männlichen Person verheiratet (Geschlechtseintrag weiblich, divers oder ohne Geschlechtseintrag), erhält das Kind nicht automatisch bei Geburt zwei Elternteile, sondern nur einen: die gebärende Person (Mutter nach § 1591 BGB). Der zweite Elternteil ist für die Begründung der rechtlichen Elternschaft auf die Stiefkindadoption verwiesen – ein Verfahren, bei dem die gesamte Familie einer umfassenden behördlichen und gerichtlichen Prüfung unterzogen wird und das zudem frühestens sechs Monate nach Geburt des Kindes begonnen werden kann. Dies hat der BGH zuletzt 2018 bestätigt. Deutschlandweit stellen das nun mehrere Familien gerichtlich in Frage: Sie fordern Rechtssicherheit für sich und ihre Kinder und halten den Zwang zur Durchführung eines Adoptionsverfahrens für diskriminierend und unzumutbar.
Zwei Gerichte haben sich nun (im Ergebnis) der Argumentation der Antragsstellerinnen angeschlossen und damit ausdrücklich gegen die Auffassung des BGH gestellt: Sie halten die zivilrechtlichen Abstammungsregelungen für verfassungswidrig und haben die Fälle dem Bundesverfassungsgericht vorgelegt. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommen sie mit unterschiedlicher Begründung – einmal im Schwerpunkt freiheits- und einmal ausschließlich gleichheitsrechtlich.
Der 21. Zivilsenat des Oberlandesgerichts Celle (Az. 21 UF 146/20) argumentiert, dass die fehlende gesetzliche Regelung einer „Mit-Mutterschaft“ die mit der Geburtsmutter verheiratete Ehefrau in ihrem verfassungsrechtlich geschützten Elternrecht aus Art. 6 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG verletzt. Das Recht und die Pflicht zur Pflege und Erziehung der Kinder beruhe nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts darauf, dass die Eltern dem Kind das Leben gegeben haben und ihm sozial und familiär verbunden sind. Diese grundlegenden Begründungselemente zum Elternrecht ließen sich ohne Weiteres auf gleichgeschlechtliche Ehegatten und Partner*innen übertragen, die ein Kind mit den Methoden der Reproduktionsmedizin empfangen haben. Elterliche Rechte und Pflichten ergeben sich daher nach der Ansicht des Senats nicht nur für leibliche Eltern, sondern – in Fällen der Zeugung des Kindes im Wege einer anonymen Keimzellenspende – auch für die Partnerin der Mutter (Rn. 91). Entscheidend sei, dass auch diese im Einverständnis mit der Mutter für das aus der künstlichen Befruchtung hervorgehende Kind dauerhaft und unauflöslich Verantwortung übernehmen wolle. Neben der Samenspende seien auch der gemeinsame Entschluss und die Erklärungen beider Partnerinnen im Rahmen der medizinisch unterstützten Fortpflanzung notwendige Voraussetzung dafür, dass neues Leben entsteht. Dies begründe die Verpflichtung gegenüber dem Kind und damit zugleich das Recht, die Pflege und Erziehung des Kindes wahrnehmen zu können (Rn. 93). Zusammengefasst in den Worten des Senats: „Wie für leibliche Eltern gilt auch für die Wunscheltern, dass gerade ihnen das Wohl des Kindes mehr am Herzen liegt als irgendeiner anderen Person, einschließlich der Spendereltern […].“ (Rn. 94).
Der Senat sieht hinsichtlich des verfassungsrechtlichen Elternrechts die biologischen Zusammenhänge durch die Möglichkeiten und Entwicklungen der Fortpflanzungsmedizin weitgehend zurücktreten und die funktionalen Elemente an Bedeutung gewinnen. Eine gleichgeschlechtliche Elternschaft sei dann durch Art. 6 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG geschützt und eine zweite Frau „gleichsam […] natürliche Mutter“, wenn angesichts der faktischen Verbindung mit dem Kind, des Willens zur dauerhaften Verantwortungsübernahme und der Verbundenheit zur Austragenden die dauerhafte Übernahme der Elternfunktion zu erwarten sei (Rn. 98). Den Weg zur Begründung der Elternstellung über die Stiefkindadoption hält der Senat mit Blick auf das Eltern-Kind-Verhältnis für nicht erforderlich und zum Teil (hinsichtlich der mehrmonatigen Probezeit) auch unzumutbar (Rn. 129-133).
Neben der Verletzung der Freiheitsrechte der Ehefrau und des Kindes (auf Gewährleistung elterlicher Pflege und Erziehung aus Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG i.V.m. Art. 6 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG) sieht der Senat eine nicht gerechtfertigte Diskriminierung sowohl der Geburtsmutter als auch der Ehefrau und des Kindes nach Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG i.V.m. Art. 6 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG (Rn. 149 ff.). Da der Ehemann der Geburtsmutter kraft Gesetzes gemäß § 1592 Nr. 1 BGB Vater des Kindes werde, während die Ehefrau der Geburtsmutter nicht die zweite Elternstelle zu dem Kind erhalte, würden die Ehen von verschiedengeschlechtlichen Paaren mit Kindern und die Ehen von gleichgeschlechtlichen Paaren mit Kindern unterschiedlich behandelt. Tatsächlich bestünde aber sowohl für die verschiedengeschlechtliche Ehe wie auch für die gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe ein jeweils spezifisches Zuordnungskriterium des zweiten Elternteils zu dem Kind: Bei verschiedengeschlechtlichen Ehen sei es die Vermutung der genetischen bzw. leiblichen Abstammung, bei gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehen – aufgrund des Elternrechts des Ehegatten aus Art. 6 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG – der Willensentschluss zur medizinisch assistierten Zeugung des Kindes und die erklärte Verantwortungsübernahme (Rn. 153). Eine sachliche Rechtfertigung für die unterschiedliche Regelung sei – insbesondere aufgrund des hier anzulegenden strengen Maßstabes (Nähe zu zu Art. 3 Abs. 3 GG) – nicht zu erkennen (Rn. 155).
Die Richter*innen des 3. Zivilsenats des Berliner Kammergerichts als Senat für Familiensachen (Az. 3 UF 1122/20) begründen ihre Vorlage an das Bundesverfassungsgericht ausschließlich damit, dass eine nicht zu rechtfertigende Ungleichbehandlung des Kindes und der Ehefrau nach Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG gegenüber vergleichbaren Fällen in verschiedengeschlechtlichen Ehen vorliege (Rn. 64 ff.). Viel stärker als das OLG Celle geht das KG dabei auf die konkrete Situation der medizinisch assistierten Samenspende im Vergleich zu heterosexuellen und anderen Paaren ein. Seit Einführung des § 1600d Abs. 4 BGB im Jahr 2018 könne im Falle einer sogenannten qualifizierten Samenspende (im Wesentlichen: ärztlich unterstütze künstliche Befruchtung) der Samenspender in keinem Fall mehr als Vater festgestellt werden. Damit habe die Gesetzgebung entschieden, dass in diesen Fällen die Zuordnung eines Mannes (des Ehemannes) als Vater des Kindes von seiner biologischen Elternschaft völlig unabhängig sei. Kinder, die durch ärztlich unterstützte künstliche Befruchtung mit Hilfe eines anonymen Samenspenders gezeugt wurden, würden also ungleich behandelt, je nachdem, ob sie in einer verschiedengeschlechtlichen oder gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehe der Mutter geboren worden seien. Dies sei verfassungsrechtlich nicht zu rechtfertigen. In beiden Fällen sei die Zuordnung der rechtlichen Elternschaft völlig losgelöst von der biologischen Elternschaft.
Auch das KG ist der Ansicht, dass das Kind und die Ehefrau der Mutter auch nicht auf den Umweg einer Adoption verwiesen werden können.
Beiden Beschlüssen gemein ist, dass sie die besonderen Gleichheitsrechte außer Acht lassen. Eine Diskriminierung aufgrund des Geschlechts, Art. 3 Abs. 3 S. 1 GG, liegt jedoch vor.
Kinder wie jene in den dargestellten Verfahren werden als eheliche Kinder ihrer nicht-heterosexuellen Eltern benachteiligt gegenüber ehelichen und auch nichtehelichen Kindern von heterosexuellen Paaren: Weil ihre Mütter nicht mit einem Mann – sondern einem Menschen nicht-männlichen Geschlechts – verheiratet sind, kommt ihnen nicht qua Geburt der gleiche rechtliche Schutz zu. Sie trifft eine massive rechtliche Unsicherheit und Benachteiligung: Den Kindern wird die Hälfte der rechtlichen Absicherung und Fürsorge vorenthalten. Sollte der Geburtsmutter etwas zustoßen, wären die Kinder rechtlich gesehen Vollwaise und würden im schlimmsten Fall in staatliche Obhut kommen – obwohl sie bis dahin mit einem zweiten sorgenden Elternteil aufgewachsen sind. Auch haben die Kinder im Falle des Versterbens des zweiten Elternteils keinen Anspruch auf Halbwaisenrente.
Auch die beiden (Wunsch-)Eltern werden benachteiligt gegenüber heterosexuellen Ehen und Partnerschaften, da ihre Ehe keine Wirkung in abstammungsrechtlicher Hinsicht entfaltet und auch keine anderweitige Elternschaftsanerkennung möglich ist.
Beide Benachteiligungen erfolgen aufgrund des Geschlechts: Die Möglichkeiten zur Erlangung der zweiten Elternstellung sind an das männliche Geschlecht geknüpft.
Ungleichbehandlungen aufgrund des Geschlechts sind nach ständiger Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVerfGE 85, 191, 107) jedoch nur zulässig, wenn sie aufgrund biologischer Unterschiede zwingend erforderlich sind. Dies ist hier aber nicht der Fall. Rechtliche Elternschaft kann sich aufgrund unterschiedlicher Zuordnung ergeben. Die (vermutete) biologische Zuordnung mag die häufigste, muss aber nicht die einzige sein. Entscheidend ist der Wille zur dauerhaften Verantwortungsübernahme. Dass dieser zwingend an die biologische Zuordnung geknüpft ist, wird (spätestens) durch die Diversifizierung von Familienformen und durch die Reproduktionsmedizin in Frage gestellt. Zudem können eventuelle Rechte leiblicher Eltern sowie das Recht des Kindes auf Kenntnis der eigenen Abstammung unabhängig von der rechtlichen Absicherung der tatsächlich gewollten und gelebten Elternschaft gesichert werden.
Das Abstammungsrecht ist einer der letzten Bereiche geschlechtsbezogener Anknüpfung – und geschlechtsbezogener Diskriminierung – im deutschen Recht. Die Beschlüsse aus Celle und Berlin betreffen den besonderen Fall der medizinisch-assistierten Samenspende bei Frauenpaaren. Die Argumentationen, insbesondere die Ausführungen des OLG Celle zur Begründung von Elternschaft durch erklärte Verantwortungsübernahme, können aber den Blick öffnen für die bestehenden Diskriminierungen nicht-heterosexueller Familien unterschiedlichster Art. Der Zusammenhang von biologischer Elternschaft und dem Willen zur Verantwortungsübernahme war noch nie zwingend (insbesondere auf männlicher Seite); die Möglichkeiten der Reproduktionsmedizin, die zunehmende Flexibilität des Personenstandsrechts (divers, ohne Geschlechtseintrag, Geschlechtseintragswechsel) und die wachsende Anzahl queerer Familien rütteln an biologischen Vorannahmen und ihrem Zusammenhang zur Elternschaft. Die Beschlüsse des OLG Celle und des KG Berlin können daher vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht (und für einen späteren Gesetzgebungsprozess) der Auftakt sein für ein grundlegendes Umdenken rechtlicher Elternschaft: von der überragenden Bedeutung (vermuteter) biologischer Zuordnung hin zu einem funktionalen Verständnis rechtlicher Elternschaft, wo es entscheidend auf den Willen zur Übernahme elterlicher Verantwortung ankommt – und nicht auf den Geschlechtseintrag der Eltern.
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 