Lithuania Parliament votes to consider alternative civil union and ‘close relationship’ laws – civil union law is not expected to pass

The Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) voted to consider two alternative draft laws, with the former being on civil unions and the latter on “close relationships.”

The draft Law on Civil Union passed the first reading in the parliament on Thursday, with 70 votes in favor, 49 against and six abstentions. The bill seeks to regulate the rights of unmarried couples and their obligations towards each other. The law would replace the definition of a partnership in the Family Book of the Civil Code with that of a civil union, and require such unions to be registered with a notary.

The bill defines a civil union as a “voluntary agreement between two persons (partners) registered in accordance with the procedure established by law, by which they seek to establish and/or develop a personal relationship with each other.” The law would regulate the personal and property relations between unmarried couples, including “the legal regime of the partners’ property, the right of inheritance, the right of representation and acting on behalf of another partner.” 

Member of Parliament Jurgita Sejonienė, while presenting the bill, stated that it was “a long-lasting state debt for unmarried persons.” She further said, “It is necessary to take into account the interests of the group of the society, which for one reason or another does not form a marriage, but leads a common life connected with social, spiritual and moral aspects. It is necessary to solve the practical issues of such a life.”

Draft amendments to the Civil Code were also approved that aim to “regulate the recognition of a person’s right to close relations.” The amendments passed the first reading with 70 votes in favor, 23 against and 30 abstentions. Deputy Speaker of the Seimas Paulius Saudargas presented the alternative draft, emphasizing that unlike the civil union law, the amendments would draw a clear distinction between unmarried couples and family relations.

Saudargas said:

We recognize that personal relationships, not just property relationships, between people living together must be protected, which is why we propose to legally recognize close relationships. The bill on close relationship does not create a family relationship, while a civil union gives an impression of creating a family relationship.

Last year the parliament voted down the bill on civil partnerships that would have defined a partnership as an “emotional connection” and provided the right to take the surname of one’s partner or adopt their children. Several previous attempts to legalize civil unions did not move past early stages of the parliamentary process. 

Following debate by parliamentary committees, the draft laws are expected to return to the full parliament for plenary debate on June 21, though the civil union law is not expected to pass in the Catholic-majority country.

The post Lithuania Parliament votes to consider alternative civil union and ‘close relationship’ laws appeared first on JURIST – News.

Liechtenstein: As of July, stepchild adoption will be possible for registered couples (only open to same-sex couples)

As of July, stepchild adoption will be possible for registered couples. Surprisingly, a narrow majority of the state parliament also rejected the ban on joint adoption and reproductive medicine – this is mainly of a symbolic nature.

Read: https://www.vaterland.li/liveticker/liveticker-landtag-060522-28/

USA: South Carolina Governor signs bill banning transgender athletes

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster Monday signed a bill banning transgender athletes from playing sports as the gender they identify as. South Carolina joins a number of other states which have signed similar laws into effect.

The bill, entitled the Save Women’s Sports Act, requires transgender students to compete with the gender listed on their birth certificate in public elementary, middle and high schools, as well as public colleges. The law also applies to private schools who compete against public schools.

Executive Director of Gender Benders and Community Health Program Director of Campaign for Southern Equality Ivy Hill, said of the new law: “Transgender youth are not a threat to fairness in sports, and this law now needlessly stigmatizes young people who are simply trying to navigate their adolescence, make friends, and build skills like teamwork and leadership, winning and losing.”

South Carolina joins several states who have signed and enacted the bill. Both Texas and Florida passed similar bills prohibiting transgender athletes from participating on sports teams that do not align with the sex that they were assigned at birth. Louisiana’s and Alaska’s governments are considering similar legislation.

The post South Carolina Governor signs bill banning transgender athletes appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Texas Supreme Court: state may investigate gender affirming care as child abuse

The Texas Supreme Court Friday ruled that state agencies in Texas may investigate gender affirming care as child abuse but that the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) is not bound to undertake any such investigations.

On February 18, Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion stating that many forms of gender affirming care “can legally constitute child abuse” under Texas law. On February 22, Governor Greg Abbott directeddirected state agencies in Texas to investigate gender affirming care as child abuse in accordance with Paxton’s opinion. The ACLU and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Does, a family with a transgender daughter, and Dr. Megan Mooney, a doctor who provides care to transgender youth.

On March 2, a district court implemented a temporary injunction halting any investigations. Texas took an interlocutory appeal, superseding the injunction. However, a court of appeals issued a temporary order on March 21 “reinstating the temporary injunction in its entirety.” The state sought relief from the supreme court from that order.

The supreme court recognized that, under Rule 29.3 of Texas appellate procedure, the court of appeals may make temporary orders “to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm.” However, the rule “plainly limits the scope of the available relief to that which is necessary to preserve the parties’ rights.” Therefore, the supreme court ruled that portions of the injunction which apply to “any and all persons” in Texas are invalid.

The court also noted that Abbott’s letter cited “no legal authority that would empower the Governor to bind state agencies with the instruction contained in the letter’s final sentence, and we are directed to none” although DFPS may have believed that it was bound to follow the directive.

As a result, the court explained:

[W]e are left with (1) a court of appeals order that protects only the plaintiffs as against DFPS and its Commissioner’s actions, and not as against the Governor; (2) a nonbinding Attorney General Opinion; (3) a nonbinding statement by the Governor; and (4) a state agency, DFPS, with the same discretion to investigate reports of child abuse that it had before issuance of OAG Opinion No. KP-0401 and the Governor’s letter.

The ACLU, ACLU of Texas and Lambda Legal issued a statement calling the decision “a win.” The organizations commented, “[t]hough the court limited its order to the Doe family and Dr. Mooney, it reaffirmed that Texas law has not changed and no mandatory reporter or DFPS employee is required to take any action based on the governor’s directive and attorney general opinion.”

The post Texas Supreme Court: state may investigate gender affirming care as child abuse appeared first on JURIST – News.

UCLA: Accepting Applications for the 2022 Gleason/Kettel Summer Law Fellowship

World Bank Event IDAHOTB 2022 – Inclusive Laws and Policies – May 18, 2022 – 8:30 AM EDT (local time), online

More: https://live.worldbank.org/events/idahotb2022

Trans Ukrainians being forced back into closet as cruel despot Putin’s bloodthirsty war rages on

Read: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/05/06/gay-alliance-ukraine-russia-war-trans/

USA: Alabama law criminalizing gender affirming care for minors takes effect

The Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act (VCCPA) Sunday went into effect in Alabama while US District Judge Liles Burke considers legal challenges from doctors and families with transgender children.

Plaintiffs sought an injunction against the VCCPA in April 2022, alleging that the law violates their 14th Amendment Rights and strips them of the right to make important decisions about their children’s healthcare. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened in the lawsuit later that month. The DOJ also alleged 14th Amendment violations. The plaintiffs motioned for a temporary restraining order and injunction on April 21. Medical associations submitted statements of support and a brief in support of the plaintiffs’ motion. After a two-day hearing, Judge Burke will decide whether or not to grant the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

The VCCPA, signed into law by Alabama Governor Kay Ivey on April 8, 2022, prohibits persons from “engag[ing] in or caus[ing]” the prescription or administration of puberty-blocking medication, testosterone or estrogen hormones, surgeries that sterilize, sex reassignment surgeries to genitalia and chest reconstruction surgery if such “practice is performed for the purpose of attempting to alter the appearance of or affirm the minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex if that appearance or perception is inconsistent with the minor’s sex as defined in this act.” Conviction under the Act is a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $15,000.00.

The post Alabama law criminalizing gender affirming care for minors takes effect appeared first on JURIST – News.

Greece bans LGBTQ conversion therapy

Read: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/greece-bans-lgbtq-conversion-therapy/47586122

Call for Papers: Queering International Law 2.0

A call for papers has been issued for a workshop on “Queering International Law 2.0,” organized by the ANZSIL Gender, Sexuality and International Law Interest Group and supported by Deakin Law School, the Institute for International Law and the Humanities at Melbourne Law School, and La Trobe Law School. The call is here.