Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Law in China

ISSN 1673-3428

ISSN 1673-3541(Online)

CN 11-5742/D

Postal Subscription Code 80-981

Front. Law China    2016, Vol. 11 Issue (3) : 407-432    https://doi.org/10.3868/s050-005-016-0023-6
Orginal Article
EQUALITY, DIGNITY, AND SOCIAL HARMONY: EXPLORING THE RATIONALES AND MODELS FOR RECOGNIZING SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS IN LAW
David Bilchitz()
Ph.D, University of Cambridge; Professor of Human Rights and Constitutional Law, University of Johannesburg, South Africa; Director, South African Institute for Advanced Constitutional, Public, Human Rights and International Law (SAIFAC), a center of the University of Johannesburg; Secretary-General, International Association of Constitutional Law
 Download: PDF(274 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

One of the major changes that has taken place over the past twenty to thirty years has been the extension of the legal recognition and protections for same-sex relationships in a wide range of countries. A number of jurisdictions, including China, are considering the approach that they will adopt. This article seeks firstly to consider the justifications for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships by the state. Three main, compelling rationales are identified which are rooted in notions of the equality of all persons, the dignity and liberty of individuals to form close personal relationships, and the social benefits of recognizing close, personal relationships of same-sex couples. The second part of this article then turns to consider the manner in which same-sex relationships should be recognized. Four models are identified: a “Partial Rights” model; a “Civil Partnerships” model; a “Marriage Equality” model, and a “Diversity of Relationships” model. Reasons for and against these particular models will be examined. In the conclusion, it shall be argued that the choice of model that has been adopted can be seen to depend on a number of factors: the manner in which equality is conceived in that society; the understanding of same-sex relationships therein, and the religious and cultural opposition to same-sex relationships in that society. The models are also not states of affairs that are fixed for all time and many countries have progressed from less extensive forms of recognition to wider recognition over time. Ultimately, it shall be argued that the rationales underlying the recognition of close personal relationships in the law support the “Marriage Equality” model or the “Diversity of Relationships” model. This article thus seeks to provide an understanding of the rationales and models for recognizing same-sex relationships that have been adopted around the world: Its focus is thus comparative but may, in this way, be useful to lawmakers and advocates for legal reform in this area in China and other jurisdictions around the world.

Keywords same-sex relationships      marriage      human rights      equality      rationales      models      China     
Issue Date: 24 October 2016
 Cite this article:   
David Bilchitz. EQUALITY, DIGNITY, AND SOCIAL HARMONY: EXPLORING THE RATIONALES AND MODELS FOR RECOGNIZING SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS IN LAW[J]. Front. Law China, 2016, 11(3): 407-432.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/flc/EN/10.3868/s050-005-016-0023-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/flc/EN/Y2016/V11/I3/407
[1] ZHANG Lin, AN Jingjing. The Legal Infrastructure for Creativity in China: A Perspective of Venture Capital[J]. Front. Law China, 2020, 15(4): 452-480.
[2] ZHANG Shoudong. Human Life and Human Rights: death penalty Data and sentencing Procedure during the Song Dynasty[J]. Front. Law China, 2020, 15(4): 390-408.
[3] NA Heya. Between Tradition and Modernity: The Re-trial System of the Beiyang Period in the Early Republic of China (1912-1928)[J]. Front. Law China, 2020, 15(1): 59-83.
[4] HAI Dan. Institutional Reform and Social Changes in Northeast China During the Late Qing: A Case Study of Appeal Trials[J]. Front. Law China, 2020, 15(1): 38-58.
[5] LIANG Xiaohui. Gender Equality in China’s Overseas Investment: Case Studies on Chinese Textile and Apparel Enterprises in Vietnam, Myanmar, and Bangladesh[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(4): 478-499.
[6] LU Haina. Adding a Gender Perspective to China’s Belt and Road Initiative as an International Human Rights Obligation[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(4): 445-477.
[7] HOU Peng. Using Shields as Weapons: Third-Party Funding Assisting China-Related Arbitration under Belt and Road Investment[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(2): 274-303.
[8] MA Xili. Advancing Direct Corporate Accountability in International Human Rights Law: The Role of State-Owned Enterprises[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(2): 231-273.
[9] Yuko Nishitani. Coordination of Legal Systems by the Recognition of Foreign Judgments — Rethinking Reciprocity in Sino-Japanese Relationships[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(2): 193-230.
[10] GUANGLIN Qiaozi. The Balance between “Public Morals” and Trade Liberalization: Analysis of the Application of Article XX(A) of the GATT[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(1): 86-114.
[11] ZHANG Wenxian. Forty Themes on the Innovation and Development of Chinese Legal Research in the Reform and Opening Up Era[J]. Front. Law China, 2019, 14(1): 2-38.
[12] ZHANG Wenliang. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN NON-MONETARY JUDGMENTS IN CHINA[J]. Front. Law China, 2018, 13(2): 218-240.
[13] Yasuhiro OKUDA. UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF RECIPROCITY REQUIREMENT FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN JAPAN[J]. Front. Law China, 2018, 13(2): 159-170.
[14] Bruno da Silva. EVOLUTION OF THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP CONCEPT: MORE THAN HALF OF CENTURY OF UNCERTAINTY AND WHAT HISTORY CAN TELL US[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(4): 501-523.
[15] Philip Ebow Bondzi-Simpson, Felix Awuah. A REVIEW OF THE CHINA–GHANA BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY, 1989[J]. Front. Law China, 2017, 12(3): 372-383.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed