Action registry office
The registry office campaign was an attempt by the then gay association in Germany (SVD) together with the “Federal Association of Gay Lawyers (BASJ)” to strengthen the rights of lesbians and gays in Germany . To this end, on August 19, 1992, around 250 lesbian and gay couples in around a hundred municipalities across Germany applied for a bid . After the registry offices refused to bid, about a hundred of the couples took legal action and applied to the court to give the registrars appropriate instructions.
The action
After the opening of marriage for same-sex couples in Denmark in 1989, the former gay association in Germany (SVD) today called LSVD , together with the “Federal Association of Gay Lawyers (BASJ)”, on August 19, 1992 for lesbian and gay couples to do what they wanted Place of residence responsible registry office to order the list. Around 250 lesbian and gay couples appeared in around a hundred parishes across Germany with great media interest. After the registry offices refused to bid, about a hundred of the couples took legal action and applied to the court to give the registrars appropriate instructions.
Most of the applications were rejected by the courts. Only a few couples were initially successful before the Frankfurt District Court: In its decision of December 21, 1992 (and two decisions with the same content), the court came to the conclusion that nothing stands in the way of same-sex marriage, because there is no legal definition of the term Marriage ( Az : 40 UR III E 166/92). In the next instance before the Frankfurt Regional Court, however, the couples lost.
A couple from Nuremberg, whose application had also been rejected in the last instance, finally filed a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court . It argued that it had been violated in its freedom of marriage in accordance with Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG). However, the court did not accept the complaint for decision, since “the gender difference is one of the defining characteristics of marriage” and a same-sex couple could therefore not have any rights under Article 6 (1) of the Basic Law (decision of October 4, 1993, Az: 1 BvR 640/93 )
The action aroused public interest, drew numerous reports in the media and led to controversial debates in politics and society. The best-known participants in the campaign were Hella von Sinnen and Cornelia Scheel .
It was not until the law introducing the right to marry for persons of the same sex of July 20, 2017, that Section 1353 BGB was amended so that the different sexes of the spouses are no longer a prerequisite for entering into a marriage.
2018
.png)
In the summer of 2018, the campaign was revived by an alliance of different groups and individuals in order to apply to registry offices to correct the previously binary gender entry. This applies to persons "who themselves permanently neither the male nor the female sex assign"
Web links
- Manfred Bruns : The “Aktion Standesamt” of the SVD and the “gay lawyers”. In: Homepage of the LSVD . 1994, accessed on July 1, 2017 (Originally published in 1994 in the brochure "Lesbians. Gay. Partnerships" by the Department for Same-Sex Lifestyles of the Berlin Senate Department for Education, Youth and Sport).
- Daily news episode from August 19, 1992 at tagesschau.de
Individual evidence
- ↑ NJW 1993, 940; MDR 1993, 116; FamRZ 1993, 557
- ↑ Decision of March 22, 1993, Az: 2/9 T 17/93 NJW 1993, 1998
- ↑ BGBl. I p. 2787
- ↑ PM # 01 Standesamt 2018 on IDAHOBIT . In: Aktion Standesamt 2018 . May 14, 2018 ( online [accessed October 13, 2018]).
- ↑ On the streets for every gender. Retrieved October 13, 2018 .
- ^ Application for the third gender: Action for intersex people in the Cologne registry office . In: Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger . ( Online [accessed October 13, 2018]).
- ↑ BVerfG, decision of the First Senate of October 10, 2017 - 1 BvR 2019/16 - Rn. (1-69), esp.Rn 35, also Rn 59.Retrieved on October 16, 2018 .
- ↑ Third option, legal summary and brief explanation of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 10.10.2017 - 1 BvR 2019/16. Retrieved October 16, 2018 .