COMENIUS UNIVERSITY IN BRATISLAVA FACULTY OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCES

SEXUAL CITIZENSHIP AND GENDER-NEUTRAL MARRIAGE LAW: CORE ARGUMENTS ANALYSIS

Bachelor thesis

Study Programme: European Studies Study Discipline: 3.1.6. Political Science Advisory Department: Institute of European Studies and International Relations Supervisor: PhDr. Andrej Findor, PhD.

Bratislava, 2011 Radan Furiel

estn prehlsenie
estne prehlasujem, e na bakalrskej prci som pracoval samostatne, na zklade vlastnch teoretickch a praktickch poznatkov, konzultci a tdia odbornej literatry, ktorej pln prehad je uveden v zozname pouitej literatry.

Bratislava 5. jl 2011 .......................................

Foreword Being aware of the highly sensitive nature of the topic, the arguments used in this thesis are to be seen entirely as non-confrontal albeit admittedly biased. Since the scope of this thesis is by far insufficient for a profound philosophic analysis which would perhaps substitute the lexical bias while retaining the message at its full emotional colour, we hereby acknowledge that the wording and the points of departure for some of the arguments presented in the thesis may be subject to diverse moral interpretations. While it may be possible and in a proper scientific paper even desirable to feign noninvolvment and address the issue without setting foot on the hazy grounds of evercontested morals, attempts to do so failed miserably. By no means is the intention of this thesis to ridicule, insult or even such as question anyones deep personal beliefs or those of any religion.

Abstrakt
FURIEL, Radan: Sexual citizenship and gender-neutral Marriage Law: core arguments analysis. [Bakalrska prca] Univerzita Komenskho v Bratislave. Fakulta socilnych a

ekonomickch vied. stav eurpskych tdi a medzinrodnch vzahov kolite: PhDr.

Andrej Findor, PhD., Bratislava: FSEV UK, 2011. 49 p.

Prca sa venuje problmom s prvnym uznanm rovnakopohlavnch prov vo vzahu k hlavnm argumentom, ktor zstancovia a odporcovia takchto krokov pouvaj. Popisuje diskriminan princp heteronormatvneho prstupu k rodinnmu prvu z udskoprvneho hadiska a ukazuje, e argumenty pouvan proti otvoreniu intittu manelstva rovnakopohlavnm prom nemaj oporu vo vskume a preto ich mono povaova za predsudky. Na druhej strane je vznamn mnostvo vedeckch poznatkov podporujcich predpoklad, e sexulna orientcia pru nem vplyv na schopnos pru vytvori stabiln a milujci vzah vhodn na vchovu det a preto zasluhujci nleit prvnu ochranu od ttu. Analzou zkladnch hodnt a argumentov v politickej diskusii v Nrsku pred uzkonenm zkona o registrovanch partnerstvch a manelskom zkone spolonom pre heterosexulne aj homosexulne pry meme njs empirick dkaz, e argumenty v prospech rodovo neutrlneho manelstva s politicky presaditen a mu pomc odstrni diskriminciu ud s neheterosexulnou orientciou. Kov slov: Sexulne obianstvo, registrovan partnerstv, rodovo neutrlne manelstv, LGBT, Nrsko

Abstract
FURIEL, Radan: Sexual citizenship and gender-neutral Marriage Law: analysis of the core arguments. [Bachelor thesis] Comenius University in Bratislava. Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences; Institute of European Studies and International Relations Supervisor: PhDr. Andrej Findor, PhD. Degree of qualification: Bachelor, Bratislava: FSEV UK, 2011.49p.

This paper is focused on the problems with legal recognition of same-sex couples with regards to the main arguments used by the proponents and opposers of such steps. It outlines the discriminatory principle of heteronormative approach to family law from human rights point of view and shows that arguments used against opening of the institute of marriage to same-sex couples have no support in research and therefore can be considered as prejudice. On the other hand, there is significant amount of scientific indications to assume that the sexual orientation of the couple is not related to the couples capability to form stable and loving relationship suitable for raising children and therefore deserving legal protection from the state. By analysing the core values and arguments in political debate in Norway before enactment of Registered Partnership Act and common Marriage Act for heterosexual and homosexual couples, we can find empirical evidence that arguments in favour of gender-neutral marriage are politically viable and can help to remove discrimination of people of non-heterosexual orientation. Keywords: Sexual citizenship, registered partnerships, gender-neutral marriages, LGBT, Norway

Table of Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1 1. Sexual citizenship and legal recognition of same-sex relationships............................. 3 1.1 Sexual citizenship and human rights............................................................................ 3 1.2 Absence of legal recognition perpetuation of prejudices ......................................... 4 1.3 Levels of legal recognition Marriage vs. Registered partnerships........................... 6 1.3.1 Marriage ............................................................................................................... 6 1.3.2 Registered partnerships ........................................................................................ 7 1.4 Discriminatory nature of registered partnerships: Conclusion................................... 8 2. Traditional family vs. other family models Family potential and stability ........ 9 2.1 Introduction to arguments against same-sex marriage: Heteronormative approach . 9 2.2 Argument against same-sex marriage: Threat to the traditional family ................... 10 2.3 Argument against same-sex marriage: Lack of stability ........................................... 13 2.4 Argument against same-sex marriage: Parenting potential...................................... 14 2.5 LGBT family potential: conclusion............................................................................ 15 3 Children in LGBT families ............................................................................................ 17 3.1 Development of a child in different family models .................................................... 17 3.2 LGBT families and psychosocial development of the child ....................................... 18 3.2.1 Emotional functioning......................................................................................... 19 3.2.2. Sexual orientation .............................................................................................. 20 3.2.3 Gender role behavior.......................................................................................... 21 3.2.4 Gender identity.................................................................................................... 22 3.2.5 Stigmatization ..................................................................................................... 22 3.3 LGBT families and children: conclusion ................................................................... 24 4. Development of legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Norway................... 26 4.1 The path towards Registered Partnership Act ........................................................... 27 4.2 Core values and arguments in the Norwegian debate before the enactment of Registered Partnerships Act ............................................................................................ 29 4.3 The path towards gender-neutral Marriage Act........................................................ 32 4.4 Core values and arguments in the Norwegian debate before the enactment of genderneutral Marriage Act ....................................................................................................... 34 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 38 Resum ................................................................................................................................ 40 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 44

Introduction
In the course of several past decades, social norms and values centered on sexuality as well as the legal rights and duties resulting from it have been gradually challenged and re-evaluated. The seemingly endless debate on what is considered natural or unnatural in terms of sexual practice, what is the right way of cohabitation and what is a proper environment in which children should be raised, has in some countries brought about legal steps towards liberalization of the heteronormative approach to the proper composition of family and state-citizen relations in general. The main aim of this bachelor thesis is twofold: to critically analyse the major arguments commonly used against opening the institute of marriage to people of same sex and analyse the development of sexual citizenship in Norway with particular focus on the arguments that turned the tides in favour of universal gender-neutral marriage. The topic will be first approached from a broader perspective of human rights arguing that legal recognition of same-sex couples is in democratic society necessary and we intend to argue that provisional forms of such legal recognition, such as for instance registered partnerships or civil unions, are in their nature discriminatory and retain LGBT couples at the periphery of citizen life. This discrimination is seen to be represented in terms of inability to access the same rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, such as the right of next-of-kin in medical procedures or right to adopt children. The theoretical basis for the claim for universal marriage rights will be supported on two fronts. First we will argue that the opening of the institute of marriage is the only nondiscriminatory way of removing civil disabilities restricted for sexual minorities and that the equalization of sexual minorities does not threaten the concept of marriage and family from other than ecclesiastical point of view. Our argument is based around the assumption that in order to form a stable and reliable unit in society, same-sex couples are equally suitable as heterosexual couples and that for a loving family environment in regard to upbringing of children it is not a necessity that parents are biological male and female. Moreover, the growing divorce rate and increasing number of unwanted children and children raised by single parents enfeebles the concept of (exclusively heterosexual) traditional family in contrast with those seeking and being denied to form any family at all.

-1-

Secondly, we will identify several most perpetuated myths about the people of nonheterosexual orientation that are closely related to the persisting reluctance of society in many countries to opening the institute of marriage with all the rights and duties to the couples of the same sex. Such misperceptions claim that same-sex couples are not suitable for raising children in terms of stability and parenting potential and that the development of children raised by two men or two women is threatened solely by virtue of the sexual orientation of their parents. These prejudices are arguably vivid in public discourse, being used as the major arguments by the opponents of same-sex marriage. We will support our counterarguments with numerous studies, thus deconstructing one of the biggest theoretical obstacles to gender-neutral marriage law. In the final part of this bachelor thesis we will take a closer look on the development of sexual citizenship in Norway, legal changes through parliamentary process that marked the path from times when even cohabitation of non-married people was illegal through the introduction of the institute of registered partnerships up to the introduction of common Marriage Act for heterosexual and homosexual couples. We will specifically aim at identifying the core arguments that preceded each of these major steps and compare them with the hypotheses that will come about in the theoretical part, therefore answering the research questions: Is the notion to legally recognize same-sex relationships justified and what are the reasons for such development? To what degree does the development of sexual citizenship in Norway follow these arguments and help to remove legal discrimination of LGBT couples? The democratization and equalization of minorities vis--vis the state is one of the most significant aspects of democracies in the developed countries. Sexual minorities have long been somehow put aside in this process due to the sensitive character of this issue and progress in this area is very slow or almost non-existent even in a number of developed democratic countries. The general situation in most developing countries is often even worse. In the light of ongoing worldwide struggle of non-heterosexual people for recognition and protection of their human rights and social acceptation, we consider this topic highly relevant and important to be given attention.

-2-

1. Sexual citizenship and legal recognition of same-sex relationships

1.1 Sexual citizenship and human rights
We will operate with the concept of sexual citizenship in order to assess the various forms of cohabitation between people which has traditionally been accepted as normal only if composing of married heterosexual couple. For this reason, citizenship is here defined as comprising the rights and duties that provide the citizen participation and protection within the framework of the democratic state (Andersen, 2011). Under sexual citizenship can be understood the rights and duties and the judicial boundaries accorded to individuals on the basis of their sexual practices that are not exclusively restricted to the variation in sexual orientation (Richardson, 2001), and as a very broad example of such practices we can call the tendency of people to form couples. These rights and duties can be also coined under a term levels of legal consequences (Waaldijk, 2004; p.3) which is a tool developed by Kees Waaldijk in his comparative study to assess the differences between the quality of sexual citizenship between marriage, registered partnership and cohabitation in nine European countries. Waaldijk specifies these legal consequences to parenting consequences, material consequences and other consequences (ibid.) resulting from the official recognition of the couple as an entity in relation to the state. Basically, it is safe to assume that the very existence of such legal consequences that are reserved exclusively to those couples that enter any form of cohabitation recognized by the state (be it registered partnership or civil marriage) can partially explain the reason why people do so. The relation of sexual rights as part of the manifestation of sexual citizenship to marginalization of LGBT community is apparent and Holan (2009) directly argues that there is a strong relation between lack of sexual rights and marginalisation, where the latter occurs as a direct result of social and legal pervasive practises of discrimination in society, ranging from the government level to the nuclear family. (Holan, 2009;3) To understand what in the frame of sexual citizenship we consider as sexual rights, we need to look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In the Article 1 it states that All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights (UN, 1948) and Article 16 includes men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or

-3-

religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (UN, 1948) Highlighted later by the United Nations in their statement on common understanding, there are several principles related to these rights that should be pursued: universality and inalienability; indivisibility; interdependence and inter-relatedness and non-discrimination and equality (UN, 2003). Upon a closer look on the equality principle, UN states that all human beings are entitled to their human rights without discrimination of any kind. LGBT people are thus protected in UDHR in spite of sexuality not being directly mentioned. Kitzinger and Wilkinson in their paper on marriage rights equality argue similarly along these lines that as long as marriage is a foundational social institution, equal access to it is a fundamental principle of equality. (Kitzinger 2004) To further illustrate the background of the notion to campaigning for equal marriage rights, the German-American philosopher and political theorist Hannah Arendt claimed: The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of ones skin color or race are minor indeed. (Arendt, 1959; cited in Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 2004) This view is widely shared in professional circles, such as American Psychological Association (Paige, 2005) and rounds up the human-rights point of view at the problematic of same-sex marriage.

1.2 Absence of legal recognition perpetuation of prejudices

However, sexual orientation and gender identity is still a very sensitive concept and many states that ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have distanced themselves from the problems of LGBT minority by ignoring the need of legally securing their rights on all levels. So far numerous countries decriminalized homosexuality, introduced laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment and other areas and/or introduced penalty increasing laws for hate crimes based on sexual orientation (Ottosson, 2006). However, providing legal framework for legalization of LGBT partnerships and/or opening the institute of marriage for other than heterosexual couples with all the benefits has been a step that only a handful of states pursued. The marginalization of LGBT community is, however, perpetuated not only in terms of legal recognition of relationships, as this is by far not the gravest issue. We need to

-4-

stress out that any form of legal recognition of cohabitation of same-sex couples, be it marriages, civil unions or registered partnerships, is rare in the world and the overall degree of marginalization of LGBT community is far beyond the concern of whether or not to allow same-sex couples to adopt children or share property (Ottosson, 2006). Substantial civil disabilities and discrimination are experienced by sexual minorities in most parts of the world (Donnelly, 2003; p.230). Shaping of the real utilization of sexual citizenship is, however, not only in the hands of governments, by the means of legislative process, the living and experience of sexual citizenship by members of non-heterosexual community, or inability thereof, (as is sadly more suitable term), is also formed by significant deal through school environment, media, culture, religion, etc. and individual interaction with them. (Andersen, 2011; p.121) In a survey research conducted by ILGA-Europe (International Lesbian and Gay Association) and IGLYO (International Gay and Lesbian Youth Organization), analyzing the experience of young LGBT people from 37 European countries the findings revealed disturbingly high level of discrimination related to their sexuality as for example almost two thirds of respondents referred to negative personal experiences at school related to their LGBT status. (Takcs, 2006; p.74) and three quarters of the respondents found that the media products of their country expressed prejudice or included discriminative elements (Takcs, 2006; p.75). As the study indicates, prejudice towards LGBT people seems to be deeply interwoven in the society and the discrimination resulting is perpetuating the notion that they are second-class citizens (or even people, for that matter). This aspect of shaping sexual citizenship is, however, dependent on many different factors that are impregnated in the whole socio-political spectrum and to achieve a change in society as a whole seems to be a Sisyphean task even with the most non-discriminatory laws possible. However, involvement of governments is undoubtedly a substantial and essential step towards liberation of any minority facing oppression and public dissent and in democracy it is arguably the only tangible measure to loosen the tension in the legal sphere. The capacity to shape sexual citizenship in a state as defined above is therefore exclusively in the hands of the particular government. The possibility of choice whether or not to legalize partnership of two people is generally restricted only to heterosexual couples and it results in a state when the LGBT minority is neither able to profit from the benefits that a legalized relationship offers, nor to take upon the duties resulting from such legalization. The concept of inability of choice -5-

stands as the ground argument in this thesis for illustrating the discriminatory principle of sexual citizenship based on heteronormative principles. Moreover, policies restricting marriage rights for same-sex couples have proven to have direct negative psychological effect, as could be shown on the quantitative study on over 1552 LGB citizens living in those states in USA where same-sex marriage has been directly outlawed. It has been shown that these amendments were directly related to chronic social stress and psychological problems among LGB adults, and not due to preexisting mental health issues or other factors (Rostosky et al., 2009). The level of social pressure, such as from media and anti-LGBT activists contribute to the finding that marriage amendment campaigns have a negative and immediate effect on LGB psychological health. (Rostosky et al., 2009; p.57) Although various forms of same-sex partnerships have been present from the very dawn of civilization in all parts of the world (see Eskridge, 1993), in present societies, the attempts to liberate this issue and give homosexual couples legal recognition are generally twofold in approach registered partnerships (civil unions) and civil marriage.

1.3 Levels of legal recognition Marriage vs. Registered partnerships

1.3.1 Marriage
Civil marriage, although it bears strong cultural value in the society that stems from the view of traditional family, which si a topic that will be discussed later in this thesis, is above all a legal institution, and the law sets conditions that must be met by the two persons who want to marry, gives rules for the procedures that need to be followed for starting or ending a marriage, and provides which legal consequences result from a marriage (Waaldijk, 2004; p.37). Those consequences regulate the rights and duties between the partners and between them, the state and rest of the society. Waaldijks study shows that as legal consequences attached to marriage are considered, great similarities emerge between countries, with respect to conditions, procedures and legal consequences of marriage. However, we need to acknowledge the psychological dimension of marriage as well.

-6-

Numerous studies of married heterosexual couples have proved that a married individual is statistically much better off because they have better mental health, more emotional support from the family members, less psychological distress, and lower rates of psychiatric disorders than unmarried individuals (see Herdt et al., 2006). In the society, marriage is perceived not only from formal point of view but also symbolical, with additional cultural and religious value attached. As the historically predominant religion in the Western society, Christianity has shaped the common perception of marriage as the bond between one man and one woman based on the complementarity of sexes (Ratzinger, 2003). Christian political parties have traditionally strong representation across European Union and this is even more noticeable in the United States. It is understandable, that this poses one of the biggest obstacles in pro-LGBT legal progress. The political will for such a big legal jump in liberalization is hard to gather. In the light of growing public pressure based on human rights and supported with various researches, attempts for a middle road emerged. Such compromise was coined registered partnerships.

1.3.2 Registered partnerships

Registered partnerships are technically a legal institution as well. Waaldijk argues that because this institution falls into the aforementioned definition on that various conditions, procedures and consequences are set by legal rules, registered partnership is conceived as a legal institution more or less analogous to marriage (Waaldijk, 2004; p.37). However, the legal consequences differ, and their level is generally lower than those of civil marriage. In some countries, this is the first step in liberating sexual citizenship of same-sex couples. Although this particular sequence is understandable, the institute of registered partnership, being an important step towards equalization as it is, is arguably still discriminatory in principle. Registered partnership can settle some legal issues concerning material consequences in private law, such as various tax reductions, inheritance rights in case of death of one partner, or redistribution of common property after splitting up, however, the exclusion of same-sex partners from the legal consequences of marriage is preserved (Waaldijk, 2004). The largest difference from marriage is in parental rights and duties. Medically-assisted insemination and/or adoption are still unavailable for same-sex couples in most of the countries that have adopted legislation for registered partnerships.

-7-

1.4 Discriminatory nature of registered partnerships: Conclusion

To sum up this chapter, we have explained that the way how the relations between a couple and the state are defined, falls under term sexual citizenship. Currently there are three dominant levels of recognition a couple can assume informal cohabitation, registered partnership and marriage. In most countries, the core prerequisite of marriage is that the couple is composed of a man and a woman. We pointed out that the inability of same-sex couples to obtain legal recognition is a violation of their human rights and is directly harmful to the mental health of LGBT people. Several countries approached this problem and introduced a solution, when a same-sex couple can obtain a legalized status via the institution of registered partnership, with limited rights compared to married heterosexual couples. Since the portion of rights and legal consequences that is granted by registered partnership is still significantly lower than that resulting from marriage, we conclude, that the institute of registered partnership is in fact discriminatory towards the LGBT minority, which adds to the marginalization of the community. Moreover, paradoxically, registered partnership could be perceived as discriminatory even towards the heterosexual majority. For various reasons, some couples may want to legalize their partnership while at the same time refusing the additional symbolic and practical values of marriage. Interestingly, in Denmark, idea for marriagelike institution open to all couples had been on the table as early as 1968. In the bill proposal couples, both opposite-sex and same-sex, were to be given the opportunity to register their relationship after three years of living together at the request of one of the partners (Scherpe, 2010; p.267). Although in some countries the institution of registered partnership is open to the heterosexual couples as well, the general practice is that only people of the same sex can enter registered partnership (Waaldijk, 2004; p.11). People that are rejected by this condition are therefore deprived of the opportunity to choose the level of legal status they want to attribute to their relationship and with the same-sex exclusivity of registered partnerships, the discrimination of heterosexuals is apparent. In the next chapter, we will assess the major issues and arguments that are used by opponents of the same-sex marriage and confront them with counter-arguments, in an attempt to systematically debunk myths related to same-sex couples.

-8-

2. Traditional family vs. other family models Family potential and stability
2.1 Introduction to arguments against same-sex marriage: Heteronormative approach
Thoroughly defending homosexuality itself as not being something that is contrary to nature, immoral or something to be ashamed of is far beyond the scope of this thesis. Besides, this topic has been chewed out so thoroughly by experts, that it is nearly impossible to add any original insight to it. However, we consider it necessary, for the fullness of argumentation that few sentences would be written on this topic from a broad perspective. We understand that morality is an incredibly complex philosophical concept whose edges are often blurry and gives birth to controversy as a natural result of different perceptions of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, for the sake of reasoning, let us put moral discussions aside and focus on scientific arguments. We consider as a basic standpoint three fundamental axioms: 1. It is a capability of every person, regardless of sexual orientation, to fall in love and form a committed and stable relationship with another person. Qualitative studies suggest that same-sex relationships tend to cherish the same standards of emotional intimacy and satisfaction (see Dunne, 2000) as heterosexual relationships. 2. Homosexual behaviour is not unnatural, as such behaviour is found amongst social birds and mammals, such as primates (Bagemihl, 1999). 3. Homosexuality is not a mental illness, it is not contagious, doesnt need to be cured and is not a matter of choice. American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality, with the support of substantial research, from the official list of mental disorders in 1973 which was a step that was welcomed widely in professional circles: The American Psychological Association supports the action taken on 15 December 1973 by the American Psychiatric Association (...) [and] therefore adopts the following resolution: Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities; Further, the APsyA urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations. (Conger, 1975, p.633) We should probably point out that prior to little more than forty years ago, deviations from heterosexual behaviour was officially considered a moral deviation, even -9-

illness, on par with pedophilia. This, alongside with insufficient research of the phenomena, naturally perpetuated the heterosexual bias in related sciences, which can be defined as a belief system that values heterosexuality as superior to and/or more natural than homosexuality. (Morin, 1977, p.629) It was very difficult in the past to scientifically approach human sexuality outside the typical framework. In the 18th century, sexuality was only perceived as a medical concern to reinforce then attacked religious values (Bullough, 1974). Well into 19th century all non-procreative sexuality was considered pathological (Morin, 1977, p.629). The heteronormative approach has been systematically withdrawing since the 20th century and numerous contemporary researchers across different disciplines keep pointing out that this approach in science is rather obsolete. (see Stacey-Biblarz, 2001; Bagemihl, 1999).

2.2 Argument against same-sex marriage: Threat to the traditional family

Having taken note of this, we can now proceed to identifying and facing core arguments that are most substantial within the anti-LGBT opinons. In order to do that, we should identify the lowest common denominator of the opposition to same-sex marriages in the context of Euro-American culture. Although nearly all widespread religious systems and their churches have generally disapproving standpoints regarding homosexual behavior, ranging from mere ignoral to radical opposition, as such agent we can entitle the Catholic Church, because Catholicism has deep historical roots in Euro-American culture and conservative political parties that declare their ties to Christian values are most likely to vote against any proposals of liberalization of the institute of marriage (Jordan 2005). In year 2003 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose then prefect was until his election as Pope Benedict XVI. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and whose role was to safeguard the Catholic Church doctrine, released a statement on legal recognition of unions of homosexual people: The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society (Ratzinger 2003). It seems that the main problem here is the understanding of what the concepts of marriage and family entail. For Catholics means marriage always and exclusively a sacred bond between two persons of opposite sex. This stance is fundamental to Christian Church, - 10 -

as declared in the Charter of the Rights of the Family released by the Pontifical Commission on the Family in 1983: the family is based on marriage, that intimate union of life in complementarity between a man and a woman. From this point on, we will refer to a family based on this definition and on the concept of fertility as a traditional family. Scientific sources are, however, more cautious in definition of family. American Academy of Family Physicians defines family as a group of individuals with a continuing legal, genetic and/or emotional relationship. Society relies on the family group to provide for the economic and protective needs of individuals, especially children and the elderly. (AAFP 2009). Applying the latter definition, if we consider unmarried heterosexual couples raising children as families, we can in broader context denote LGBT couples raising children as families. The importance of families for society and the need to protect it is covered in the article sixteen of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State (UDHR, art.16). In families with both parents, the emotional dimension of the quality of the ties and bonds between their members should undeniably be valued as a core principle. Both proponents and opponents of same-sex marriages can agree that marriage itself is to high degree related to the concept of stable family. One argument in particular seems to be shared in both camps: that the integrity of marriage and therefore that of family, should be the most influential driving element in the union of two people. If we accept that the stability of the couple is an important factor regarding its suitability for forming a stable family, before we challenge the myth of LGBT promiscuity and therefore instability of relationships, we need to ask a question: How does traditional family cope with this noble requisite? The integrity of the traditional family is usually stressed out in the interest of the children. The opinion of the Catholic Church provides us with the first argument against same-sex unions that we will approach: As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood (Ratzinger, 2003). But is that experience common in the traditional family? In past decades, the social trend has been converging towards marriage postponement, lower and later fertility and increasing divorce rates (Nazio 2008). In European Union, the statistic cumulated by every year signalizes that the marriage rate has been continually getting lower in the past decade, while at the same time, the divorce rate - 11 -

has been rising. In the present day, we can estimate that there are half as many divorces in the European Union as there are marriages (Eurostat). In result we can safely assume that the man-woman composition of married couple does not by all means guarantee the stability of the family. Even if we acknowledge that a portion of the divorces are childless couples, there are eventually still a sadly high number of children raised by single mothers or single fathers due to a divorce, that dont experience much of the parenthood of the lacking parent. Nevertheless, that is the reality, but children in such families are not suspected that they are not normal or incapable of proper social and emotional functioning. And such as single heterosexual parents, gay and lesbian parents recognize the need to provide role models for their children and may have some concerns about their availability (Dundas-Kaufman, 2000). However, since the children do not grow up in a social vacuum and assuming that the family ties of same-sex couples are stronger in legally recognized relationship than in informal cohabitation (see Kurdek, 2004), the missing role models can be supplemented by siblings, other family members and friends. (Peplau, 2004; p.244) Mass media play also a prominent role in transmitting the conventional family patterns to the children, particularly due to the fact that children often spend more time watching television than watching their parents (Green et al., 1986; p.182). This leads to assumption that good upbringing is not conditional to the involvement of both parental figures, maternal and paternal and therefore the assumption that same-sex marriages are undermining the fundaments of family is incorrect. Similarly, the level of threat to the traditional family is negligible, because logical assumption is that nonheterosexual people would rarely choose heterosexual marriage even if that was the only legally recognized form of cohabitation. What is really important in relation to the stability and quality of the family is the quality of the emotional ties between its members. In 1989, United Nations released the Convention on the rights of the Child, where in the preamble it recognizes that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding. (United Nations, 1989). Sexual orientation of the members of the family is irrelevant in terms of the capacity to form a loving environment, which is a conclusion that can be drawn upon the opinions of aforementioned scholars and scientific bodies.

- 12 -

2.3 Argument against same-sex marriage: Lack of stability

How do same-sex couples fare in terms of stability, is one of the most typical stereotype associated with LGBT people. Promiscuity, looking for brief flings instead of one stable relationship, tends to be attributed as a distinctive characteristic of nonheterosexual people, which arguably puts them in front of social barriers to forming and keeping long-term relationships (Balsam et al., 2008). Although experts on relationships argue that the processes that regulate LGBT relationships are virtually the same as those that regulate the relationships of heterosexual partners, (Kurdek, 2004, also Peplau, 2004) the less institutionalized nature of same-sex relationships negatively affects their expectations of relationship duration (Andersson, 2006). Nevertheless, this implies that legal recognition of same-sex unions grants better chances for maintaing a stable relationship, as we identified stability as one of the core ambitions of a family. Factors that influence why relationships end and married couples divorce are manifold, however, two things can be assumed with a great degree of certainty: 1. Practical obstacles in dismissal of informal forms of relationship are much lower than in a divorce. In other words, without the possibility of forming a legally recognized relationship gay and lesbian partners confront no formal institutionalized barriers and obstacles to leaving unhappy relationships. Lawyers need not be consulted, court action is not required, religious vows are not broken, and no recognized kin-by-marriage ties are severed (Kurdek, 2004; p.896). 2. Strong family ties are very important in saving a relationship when a temporary crisis occurs and can catalyze the process of overcoming the problems and improving rather than dismissing a relationship. Studies of same-sex families in Norway and Sweden have shown that relationship longevity among LGBT couples is negatively influenced by the lower degree of social support they receive compared to heterosexuals, particularly because they receive less support for their relationships from family members (Kurdek, 2004; p.896). Perhaps the relatively lower risk for divorce among heterosexual marriages can be explained with issues related to parenting. In studies, the excess risk of divorce of gay partnerships tends to disappear when the comparison is for childless couples. (Andersson, 2006; p.93). Given that the emotional capacity of same-sex partnerships is a priori not lower than in traditional families, and if given the legal opportunity they embrace the same standards for stability and longevity of the relationship, the fear that same-sex unions would - 13 -

somehow jeopardize the stability aspect of the traditional family model based on marriage, is unjustified. Moreover, the division of labour (Dunne, 2000) and of parenting duties between partners (Balsam et al., 2004) is more evenly distributed in same-sex cohabitation compared to the traditional families.

2.4 Argument against same-sex marriage: Parenting potential

The whole next chapter is devoted to the parenting capabilities of same-sex couples, therefore we assess now only the biological aspect of family ties, which is obviously a sphere, where same-sex couples face a significant limitation. Whereas in the traditional family the child is conceived by both partners, LGBT couples desiring to start a family can rely only on surrogate mothers or artificial insemination, rendering one of the partners to not be biologically related to the child. Such procedure is not allowed for same-sex couples in many countries (see Waaldijk, 2004; Ottosson, 2006) and even where it is legal, both partners must undergo a series of complicated and thorough tests and interviews. The fertility aspect of heterosexual marriage is often put as a vanguard above all else in the arguments against same-sex marriages. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good. (Ratzinger, 2003). On a provocatively sarcastic and rather witty note, it is an interesting observation that people that are typically against homosexuals are also against abortions. From the genial mouth of late George Carlin: Well, who has less abortions than homosexuals? There is an entire class of people guaranteed never to have an abortion. (George Carlin) Looking at this more seriously, we can rephrase that in LGBT families the risk of an unwanted child is approaching zero and we have to admit that the large number of children in orphanages or foster homes come from the families, where the parents were unable or unwilling to take care of them. Such children should be protected by the society with special care and particular attention. The UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child from 1959 addresses this issue: Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support (UN, 1959). UN then later in 1989 specified that in cases when a child is deprived

- 14 -

of his or her family environment, such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). There is a large group of couples, in which either the partners are not capable of conceiving a child or for various reasons they want to adopt a child instead. The mental fitness and material, social and emotional capabilities are subject to a thorough scrutiny, which ensures that the child will be placed in a harmonic environment where the parents will be able to take good emotional and financial care of his or her health, upbringing and education. In all countries, where same-sex civil union is admitted parenting rights, this procedure is also applied for them. Therefore we would like to imply, that by denying the possibility of being adopted to a loving and secure family environment, which certainly applies to those same-sex couples suitable for adoption, amplifies in fact the violation of the parentless childs right to be raised by a stable and loving family. The implication goes along the philosophy that regarding the well-being of the child, growing up in a family is better than if the choice is only between the (traditional) family or staying in the care of the state.

2.5 LGBT family potential: conclusion

In the recent chapter we illustrated a strong link between the capacity of fulfilling one of the basic roles of the family in the society and the concept of gender-neutral marriage rights. Despite popular trends in academic literature in attempts to support that LGBT families are indistinguishable from traditional families, Costello (1997) found that there indeed are several differences. These differences could be, interestingly, perceived as positive, because the in various studies, respondents showed higher level of acceptance of their childrens potential identity, as well as different approach to the process of role modelling, so that instead of attempting to transmit parental sexual identity to their children they would transmit their core values of self-knowledge, self-acceptance and acceptance of others' diversity (Costello, 1997; p.82). Moreover, the division of labour (Dunne, 2000) and of parenting duties between partners (Balsam et al., 2004) is more even in same-sex cohabitation, which is a virtue lacking in many heterosexual families. However, the Catholic Church defends a very clear opinion: Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family

- 15 -

deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase (Ratzinger, 2003). We hold the view, that the principle of equality and acceptance of oneself and others indeed is a high value in society and it enhances rather than hinders its proper development. Although it can be estimated that the heteronormative principles will be still prevailing in large parts of the society, more scientific studies and firm argumentation in public dispute can help to gradually overcome prejudices towards LGBT minority and promote the notion that LGBT families pose no threat to the existence and/or functioning of heterosexual families.

- 16 -

3 Children in LGBT families

3.1 Development of a child in different family models
Let us imagine the whole group of people that are against same-sex marriages as a rising graph of intensity of disapproval. Although some of the people comprising the softer opposition that is willing to settle to some compromise in legal recognition of the same-sex couples, almost unanimous protest would come from the whole camp in one particular issue: No two men or two women should be allowed to raise a child. The human rights view has been covered in previous chapters, now we set off to more family-specific arguments and support them heavily with available studies. So, what is the main myth with children being raised in LGBT families? What does it consist of? How did it emerge? Lets analyze the latter question from the perspective of the theory of childhood socialization. This theory tries to explain, how the paremeters of parents identities are transmitted and transcribed to the children. Socialization theory predicts and explains similarities between parent and child by treating the child almost as a tabula rasa upon which the parent unconsciously inscribes social identities such as race, class, and gender (Costello, 1997; p.64). Because the socialization theory claims that elements of parents identity are internalized in the child, it would seem that parents with homosexual or bisexual identities would raise children with similar identities (Costello, 1997). Although in many aspects the similarities are apparent and logical, such as in political views, educational aspirations, religious belif, etc., findings of significant amount of research indicate that in terms of gender selfperception and sexual orientation, this theory lacks solid ground. However, judges, social workers, politicians and homophobic activists have cited this theoretical prediction in arguing against permitting lesbian, gay and bisexual people to have custody of children (Costello, 1997; p.65). It is the official stance and one of the leading arguments of the Catholic Church that allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development (Ratzinger, 2003). As the previous chapter indicated, children from single-parent families do not experience any significant barriers in their human development, so we assume that this argument does not regard parental figures as such, but

- 17 -

instead it aims at a rather close-minded fear. Simplified view on this issue is that if a child is raised in a family that conists of two fathers or two mothers and does not shape the childs mindset towards traditional heteronormativity, said child has high chance in later age to have homosexual orientation. The review of scientific research in this area, however, points quite to the contrary.

3.2 LGBT families and psychosocial development of the child

The importance of having both mother and father as role figures (social learning theory) or identification figures (psychodynamic perspectives) may be explored by looking at children who do not have both a mother and a father (Patterson, 1992, p.1035). It is widely accepted fact that the lacking diversity in gender-based role figures is not directly harmful to the development of sexuality and gender identity of the children with single mothers. Findings focusing on the children raised by same-sex couples bear identical message for them as well, that there is no evidence to suggest that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents (Patterson 1992, p.1036). In reality are children raised in LGBT families not as uncommon as it may seem. For example, in a survey from 1999 on non-heterosexuals in Norway, 10% reported having children, and 5% reported living with their children at the time when the survey was conducted. (Hegna - Kristiansen - Moseng, 1999). Children have been raised by homosexual couples for decades whether there was a legal recognition of their relationship or not. Those children constitute a numerous and researchable group for addressing the issue of developmental distortions compared with children from heterosexual families. Although over twenty empirical studies conducted since the year 1978 to the end of millenium support the null argument and showed that children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically deviate on any of the outcomes (Anderssen, 2002), some reviewers and researchers concluded that there is not enough evidence to claim conclusive findings. Belcastro, et al. (1993) concluded in their review that the quality of the data of then research database was insufficient to be able to decide on this issue. In their review Cameron and Cameron (1997) also drew their scepticism on the argument that the available empirical evidence lacked conclusiveness. Baumrind (1995) stated that studies to date show few differences among children of lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples. Research

- 18 -

findings to date are not definitive (p.134). As it is probable that the findings were still not definitive few decades ago, it is important to point out that the results of continuous researches over present years have showed some consistency in significantly leaning away from the myths about the contagious nature of homosexuality and its harmful influence on a childs full human development, such as Parks (1998), Patterson (2000), (Stacey&Biblarz,2001) and others. For further and closer analysis of this issue, we need to break down the areas of development that are assumed to be negatively influenced by growing up with lesbian or gay parents into five categories, off whose the anti-LGBT approach feeds: emotional functioning, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender role behavior, and stigmatization of the children. As the review approaches the question of so-to-say indirect harm to children, we would like to mention that in case of possiblitiy of direct abuse of children, likely to be mentioned in homophobic circles, is according to research no reason to assume that homosexuals would bear higher risk of sexually abusing their children (see Jenny et al., 1994).

3.2.1 Emotional functioning

Although it may seem bold, there are good grounds for the assumption that the very possibility of growing up in a loving, tolerant and trusting family environment has an incomparably higher influence on the emotional development of a child than the sexual orientation of the parents. As has been discussed in the chapter on traditional family, unexpected pregnancies are predominantly an issue occuring in heterosexual relationships. That often results in abortions or putting unwanted children under state care to foster homes. On the other hand, given the obstacles to parenthood faced by self-identified gay men and lesbians, there is a high likelihood that their children are strongly desired and planned (Peplau, 2004; p.241). Loving family environment and financial security instead of foster home emotional sterility and future unemployability is something that a suitable same-sex couple can provide, assuming that the strict adoption suitability criteria are met. Surveys show, that if allowed, substantial portion of gays and lesbians express a desire to adopt children (Sbordone, 1993 in Patterson, 2000, also Peplau 2004). The studies have shown that children in LGBT families express the same level of emotional development, none gave indications of higher prevalence of behavioral

- 19 -

problems among children with lesbian mothers (Anderssen, 2002; p.346). None has also given any indications that such children had more emotional difficulties than others. The fears that children of gay and lesbian parents suffer deficits in personal development are without empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000; p.1054).

3.2.2. Sexual orientation

Sexual orientation refers to a persons choice of sexual partners (e.g., heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual) (Patterson 2000) in terms of feeling sexual and emotional attraction towards members of one particular sex or another or both. Debates about children growing up in LGBT families usually come to a dead-end when it comes to sexual preference of the children. In this case it is preferrable to use the therm sexual preference instead of sexual orientation to emphasize the nonfixed nature of sexual relations (Baumrind, 1995). We would like to point out that the question of whether and to what degree is sexual preference influenceable by the family environment, is at the core of every debate about adoption rights for same-sex couples. Contagious nature of homosexuality has been therefore studied thoroughly and substantial research so far shows no evidence of that. Of numerous studies on children from LGBT families conducted throughout decades, none reported that sexual preferences in offspring varied with the sexual orientation of one or both parents (Anderssen, 2002; Gottman 1990), even if the children were observed in a longitudal study (Golombok et al., 1996), with both lesbians (Huggins 1989), gay men (Bozett, 1987; Bailey et al., 1995; Tasker Golombok, 1997), or transsexuals (Green, 1978) as parents. Additionally, some people fear that in LGBT families children would be led to homosexual orientation by imposing homosexuality as a norm. However, LGB parents dont generally wish that their children would grow up as non-heterosexual, nor they believe that is likely, although they seem to have in common very high level of acceptance of their childs sexual orientation (Costello, 1997), which is understandable. It remains true that no significant problems in the development of sexual identity among children of samesex couples have yet been identified.

- 20 -

3.2.3 Gender role behavior

Due to the prevalent heteronormative culture in society, people often regard traditional gender roles as something fixed. Different aspects of personality are attributed to be almost exclusively male and female, such as dressing habits, aggressivity, patterns in social interaction and others. If a person does not behave according to the expectations of his or her gender role, such behavior may rise social condemnation and leads to stereotypes when an effeminated man is labelled sissy and many stereotypes are associated with women not behaving in accordance within their gender role as well. This would be probably the description of an average non-heterosexual person in the eyes of a homophobe. In reality, most LGBT people are hardly recognizable by their surrounding and the portrayal of an extremely extravagant and flamboyant gay man as typical is present mostly in sensationalist media when covering issues related to the activities of LGBT movement. Gender-role behavior involves the extent to which a persons activities and occupations are regarded by the culture as masculine, feminine, or both (Patterson, 2000; p.1059). In the case of children, such activities revolve mainly around the choice of toys, games and friends. Although some minor differences between the gender-based norms and the childrens habits in dressing, playing and behavioral habits have been found (Green et al., 1986), most studies concluded that children with lesbian mothers tended to choose gender-typical activities, toys, and games, much as other children (Anderssen, 2002; p.345) Such findings are widespread and various studies showed similar results. (see Green et al.,1986, Golombok et al., 1983). However, Stacey and Biblarz (2001) suggested that among these children the flexibility and non-traditionality in some particular gender-associeted aspects can be observed, such as occupational aspiration and others, commonly associated with feminine or masculine qualities, which might free them from uneven range of traditional genderspecific prescriptions. Children with two same-gender parents, and particularly with comother parents, should develop in less gender-stereotypical ways than would children with two heterosexual parents (p.177) In one study, daughters of lesbians chose traditionally masculine jobs significantly more often then heterosexuals' daughters. 53% of the daughters of lesbians would aspire to professional careers such as engineer, doctor, lawyer, or astronaut compared to 21% of the daughters of heterosexuals (Green et al.1986). In this study, nearly all boys chose predominantly masculine jobs. - 21 -

Even if we assume that growing up in an LGBT family does somehow influence the gender role behavior, we must address the question why would that be wrong from the social development viewpoint. The aspects of gender-normative behavior are to large degree flexible and open to evolution. Not that long time ago the view that a strong, manly husband providing money for the family while the wife takes care only of children, kitchen and the household was the dominant socially accepted family model. In major changes of gender roles and gender-specific expectations lies the success of the feminist movement in 20th century. Universal suffrage, progressive gender equality in wages, all the way to anti-harassment laws are now considered as big success in the field of human rights and there is still space for more equality, usually unwelcomed by those not needing it.

3.2.4 Gender identity

In order to avoid confusion with the gender role behaviour, gender identity concerns a persons self-identification as male or female (Patterson, 2000; p.1059). It should be pointed out that gender identity is by no means to be confused with sexual orientation. These concepts must be kept apart to avoid the misconception that doubts about one's sexual orientation would also imply doubt about one's gender identity (Kjr&Selle, 2001). Sexual orientation describes persons relation towards other people, whereas gender identity is a term regarding exclusivelly persons perception of himself or herself. This concept comprises the T in LGBT, i.e. people who do not identify their gender with their biological body. Studies aimed at this issue concluded that there is no evidence that children from LGBT families would be uncertain about their gender identity or that they would express confusion about whether they are male or female (Green et al., 1986, Golombok et al., 1983) Although the research was aimed only at the children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers, none of the studies reported that children of lesbian mothers had specific problems with gender identity (Anderssen 2002; p.347).

3.2.5 Stigmatization
One potentially harmful aspect of being raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers is the risk that the child would face condemnation of the soctiety for the structure of family

- 22 -

environment he or she comes from. Harrassing, mockery and bullying in school gives rise to serious concerns, especially due to the fact that young children are particularly sensitive to teasing and their peers often happen to be cruel social executioners indeed. Therefore we can define someone as being stigmatized as having an attribute that makes him or her reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one (Goffman, 1963; p.12). According to Goffman, those who are related to a stigmatized person are at the risk of being stigmatized as well. Here we can find connection between the stigmatization of homosexual parents and the risk of secondary stigmatization of their children. There are good reasons to believe that unlike sexual orientation, the ability to tolerate differences in other peoples lifestyle are indeed transmitted to the children in the process of upbringing. If a child has to suffer teasing remarks or even physical violence in school, this gives clearer picture of the other childs parents character rather than that of the harrased child or his/her family. Studies have shown that even in developed countries a substantial portion of the adult populations hold negative opinions towards homosexuality or LGBT people (Statistisk Sentralbyr, 1997; Herek & Capitanio, 1996) and if this attitude is present in the family, through children it perpetuates negative stereotypes. It is important to look at the reasons for this stigmatization and their origin. Scientists found the relation of childrens stigmatization with the lacking social and legal recognition of LGBT families. Because lesbigay parents do not enjoy the same rights, respect, and recognition as heterosexual parents, their children contend with the burdens of vicarious social stigma (Stacey&Biblarz, 2001; p.177). Perhaps a significant portion of the stigmatization could be lifted if children would be given more realistic information on homosexuality and if the separation of LGBT families would be eradicated at the legal level. However, the major voice of opposition on the liberalization of marriage rejects both notions. Catholic Church advocates reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits (...) above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage. (...) Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil (Ratzinger, 2003). It is therefore very important to raise awareness of the issue in cases of school bullying and other situations where the child or the wholde family gets wrongfully stigmatized. This requires lot of effort and patience but studies have shown that in terms of understanding this and describing families to their peers and teachers, children from LGBT families seem to cope rather well (Perrin, 2002). - 23 -

Despite the stong stigmatization of the LGBT families, the studies reported almost no cases of serious bullying and harrasment due to having a lesbian mother or gay father. However, the studies clearly point to that the children are concerned about the chance of being stigmatized and it is not wise to underestimate the consequrnces of this risk (see OConnell, 1993; Tasker & Golombok, 1997).

3.3 LGBT families and children: conclusion

In this chapter, five main areas were identified where the development of a child raised by same-sex couples could be negatively influenced, at least in the eyes of opposers of same-sex marriages with parental rights recognition. In terms of emotional functioning, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender role behavior, and stigmatization of a child we can look for support in large body of conducted research focused directly at these aspects of development. In sum, the findings support the idea that lesbian women should be allowed to be considered suitable for adoption.. (Anderssen, 2002; p.349). For gay men, there should be conducted more research for achieving academic certainty although insofar as available research findings show, the same applies for them. American Academy of Pediatrics, concluded that no data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents (Perrin, 2002; p.343) Upon reviewing large body of available research, there is an apparent need to states, that policies that discourage the placement of children to same-sex couples should be reexamined, although few researchers have voiced the need of such political notion directly (e.g. Costello, 1997; p.84, Anderssen 2002; p.349). Studies indicate that for a child to be non-heterosexual, to be confused with his or her gender identity or to behave outside the gender stereotypes, the chance is overall the same when raised by a same-sex couple than in a traditional family. However, one particular issue renders children from LGBT families more vulnerable and might undermine the proper development and well-being of the child; when he or she experiences prejudice and condemnation from the society on the basis of negative stigma attached to the parents. The effects of stigmatization on a child are not to be underestimated. It still poses a harmful menace to their development, although LGBT parents are hardly to blame. As much it is unjustified to stigmatize non-heterosexual people per se, it is an even greater

- 24 -

injustice to transfer this stigma to the children raised in LGBT families. The society itself faces a rather difficult challenge to overcome some deeply rooted prejudices and promote the atmosphere of tolerance and inclusion instead of that of exclusivity and isolation. All possible concerns should be identified, defined and weighted against substantive research. If disproven, the findings should be medialized and proper dialogue should emerge in public and through information exchange it can slowly turn the tides in the intellectual battle against homophobia. Hopefully, the situation loses intensity hand-in-hand with the development of tolerance in the society, the work on which has been a prominent ambition of human rights activism in dozens of years. We share the opinion of George Takei, excellent actor, activist and outed gay, that it does get better and and that there is help out there. Children and young people accursed by their peers with the homosexuality stigma, either due to their family origin or their own sexual orientation, should be encouraged not to listen to the douchebags of the world (George Takei, 2010).

- 25 -

4. Development of legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Norway

Levels of sexual citizenship, as defined at the beginning of Chapter 1, vary significantly across countries. Although in the the case of rights and duties for heterosexual married couple the situation in Europe is to a certain degree equivalent, it changes when we look at the level of sexual citizenship acknowledged to non-heterosexuals (Waaldjik, 2004). Despite the fact that much has been written about the theoretical reasons for legal recognition of same-sex couples, the progress is practically rather cautious and political will is still enormously hard to gather to press on policies regarding this area. Some countries, however, faced the challenge and re-shaped the legal framework around the traditional foundation-stone of the society. Scandinavian countries are the pioneers of this notion and have served as vanguard of LGBT rights in terms of legal recognition. All five Scandinavian countries have passed the Registration Partnership Act before any other country did. First to take this step was Denmark in 1989, Norway in 1993 followed suit, Sweden joined soon after that in 1994, Iceland in 1996 and later Finland in 2001 (Scherpe, 2010). In Norway and Sweden the development did not stay still with the registered partnership. Since the break of millenia, several European countries have introduced registered partnership or marriage rights to couples regardless of their gender. This underlines the importance of Nordic model in the recognition process of sexual minorities in Europe, because Nordic countries arguably have played a central role in the development and shaping of family laws in Europe and indeed in what some believe to be an emerging European family law (Scherpe, 2010; p.266). Although in the European context it was Netherlands (followed by Belgium) the first country to legally recognize same-sex marriages, Norway as the sixth country in the world and first in Scandinavia to do so, is a particulary interesting example. In addition to the prominent role in spreading the Nordic model, Norway is a more than suitable country on which to illustrate the transition from a state where informal cohabitation and homosexuality is illegal towards the present day, when lesbian and gay couples are allowed to enjoy the same level of protection and benefits from marriage as heterosexuals.

- 26 -

4.1 The path towards Registered Partnership Act

In Norway, up until 1972, law regulated the lives of homosexual people as well as those couples that chose to live together and not to marry through two Sections in the Penal Code. Section 213 outlawed sexual contact between men and Section 379 outlawed heterosexual cohabitation outside marriage (Andersen, 2011). Although the cohabitating couples were through their refusal to marry undermining the institution, LGBT people at that time could be accused of undermining society, the nation, and the state (Andersen, 2011; p.120). Discrimination based on sexual orientation had been in 1972 deemed unacceptable and led to the lift of the ban. At the same time, cohabitating heterosexual couples challenged the position of marriage as being the only legal institution for family life. Cohabitation of people regardless of their sexual orientation has been thus symbolically approved as a tolerable family form by lifting the concubinage restrictions (Scherpe, 2010). Although mentioned Sections were abolished, the issue of LGBT people and cohabitating couples continued. Political discussion showed that the norms in the society do not necessarily change simply because of different laws. Various government reports to the parliament stressed out the importance of family based on marriage between one man and one woman and the heteronormative values after the lift of anti-homosexuality laws and even after the institution of registered partnership had been in place for a decade (Stortingsmelding nr. 29, 2002-2003). Nevertheless, once homosexuality was no longer punishable by law, the LGBT community could publicly demand their rights. Prominent voice in the LGBT movement was at that time Det Norske Forbundet av 1948. DNF-48 was founded in 1950 as an organisation with aim to promote interests of non-heterosexual people. The organisation later merged with several other LGBT organisations to form the Norwegian LGBT Association and played an important role in repealing of the controversial Sections of the Penal Code. In order to put the events into perspective, after removal of homosexuality from the list of mental diseases in 1977 by the American Psychiatrists Association, the social pressure towards abolishment of discrimination was on the rise. In 1981, Norway introduced a special legal protection of LGBT people against discriminatory statements and hate speech (Hennum, 2001), further encouraging them to continue in the struggle for equality. Although legal recognition was one of the major aims of the LGBT movements, not everyone in the community looked at first at the concept of access to marriage as - 27 -

being liberating. DNF-48 was explicitly opposed to this notion: The value of the individual does not depend on the ability, will or opportunity to establish a relationship with another person. (DNF-48, National Convention 1973 cited in Andersen 2011; p.123). This view was at that time not uncommon in Scandinavia; new liberal views on sexual citizenship emerged in Denmark and Sweden, where the political left called to abandon the ideal of bourgeois marriage (Andersen 2011; p.123) at all, and proposed the arrangement of families under one common register. Eventually, such reforms were dismissed, despite the political discussion they had stirred (Scherpe 2010). However, in the course of 1980s a shift of political focus occurred and only the heterosexual families were the centre of gender equality policies. For the political majority, whether on the right or the left, and whether for or against gender equality, the heterosexual family dominated the political agenda (Andersen 2011;124). This political climate meant a dead-end in DNF-48 efforts towards promotion of diversity and in order to adapt, a new political agenda had to be incorporated, pointing out the discrimination in the sexual rights. Since 1987, equality for same-sex couples in terms of sexual citizenship was advocated instead of continuing to campaign for citizenship without privileging those who live as couples (Andersen 2011; p.125). By changing their position from 1973, DNF-48 merely decided to make compromise with the political climate that was becoming gradually receptive to the issue of sexual minorities. In a press statement, DNF-48 thus declared direct request for legal recognition of same-sex relationships. On 14 December 1987, the chair and the secretary of information of the organisation asked the government that it makes a Proposition to the Storting (Parliament) concerning regulation of homosexual partnership (Andersen 2011; p.125). Interestingly, the struggle for legal recognition of diverse ways of cohabitation continued, although it was led from the other direction: heterosexual cohabitating couples. Indeed, the pressure from the LGBT movements would probably not be sufficient if the overall societal view on traditional family had not been challenged on other fronts as well (see Halvorsen 1998). Diffusionist theory explains that different models of cohabitation can be contagious to the level of becoming an acceptable social norm. (Nazio 2008) and after the law against cohabitation was lifted, many heterosexual couples were increasingly opting for non-marital cohabitation as their first form of cohabitation instead of marriage, especially in 1980s (Andersen, 2011; p.127). Despite the significant change it brought to the demographic situation, unmarried couples could not enjoy any legal benefits from their cohabitation, such as joint property or heritage rights. Hence the - 28 -

other need for legal recognition of cohabitating couples which led to statutes securing some legal protection for cohabitating couples especially those who had children. (ibid.) Therefore we are eager to assume that the clash between the overall change of social climate regarding ways of cohabitation and the central position of marriage as the legitimate space to form a family was an important contributing factor in the pursuit for liberalization of sexual citizenship. As happened eventually in all Nordic countries, Norway introduced a separate bill on registered partnerships instead of amending the existing Marriage Act. Even when the limitations for adoption rights were implemented, incorporating same-sex couples in the marriage code might at that time be perceived as a threat towards marriage as a social institution and its unique position in society. Tactically, it seemed more sensible to propose a new term, i.e. registered partnership, and a separate act. (Noack et al., 2005; p.91). In April 1993 Norway adopted the Registered Partnership Act by a narrow margin of one vote (Roth, 1997). Although constructed as virtually identical to marriage, Section 4 set up the main difference by excluding the registered couple from adoption process.

4.2 Core values and arguments in the Norwegian debate before the enactment of Registered Partnerships Act
The public debate preceding the enactment was vivid and led to formation of two opinion coalitions across the political and social spectra. With the aid of much helpful analysis by Ingvill Strksen from University of Bergen, it is now possible to identify core actors and arguments used in this debate. Proponents of the Registered Partnership Act comprised of then governmental Labour Party (AP), majority of the Progress Party (FrP), Socialist Left Party (SV) as well as the minority of the Centre Party (SP) and the Conservative Party (H). An influential role in the debate was played by the successor of DNF-48; the Norwegian LGBT Association (LLH) formed in 1992, together with majority of NGOs focused on human rights gender-equality. (Strksen, 2000; p.114) On the other hand the political opposition had basis in the Parliament: whole Christian Democratic Party, majority of Central Party and Conservative Party and minority of Progress Party and also in various religious bodies outside the Parliament. This opinion group shared the core principles in Christian ethics. The most radical organisation opposing the partnership law was the Folkeaksjonen mot partnerskapsloven (People's Action against the Partnership

- 29 -

Act), which related the Partnership Act and thus implications of homosexuality being accepted in the society, to the fall of Roman Empire (ibid.). Since the question of parenthood was not on the table at that time, the discussion revolved mainly around the exclusive position of heterosexual marriage and freedom of individuals choice. Although both opinion groups declared that they share the value of tolerance, the distinction between tolerance of LGBT people and the tolerance of their relationships (and homosexual practice), was fundamental to the opposition. Both proponents and opponents based their arguments on collective values, but their strategy to prioritize community and Christian values differed significantly. Whereas the political opposition perceived the partnership law as a threat to the existing social structure and values, namely the heterosexual marriage as the prioritized way of living together, the proponents saw it as a confirmation of the same (Strksen, 2000; p.116). As one member of FrP put it, the real threat to marriage: are those heterosexual couples that live together, although they have marriage as an alternative (ibid.). Also the argument used by the proponents was that introducing a legal framework for same-sex relationships could be perceived as a weapon against promiscuity, even to counteract the danger of spreading of AIDS (Strksen, 2000; p.117). Acceptance-related arguments were also often used in the debate. Both the Act's supporters and opponents argued on the basis of the concept of acceptance. The latter (except the radical Peoples Action) declared that they are tolerant towards homosexuals, but their relationships dont deserve equal footing than heterosexual relationships. On the other hand, the proponents of the act advocated acceptance for both the homosexual persons and couples. In their opinion it would make it easier for LGBT people to be open about their sexuality and enter stable relationships. A representative from the SV party argued that the difference is that whereas heterosexuals have community acceptance and facilitation of their unions, homosexuals lack this. In short, they have been discriminated on the basis of their sexuality (Strksen 2000;117). The debate tackled the very definitions of partnership and homosexuality as well. The People's Action against the Partnership Act used the strongest rhetorical tools, refusing that homosexuality is an innate condition. This theory was in their opinion a medical myth and instead, they saw homosexuality as curable through the sufficient closeness to God (Strksen 2000;122). Moreover, they warned against promoting homosexual culture in our country which would in their opinion lead to danger to children who are easily impressionable that they may perceive it that it is just natural to be homosexual as to be - 30 -

heterosexual (ibid). On the other hand, the proponents perception of homosexuality was based on constructivism and essentialism. Their objection was that there is no shred of scientific evidence to suggest that this is an acquired, infectious or epidemic disease, which by adoption of the Partnership Act would cause uninhibited spread of homosexuality. (Strksen 2000;123). The account on constructivism was the view on how the social sanctions influence the lifestyle of LGBT people, above all the possibilities to enter a committed long-term relationship. As Strksen concludes, The debate showed a clear connection between constructivist / essentialist view of homosexuality and positive attitude to partnership law, and religious / essentialist view of homosexuality and resistance to partnership law (Strksen 2000;127). It seems to be necessary to try to explain a part of how could Norway overcome the religious pressure against the partnership law and gather enough of political support for its enactment. One explanation could be that compared to the debates around similar proposals in other countries, Norway and Nordic countries in general are strongly secular and
political debates are perceived as carried out with rational arguments (Andersson et al.,

2010; p.5). If we add to the equation that the Church of Norway confesses the Lutheran Christian faith, which tends to embrace more open attitude towards reforms, religious arguments against the same-sex partnerships/marriages had to have somehow less impact on the final outcome of the debate. Norwegian society certainly deserves credit for making possible even the consideration of liberalizing the norms about the composition of social framework on the nuclear level. Although the debate before enactment of the Registered Partnerships Act was rather dense and often sharp, eventually the Storting (Parliament) passed the bill, although only by a narrow margin of one vote (Roth, 1997; p.467). Nevertheless, in the light of later enactment of gender neutral Marriage Act, we can safely assume, that it wasnt an exceptional political phenomenon but quite the opposite; Norway had indeed been moving effectively along the tolerance road, where the greater acceptance of LGBT people in society led to even more political support.

- 31 -

4.3 The path towards gender-neutral Marriage Act

It would be ridiculous to assume that the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships miraculously improved societys perception of LGBT people overnight. The fact that the partnership law passed due to a very close majority in the parliament logically leads to that only a slightly smaller minority was against the proposal. Moreover, it occurs that the MPs had generally more accepting views on registered partnerships than the public. Opinion polls suggested that although a considerable portion of the population at that time was indifferent, there never seems to have been a general majority in favour of the Act (Halvorsen, 1998; p.213 in Andersson et al., 2010; p.4). However, after the introduction of the partnership law, its repealing did not become the political agenda of any of the opposing parties and hardly any voices have been heard in favour of abolishing the
opportunity to form registered partnerships (Andersson et al. 2010; p.5). Anyway, the anti-

homosexual bias - the perception that homosexuality is a condition that can (and needs to) be cured - was still present, even in the professional circles. In the year 2000 Norwegian psychiatric association disavowed therapeutic practices aimed to amend ones sexual orientation reasoning that such practices are harmful to mental health. Sadly, even at the verge of millennia some Norwegian psychiatrists openly legitimized such attempts. (Kjr Selle, 2001). We are able to find interesting demographic patterns following the enactment of registered partnerships from the precise records of the Norwegian population register. Instances when a child was being raised in LGBT families were rather scarce during the 90s, and most of them were children from one of the partners previous heterosexual marriage. In 2000s the parenthood among same-sex unions was on the rise and accelerating. In Norway, the same number increased from 46 in 2001 to 256 in 2009
(Andersson et al., 2010; p.14). The rise of this variable indicates that the social acceptance

and legal recognition of same-sex partnerships in Scandinavia paved the way to the social recognition of same-sex parenting, rather than the other way around. (ibid.). The path towards gender-neutral Marriage Act was indeed paved by many factors. As it was in the case of Registered Partneship Act, such fundamental change in the legal norms regarding the composition of family wouldnt have been possible without previous demographic change in cohabitation patterns and rising need for recognition thereof. In the Report on family presented in the Parliament by the second Bondeviks government in 2003, the family is defined rather broadly, encompassing married couples with and - 32 -

without children, cohabiting couples with and without children, same-sex partners with and without children, single parents living with children, families with foster children and single people living alone. (Stortingmelding nr.29, 2002-2003; p.5). As for the year 2006, the number of couples that entered into registered partnership was highest so far, 227 pairs, both in 2005 and 2004 the number was 192 pairs (Ot.prp. nr. 33, 2007-2008; 5.2.2). In order to gain then achievable political support, the Registered Partnership Act did not provide legal possibility for adoption. This led to situations when a registered partner would become a stepfather/stepmother for the child, but without the possibility of adoption as heterosexual couples had. However, amendment in adoption law and partnership law from 2002 introduced access for a partner in a registered partnership to apply for a stepchild adoption by the other partner's child. This was an important move, because in effect it narrowed down the significant differences between registered partners and married couple to two: 1) heterosexuals could adopt children without being their biological parents and 2) heterosexuals union was recognized as marriage whereas non-heterosexuals union could be only partnership. Since in virtually all other aspects the registered partnership was equivalent to marriage, the debate before the final step of legal equalization of sexual minorities revolved naturally around these two concepts. From the government Proposition to the Parliament nr. 33 from 2008, which accounts thoroughly for the opinions expressed in the public debate, we can identify the values and arguments used by the actors. As in other parts of Europe, the controversy surrounding same-sex parenting became eventually a bigger issue than that of same-sex unions itself and similarly as before the enactment of the partnership law, the opinion cleavages ran across the ecclesiasticial/secular and conservative/liberal axes. Conservative Bondeviks government rejected the notion for further equalisation of non-marital and marital cohabitants with the explanation that such action should first and foremost should be based in the needs of the children (Report to the Storting no. 29, 20022003; p.61).

- 33 -

4.4 Core values and arguments in the Norwegian debate before the enactment of gender-neutral Marriage Act
After the elections in 2005 new government was formed as a coalition of the Labour Party, Socialist Left Party and Centre Party. The coalition agreement which served as the basis for Jens Stoltenbergs second government, presented among others official government policy regarding LGBT people and marriage: The government will go in for changes in marriage law that allow marriage between two people of the same sex with the same rights as marriage between two people of the opposite sex (The Declaration of Sora Moria, 2005). It was initially considered amending the Act on Registrated Partnership as an alternative, changing it so that it will include the same rights as marriage law. However, the Ministry of Children and Equality (Barne- og likestillingsdepartementet) did not choose simply to extend the Registered Partnership Act, because it would have perpetuated the special position of LGBT couples. A continuation of this special treatment will just be helping to reinforce that a love relationship between two women or two men is something qualitatively different than the love relationship between a woman and man (Ot.prp. nr. 33, 2007-2008; 5.5). The Ministry wanted to allow all people regardless of sexual orientation should have the same opportunities to choose to marry if this couple wants. The vision that fully equal treatment of LGBT couples would enhance positive perception of LGBT people in society was held in mind from the very beginning. Common marriage legislature will provide strong signals of equal treatment, and this in turn could affect attitudes in society (ibid.). The Ministry also recognized the issue of mental health of LGBT people, especially LGBT youth, arguing that the common marriage and equal treatment of homosexual love will improve the public opinion and may help to achieve greater acceptance for the young non-heterosexuals (ibid.). Norwegian Directorate of Children, Youth and Family Affairs (BUFD) provided as early as in 2007 its consultation view and amendment proposals for the planned common Marriage Act for same-sex and different-sex couples. Although they would have welcomed broader discussion on the historical, cultural and social conditions and consequences that the concept of marriage entails and changing of marriage would entail, they stated that it is desirable to have equal rules for marriage for different-sex and same-sex couples and that they grant [their] positive endorsement of the bill. (BUFD 2007). The Directorate did not have any major objections towards granting same-sex couples, they stressed out, - 34 -

however, that the strict procedures preceding adoption process must be fulfilled. Where the child does not live with the prospective adoptive parents in advance, it is first and foremost, applicants' personal suitability must be tested. (ibid.). This argument completely corresponds with the theoretical analysis in earlier chapters of this thesis. In the public consultation process before the introduction of the proposal in the Storting (Parliament), numerous consultation authorities, almost all of them from ecclesiastic sphere, expressed their opinion that the proposal should be not forwarded. The opponents used to great degree very similar arguments than before the enactment of the partnership law. The Church of Norway emphasized the Christian view that marriage is instituted by God and it must comprise of a man and a woman. Their main argument against the new Marriage Act was that the state had already established various laws and schemes for samesex couples and that there is no need for further marriage rights. The Council stressed the unique position of marriage, pointing out the different biological conditions of homosexual couples thus rejecting the requirement of equal treatment [because it] can only be claimed to be legitimate when the conditions are otherwise equal. (Ot.prp. nr. 33, 2007-2008; 5.4.1). Furthermore, two dioceses of the Church of Norway went further in rhetoric and claimed that well-reasoned different treatment based on various factors and overall values does not equal discrimination and they reject that it is discriminatory and against marriage equality to reserve the law for heterosexual couples (ibid.) The Ministry held opinion that a marriage institution that includes only one woman and one man in reality represent a discrimination. [...] It is assumed that gays and lesbians relationships are of equal value as heterosexual relationships. (Ot.prp. nr. 33, 2007-2008; 5.5). Another concern from the Church of Norway foresaw the potential corrosive effect of same-sex marriages on the symbolical value of traditional marriage: [the Act] will rob marriage of its current ethical, cultural, religious or social legitimacy, leading to the potential loss of its position as the basic social brick (ibid.) The Governments response to this concern was that it is not understandable how the position of marriage can deteriorate by giving same-sex couples access to marriage as a framework for stable committed relationship. It will be a positive change that more people can have the opportunity to choose marriage as living together, and the ministry would in this way like to strengthen marriage. (Ot.prp. nr. 33, 2007-2008; 5.5). This follows the logic shared by Andersen (2011) that by opening of marriage to same-sex couples, the position of marriage as an

- 35 -

institution was in fact being strengthened and the couple normality represented by the concept of marriage would be consolidated for LGBT couples as well. Naturally, childrens perspective was widely discussed. Such as the other opponents, the family organization MorFarBarn.no expressed their concerns with the impact of the law on the entire community, destabilizing the role model of traditional family. Moreover, the organization stressed out the potential negative influence on children development. Not least, it will be seen in kindergarten and school. [...] That will very likely lead to increased uncertainty and confusion in many children's sexual development and understanding of sexuality, and in the formation of identity and self-esteem (Ot.prp. nr. 33 2007-2008;5.4.1). The Ministry in its reply referred to the Interim Report that served as a basis for the consultation basis and included an overview of research carried out on children who grow up in LGBT families. The response to the concerns about children development corresponds with the findings in chapter 2.4. of this thesis. The Ministry declared that gay and lesbian parents are just as good as heterosexual parents and that there is no proven difference between children raised in same-gender couples and children raised in heterosexual families. There is no difference in children's ability to obtain or retain friends, mental and social well-being or in terms of gender development. This means that parents' sexual identity does not affect the child's sexual development (Ot.prp. nr. 33, 2007-2008; 5.5). Recognizing, that the opponents of the Act stated that they are concerned with the well-being of the child, the Ministry concludes: The most important for children to grow up in safe and good environment. Marriage is the most stable frame of the child's life. (ibid.). The support of the Act by a majority in the Parliament underlines that it is parenthood that is important for the government and that the biological sex of the parents in itself represents no guarantee for a positive and safe childhood. (Andersen 2011; 126). As it is common in other countries that have or had the debate on legal recognition of same-sex couples, in Norway the roots of most of the opposing arguments boil down to religious tenets and beliefs. The Ministry chose not to comment on the theological arguments against the Common Marriage Act and stated that although it respects the religious value of marriage, it must be considered at the same time as a civil action. The reason was that the crucial emphasis and requirement for marriage should be mutual love, not sexual orientation of the couple. (ibid.) In its final remark, the Ministry concluded that the desire for a long-term committed union is of higher relevance than the particularities about their sexual preference: If the parties are heterosexual or gays, have - 36 -

the same or different sex, is in this context just as little significance as so many other differences that may exist between couples, as long as the couple wants a lasting committed relationship. (ibid.).

- 37 -

Conclusion
The concept of marriage as a legalized, state-protected union of two people as a practical environment to form a family with the capacity to take care of each other and to provide good conditions for raising children is indeed a noble one and deserves protection. Throughout enormous part of the history, compatibility of sexes was understood as the most obvious prerequisite for forming such union, given the clearly distinct roles of men and women and their exclusive ability to concieve new life. Thanks to the industrial revolution and scientific advances that have lead to modernisation, many aspects of society and relations within have been changed, with most noticeable tendency towards securization and universalisation of human rights. The development was not easy at all, be it the end of segregation, enfranchisement of women, or other significant change in the proper setup of society, such adjustment of social norms is initially met with strong opposition. However, basic principles of the institute of marriage and family have rarely been challenged and even some of the most liberal and advanced societies considered this notion as something that is crossing the line. In the first part of this bachelor thesis we provided a closer look at the forms of legal recognition of non-heterosexual couples, pointed out the discriminatory principle of such provisional solutions and argued that the only way how to remove the civil disabilities of LGBT people is to legally open the institute of marriage also for people of same sex. Later we analyzed the potential of same-sex couples to form families, with particular attention paid to the impact on the development of children. These have been identified as areas from where the most influential opposers of same-sex marriage derive their arguments. With the support of substantive research done in this field, we systematically disputed claims that sexual orientation of parents affects negatively the healthy development of children. Concluding that stigmatization of LGBT people and their relatives is truly a persistent and harmful issue, it is nevertheless possible to eventually solve it through spread of informedness and tolerance a task that is aimed at the majority rather than those seeking to be allowed to formalize their relationships and raise children. Finally we analysed the development of sexual citizenship in Norway, which together with the other Scandinavian countries serves as a positive example, a vanguard in legal recognition of non-traditional family models. With regards to the theoretical body of argumentation presented in previous chapters, the final chapter of this bachelor thesis focused on the socio-political context and core arguments used in the Norwegian political - 38 -

debate that preceded the introduction of Registered Partnerships Act and common Marriage Act, respectively. The findings are as follows: 1) Core values and arguments used by the opponents of the enactment in the political debate correspond to high degree with the theorized arguments presented in the previous chapters. 2) Arguments used by the proponents of reforms to counter the opposition correspond with the argument analysis in this thesis and therefore it can be concluded that the development in Norwegian family law has greatly contributed to the removal of formal discrimination of LGBT people. Additionally, it shows that the arguments in favour of gender-neutral marriage that are presented in this thesis are indeed politically viable and deserve to be promoted.

- 39 -

Resum
Poas ostatnch desaro sme svedkami postupnho prehodnocovania

spoloenskch noriem a hodnt, ktor sa sstreuj okolo sexuality, ako aj prv a povinnost z nich vyplvajcich. Zdanlivo nekonen debata o tom, o je povaovan za prirodzen alebo neprirodzen v oblasti sexuality, ak je sprvna forma spolunavania a ak je vhodn prostredie pre vchovu det, priniesla v niektorch krajinch prvne zmeny smerom k liberalizcii heteronormatvneho prstupu k tomu sprvnemu zloeniu rodiny a vzahu tt-oban vo veobecnosti. Tto bakalrska prca m dvojak cie: kriticky analyzova hlavn argumenty, ktor s zvyajne pouvan proti otvoreniu intittu manelstva rovnakopohlavnm prom, a tie rozanalyzova vvoj sexulneho obianstva v Nrsku so zvltnym zameranm na argumenty, ktor rozhodli v prospech univerzlneho rodovo neutrlneho manelstva. Teoretick zklad pre rodovo neutrlne manelstvo mono podloi z udskoprvneho hadiska tvrdenm, e je to jedin nediskriminan spsob zrovnoprvnenia LGBT prov s heterosexulnymi, kee provizrne rieenia, akm je naprklad intitt registrovanho partnerstva, naalej udruj niektor prvne nsledky manelstva neprstupn LGBT prom. Monosti asistovanej reprodukcie a adopcie dieaa zostvaj naalej vyhraden pre zosoben pry a preto nemono hovori o plnom zrovnoprvnen. Avak prve vchova det je zvyajne neprpustn aj pre umiernenejiu skupinu odporcov homosexulnych manelstiev. alia zvyajn vitka sa tka tradinej rodiny a jej potencilneho ohrozenia v prpade, e by bolo mon uzavrie manelstvo medzi dvoma osobamie rovnakho pohlavia. Hlavn as tejto prce sa teda zameriava na identifikovanie a analzu argumentov, ktor zdanlivo klad prekky zrovnoprvneniu LGBT prov s heterosexulnymi, s cieom zisti, nakoko sa zakladaj na pravde. Zveren as prce sa venuje vvoju sexulneho obianstva v Nrsku z pohadu spoloenskch okolnost a rozboru politickej debaty, ktor predchdzala uzkoneniu registrovanch partnerstiev aj rodovo neutrlneho manelstva. Aby sme odlili oficilne argumenty proti uzkoneniu registrovanch partnerstiev od nereprezentatvnych subjektvnych nzorov jednotlivcov, stanovili sme najrozsiahlejiu styn platformu proti-LGBT opozcie, za ktor sa do istej miery d povaova Katolcka cirkev, kee jej vplyv je minimlne v Euro-Americkom kontexte vemi vrazn a konzervatvne politick strany, ktor sa asto radia medzi kresansko-demokratick, predstavjuj v politickch diskusich zvyajnch odporcov liberalizcie sexulneho - 40 -

obianstva. Kee spochybni akkovek nboensk argumenty je absoltne mimo monost tejto prce, zamerali sme sa na faktick argumenty, ktorch pravdivos mono analyzova na zklade logiky a existujceho vskumu. Je preto mon identifikova dva hlavn zvzky vhrad voi homosexulnym manelstvm: 1) Bol by to tok na tradin rodinu, ktor vedie k destabilizcii intittu heterosexulneho manelstva a teda aj spolonosti ako takej. 2) V prpade, e by dvaja mui alebo dve eny vychovvali diea, bolo by to pre to diea nebezpen z pohadu jeho psychosocilneho vvoja. V vode k analze tchto argumentov je nutn stanovi nzorov vchodiskov bod tejto prce, aby bolo mon logicky nadstavova na identifikovanom zklade. Ako zkladn vchodisko sa v tejto prci povauj tri zkladn premisy: 1) Kad osoba, nezvisle na sexulnej orientcii, m schopnos sa zamilova a vytvori pevn vzah s inou osobou. 2) Homosexulne sprvanie nie je neprirodzen, kee takto sprvanie sa d tie njs v zvieracej ri, dokonca aj medzi primtmi. 3) Homosexualita nie je duevn choroba, nie je nkazliv, ned sa vyliei a nie je to vsledok voby. Americk Psychologick Asocicia odstrnila homosexualitu zo zoznamu duevnch chorb v roku 1973 s podporou vedeckej obce a rozsiahleho vskumu. Napriek zostupnej tendencii je vak naalej v spolonosti a prslunch vedch prtomn heterosexulna zaujatos, o je systm, ktor hodnot heterosexualitu ako nadraden a prirodzenejiu ne homosexualitu. Poda katolckej cirkvi je prve manelstvo zaloen na komplementarite pohlav a plodnosti zkladom rodiny, ktor poda tejto defincie mono oznai za tradin rodinu. Na druhej strane, defincie rodiny vo vedeckch kruhoch s zvyajne veobecnejie a zahaj skupinu ud s pretrvvajcimi prvnymi, genetickmi a/alebo emocionlnymi vzbami a ich prnos pre spolonos je predovetkm ekonomick a v zmysle ochrany jednotlivca, zvl det a starcov. Prevldajci nzor, nezvisle od pohadu na rovnakopohlavn zvzky, je tak, e emocionlna kvalita a stabilita vzahu a teda aj rodiny je tm najdleitejm faktorom vo zvzku dvoch ud. Bez monosti prvne sformlni svoj vzah a radne si osvoji deti, maj rovnakopohlavn pry meniu motivciu usadi sa. Umonenm rodovo neutrlnych manelstiev by sa teda koncept rodiny skr podporil, ne oslabil. Tie si treba vimn, e pri alarmujcom pomere rozvodovosti k sobnosti v E, je tradin rodina oslabovan aj bez tlaku zo strany LGBT hnutia. Vysok rozvodovos navye spsobuje, e obrovsk mnostvo det vyrast bu s matkou alebo otcom, a teda nemaj prstup k rodiovskmu modelu tradinej rodiny, o je alm argumentom odporcov liberalizcie manelstva. Podobne vak ako v neplnch rodinch, - 41 -

deti LGBT rodiov nevyrastaj v socilnom vkuu a chbajce vzory s nahrdzan srodencami, prbuznmi alebo priatemi. V problematike vchovy det je astou otzkou, i a do akej miery s vbec rovnakopohlavn pry schopn postara sa o diea, ktor by zskali osvojenm alebo umelm oplodnenm. Plodnos pru sa u dlho nepovauje za nutn podmienku heterosexulneho manelstva a kee zujemcovia o adopciu sa musia podrobi nronmu a precznemu procesu hodnotenia, je vysoko pravdepodobn, e tie pry, ktor sa rozhodn si adoptova diea, s na tento krok spsobil a odhodlan. OSN v Deklarcii prv dieaa z roku 1959 vyzva k zvenej ochrane sirt a det vyrastajcich bez rodinnho prostredia, a prve LGBT pry by mohli, majc takto monos, poskytn takmto deom stabiln a milujce prostredie, ktor umouje vymani sa zo zaarovanho kruhu socilnej a emonej deprivcie. Staros o zdrav vvoj dieaa vychovvanho rovnakopohlavnm prom je pri koreni argumentov proti ich plnmu zrovnoprvneniu. Poetn tdie sa preto sstredili na nasledovnch p hlavnch kategri, ktor predstavuj oblasti, v ktorch by vvoj dieaa mohol by ohrozen: emon fungovanie, sexulna orientcia, rodov identita, sprvanie sa poda rodovch loh a stigmatizcia. iaden vskum vak nepotvrdil obavy, e by deti z LGBT rodn zaostvali v akejkovek oblasti duevnho a osobnostnho vvinu, prpadne, e maj pochybnosti o svojej rodovej identite alebo sexulnej orientcii. Jedin vrazn a pretrvvajci problm, bohuia, ostva v oblasti stigmatizcie, o predstavuje odsdenie spolonosou a predsudky na zklade zloenia rodiny, z ktorej diea pochdza. Tento problm vak viac vypoved o schopnosti tolerancie majoritnej spolonosti, ne o problme vlastnom LGBT komunite. kandinvske krajiny mono poklada za priekopnkov v oblasti prv neheterosexulnych ud, zvl v oblasti sexulneho obianstva. Dnsko, Nrsko, vdsko, Island a Fnsko uzkonili registrovan partnerstv ako prv krajiny na svete a Nrsko bolo prvou krajinou spomedzi nich, ktor zaviedla rodovo neutrlne manelstv. Na prklade Nrska preto meme pozorova menej ne tyri desaroia trvajci vvoj sexulneho obianstva od ias, kedy bolo neformlne spolunavanie trestn cez uzkonenie registrovanch partnerstiev a po rodovo neutrlne manelstv a identifikova argumenty, ktor zstancovia a odporcovia tchto krokov pouvali. Porovnvajc tieto argumenty s teoretickm zkladom nartnutm v predchdzajcich astiach bakalrskej prce, mono vyvodi nasledujce zvery: 1) Zkladn hodnoty a argumenty pouvan odporcami uzkonenia registrovanch - 42 -

partnerstiev a rodovo neutrlnych manelstiev shlasia s predpokladanmi argumentami rozobratmi v predolch kapitolch. 2) Argumetny pouvan zstancami reforiem shlasia s analzou argumentov v tejto prci a preto mono uzavrie, e vvoj rodinnho prva v Nrsku do vekej miery prispel k odstrneniu formlnej diskrimincie ud neheterosexulnej orientcie.

- 43 -

Bibliography
American Academy of Family Physicians 2009: definition of family. [online]. [cit. 2011-0330]. Accessible at: <http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/policy/policies/f/familydefinitionof.html> ANDERSEN, A. J. 2011. Sexual citizenship in Norway. In International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. ISSN 1464-3707, 2011, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 120134. ANDERSSEN, N. AMILE, C. YTTERY, E. A. 2002. Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. In Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. ISSN 1467-9450, vol. 43, no. 4, p. 335351. ARENDT, H. 1959. Reflections on Little Rock: A reply to critics. p. 179181. Reprinted in A. Sullivan, 1997. Same sex marriage: Pro and con. 144 p. New York: Vintage, 1997. Cited in KITZINGER, C. WILKINSON, S. 2004. Social advocacy for equal marriage: The politics of rights and the psychology of mental health. In Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. ISSN 1530-2415, 2004, vol. 4, no. 1, p.173194. BAGEMIHL, B. 1999. Biological exuberance : animal homosexuality and natural diversity. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999. 768 p. ISBN 0-312-19239-8. BAILEY, J. et al. 1995. Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. In Developmental Psychology. ISSN 0012-1649, 1995, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 124129. BALSAM, K. ROTHBLUM, E. D. SOLOMON, S. E. 2004. Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and Gay Male Couples in Civil Unions Compared With Those Not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings. In Journal of Family Psychology. ISSN 0893-3200, 2004, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 275-286. BALSAM, K. F et al. 2008. Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples. In Developmental Psychology. ISSN 0012-1649, 2008, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 102-116. Barne- o likestillingsdepartementet. 2007. Hring forslag om endringer i ekteskaploven mv. Felles ekteskaplov for likekjnnede og ulikekjnnede par [online]. Official statement of the Directorate of Children, Youth and Family Affairs, 200. [cit. 2011-04-10]. Accessible at: <http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/BLD/Hringer/2007/Felles%20ekteksapslov/Bufdir.pd f> BAUMRIND, D. 1995. Commentary on sexual orientation: Research and social policy implications. In Developmental Psychology. ISSN 0012-1649, 1995, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 130 136. BELCASTRO, P. A. et al. 1993. A review of data based studies addressing the affects of homosexual parenting on childrens sexual and social functioning. In Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. ISSN 1050-2556, 1994, vol. 20, no. 1-2, p. 105122. - 44 -

BOZETT, F. W. 1987. Children of gay fathers. In Bozett, F. W. (ed.), Gay and lesbian parents, p. 3957. New York: Praeger, 1987. 247 p. ISBN 0-275-92541-2. BULLOUGH, V. L. 1974. Homosexuality and the medical model. In Journal of Homosexuality. ISSN 0091-8369, 1976, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 99-110. CAMERON, P. CAMERON, K. 1997. Did the APA misrepresent the scientific literature to courts in support of homosexual custody? In Journal of Psychology. ISSN 0022-3980, 1997, vol. 131, no. 3, p. 313332. CARLIN G. 1996. Pro Life, Abortion, And The Sanctity Of Life [online video]. Youtube, 2009. [cit. 2011-03-30]. Accessible at: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM> CONGER, J. J. 1975. Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1974: Minutes of the Annual meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist. ISSN 0003-066X, 1975, vol. 30, no. 6, p. 620651. COSTELLO, C. Y. 1997. Conceiving Identity: Bisexual, Lesbian and Gay Parents Consider their Children's Sexual Orientations. In Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. ISSN 0191-5096, 1997, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 63-89. DONNELLY, J. 2003. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003. 290 p. ISBN 0-8014-8776-5. DUNDAS, S. KAUFMAN, M. 2000. The Toronto Lesbian Family Study. In Journal of Homosexuality. ISSN 0091-8369, 2000, vol. 40, no. 2, p. 65-79. DUNNE, G. A. 2000. Opting into Motherhood: Lesbians Blurring the Boundaries and Transforming the Meaning of Parenthood and Kinship. In Gender and Society. ISSN 08912432, 2000, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 11-35. ESKRIDGE, W. 1993. A history of same-sex marriage, In Virginia Law Review [online]. 1993, vol. 79, no. 7 [cit. 2011-03-19]. Accessible at: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1073379>. Eurostat: data on average divorce rate in European Union [online]. Official European statistics portal. [cit: 2011-03-28]. Accessible at: <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/dataset?p_product_cod e=TPS00013> GOFFMAN, E. 1963. Stigma. Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1986. 147 p. ISBN 0-671-62244-7. GOLOMBOK, S. SPENCER, A. RUTTER, M. 1983. Children in lesbian and singleparent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. In Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. ISSN 1469-7610, 1983, vol. 24, no. 4. p. 551572.

- 45 -

GOLOMBOK, S. TASKER, F. 1996. Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families. In Developmental Psychology. ISSN 0012-1649, 1996, vol. 32, no. 1, p. 3-11. GOTTMAN, J. S. 1990. Children of gay and lesbian parents. In F. W. Bozett & M. B. Sussman (eds.), Homosexuality and family relations, p. 177196. New York: Haworth Press, 1990. 339 p. ISBN 0-86656-947-2 GREEN, R. 1978. Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents. In American Journal of Psychiatry. ISSN 0002-953X, 1978, vol. 135, no. 6, p. 692-697. GREEN, R. et al. 1986. Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. In Archives of Sexual Behavior. ISSN 0004-0002, vol.15, no. 2, p. 167184. HALVORSEN, R. 1998. The ambiguity of lesbian and gay marriages: Change and continuity in the symbolic order. In J. Lfstrm (ed.), Scandinavian homosexualities: Essays on gay and lesbian studies, p. 207-231. New York: Haworth Press, 1998. 257 p. ISBN 1-7890-0508-5. HEGNA, K. KRISTIANSEN, H. W. MOSENG, B. U. 1999. Levekr og livskvalitet blant lesbiske kvinner og homofile menn, Oslo: Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring. NOVArapport 1/1999. ISBN 82-7894-068-1. HENNUM, R. 2001. Lesbiske og homofiles rettsstilling. In Brandster, M. C. et al. (eds.), Norsk homoforskning, p. 85-103. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2001. 453 p. ISBN: 82-1500091-6. HERDT, G KERTZNER, R.M. 2006. I do, but I cant: The impact of marriage denial on the mental health and sexual citizenship of lesbians and gay men in the United States. In Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC. ISSN 1553-6610, 2006, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 33-49. HEREK, G. M. CAPITANIO, J. P. 1996. Some of my best friends: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. In Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. ISSN 0146-1672, 1996, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 412 424. HOLAN, M. S. 2009. Forbidden Identity: the link between lack of LGBT-rights and marginalisation: master thesis. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 2009. 124 p. HUGGINS, S. L. 1989. A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. In Bozett, F. W. (ed.), Homosexuality and the family, p. 123135. London: The Haworth Press, 1989. 204 p. ISBN 0-86656-818-2. JENNY, C. ROESLER, T. A. Poyer, K. L. 1994. Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? In Pediatrics. ISSN 0031-4005, 1994, vol. 94, no. 1, p. 4144. - 46 -

JORDAN, M. D. 2005. Blessing same-sex unions: The Perils of Queer Romance and the Confusions of Christian Marriage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. 258 p. ISBN 978-0-226-41033-3 KITZINGER, C. WILKINSON, S. 2004. Social advocacy for equal marriage: The politics of rights and the psychology of mental health. In Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. ISSN 1530-2415, 2004, vol. 4, no. 1, p.173194. KJR, R. SELLE, M. S. 2001. Levekr og livskvalitet for lesbiske og homofile. In Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening [online]. 2001, vol. 121, no. 16. [cit. 2011-04-28]. Accessible at: <http://tidsskriftet.no/article/353758>. KURDEK, L. A. 2004. Are Gay and Lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? In Journal of Marriage and Family. ISSN 1741-3737, 2004, vol. 66, no. 4, p. 880-901. MORIN, S. F. 1977. Heterosexual Bias in Psychological Research on Lesbianism and Male Homosexuality. In American Psychologist. ISSN 0003-066X, 1977, vol. 32, no. 8, p. 629637. NAZIO, T. 2008. Cohabitation, Family and Society. Routledge, New York and London: Routledge, 2008. 228 p. ISBN 0-415-36841-4 OCONNELL, A. 1993. Voices from the heart: The developmental impact of a mothers lesbianism on her adolescent children. In Smith College Studies in Social Work. ISSN 0037-7317, 1993, vol. 63, no. 3, p. 281299. Ot. prp. nr. 33 (2007-2008) Om lov om endringer i ekteskapsloven, barnelova, adopsjonsloven, bioteknologiloven mv. (felles ekteskapslov for heterofile og homofile par). [online]. [cit. 2011-04-10]. Accessible at: <http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/bld/dok/regpubl/otprp/2007-2008/otprp-nr-33-20072008-.html?id=502670>. OTTOSSON, D. 2006. LGBT world legal wrap up survey [online]. International Lesbian and Gay Association online document. [cit. 2011-04-23]. Accessible at: <http://typo3.lsvd.de/fileadmin/pics/Dokumente/Homosexualitaet/World_legal_wrap_up_s urvey._November2006.pdf>. PAIGE, R. U. 2005. Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 2004. [online] Minutes of the meeting of the Council of Representatives July 28 & 30, 2004, Honolulu, HI. [cit 2011-03-15]. Accessible at: <http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/marriage.aspx>. PARKS, Ch. A. 1998. Lesbian Parenthood: A Review of the Literature. In American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. ISSN 1939-0025, 1998, vol. 68, no. 3, p. 376-389. PATTERSON, Ch. J. 1992. Children of lesbian and gay parents. In Child Development. ISSN 1467-8624, 1992, vol. 63, no. 5, p. 10251042.

- 47 -

PATTERSON, Ch. J. 2000. Family Relationships of Lesbian and Gay Men. In Journal of Marriage and Family. ISSN 1741-3737, 2000, vol. 62, no. 4, p. 1052-1069. PEPLAU, L. A. BEALS, K. P. 2004. The family lives of lesbians and gay men. In Vangelisti A. L. (ed.), Handbook of family communication, p. 233-248. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2004. 767 p. ISBN: 0-8058-4131-8 PERRIN, E. C. 2002. Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents. In Pediatrics. ISSN 0031-4005, 2002, vol. 109, no. 2, p. 341-344. Pontifical Commission on the Family.1983 Charter of the rights of the family. [online]. [cit. 2011-03-28] Accessible at: <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_ doc_19831022_family-rights_en.html#top>. RATZINGER, J. Card. 2003. Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons [online], Congregation for the doctrine of the faith document. [cit 2011-03-14]. Accessible at: <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_2 0030731_homosexual-unions_en.html>. RICHARDSON, D. 2001. Extending citizenship: cultural citizenship and sexuality. In N. Stevenson (ed.), Culture and Citizenship, p. 153-166. London: Sage, 2001. 216 p. ISBN 07619-5560-7. ROSTOSKY, S. S. et al. 2009. Marriage Amendments and Psychological Distress in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB) Adults. In Journal of Counseling Psychology. ISSN 0022-0167, 2009, vol. 56, no. 1, p. 56-66. SBORDONE, A. J. 1993. Gay men choosing fatherhood: Unpublished doctoral dissertation cited in PATTERSON, Ch. J. 2000. Family Relationships of Lesbian and Gay Men. In Journal of Marriage and Family. ISSN 1741-3737, 2000, vol. 62, no. 4, p. 1052-1069. SCHERPE, J. M. 2007. The Nordic Countries in the Vanguard of European Family Law. In Scandinavian Studies in Law [online]. 2007, vol. 50, p. 265-288 [cit. 2011-04-10]. Accessible at: <http://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/50-17.pdf>. STACEY, J. BIBLARZ, T. J. 2001. (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? In American Sociological Review. ISSN 0003-1224, 2001, vol. 66, no. 2, p. 159183. Statistisk Sentralbyr. 1997. Verdiunderskelsen, 1996: Vi er blitt mer liberale. [online] In Ukens statistikk [cit. 2011-04-02]. Accessible at: <http://www.ssb.no/us/utg/9733/1.html>. Store Norske Leksikon: Det Norske Forbundet av 1948 [online]. [cit. 2011-04-10]. Accessible at: http://www.snl.no/Det_Norske_Forbundet_av_1948

- 48 -

Stortingmelding nr. 29. 20022003. Om familie og forpliktende samliv og foreldreskap [online]. [cit. 2011-04-10]. Accessible at: <http://www.regjeringen.no/nn/dep/bld/Dokument/proposisjonar-ogmeldingar/stortingsmeldingar/2002-2003/stmeld-nr-29-2002-2003-.html?id=471301>. STRKSEN, I. 2000. Homofili og politikk. En komparativ analyse av verdiendringer og meningskoalisjoner bak vedtaket om partnerskapsloven i Danmark og Norge: master thesis. Bergen: University of Bergen, 2000. 159 p. TAKCS, J. 2006. Social exclusion of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Europe [online]. Joint report by IGLYO and ILGA-Europe, 2006. [cit. 2011-03-29]. Accessible at: <http://www.iglyo.com/content/activities/sexclusion.html>. TAKEI, G. 2010. George Takei Calls Out Anti-Gay Arkansas School Board Member [online video]. Youtube, 2010. [cit. 2011-03-30]. Accessible at: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UACK93xF-FE>. TASKER, F. L. GOLOMBOK, S. 1997. Growing up in a lesbian family. Effects on child development. New York: Guilford Press, 1997. 194 p. ISBN 1-57230-170-8 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child [online]. 1989. UN General Assembly document. [cit. 2011-04-05]. Accessible at: <http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm>. U.N. Declaration of the Rights of the Child [online]. 1959. UN General Assembly resolution. [cit. 2011-03-29]. Accessible at: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UNdeclaration WAALDIJK, K. 2004. More or less together: Levels of legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnership for different-sex and same-sex partners [online]. Paris: Institut National dEtudes Dmographiques. [cit. 2011-03-30]. Accessible at: <http://www.ined.fr/fichier/t_publication/1034/publi_pdf1_document_de_travail_125.pdf>.

- 49 -