Rodriguez v Minister of Housing

Last updated

Rodriguez v Minister of Housing
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameNadine Rodriguez, Appellant v (1) Minister of Housing of the Government (2) The Housing Allocation Committee, Respondents
Decided14 December 2009
Citations[2009] UKPC 52, 28 BHRC 189, [2010] UKHRR 144
Case history
Prior action Court of Appeal of Gibraltar
Case opinions
Lady Hale

Rodriguez v Minister of Housing is a 2009 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) case that held that it was unconstitutional for the government of Gibraltar to turn down an application for joint tenancy in government housing to a same-sex couple.

Nadine Rodriguez and her unmarried female partner of 21 years applied to the Housing Allocation Committee for approval of a joint tenancy in government-owned housing. The Committee had a policy of only approving joint tenancies in cases where a couple were married or were unmarried partners with a child in common. Rodriguez and her partner's application was turned down because they did not meet the criteria. The Court of Appeal of Gibraltar held that the policy was not unconstitutionally discriminatory.

The JCPC held that the government's policy was discriminatory and thereby violated the Constitution of Gibraltar. The discriminatory impact was greater upon same-sex partners than other unmarried couples since same-sex partners were prohibited from marrying and cannot have biological children in common.

The JCPC rejected Gibraltar's argument that the policy protected marriage and children, because denying benefits to those who cannot marry does not protect those who can. The JCPC emphasised that the decision did not mean that Gibraltar was obliged to introduce same-sex marriage or same-sex civil partnerships.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defense of Marriage Act</span> 1996 U.S. federal law, repealed in 2022

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. It banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Canada</span>

Same-sex marriage was progressively introduced in several provinces and territories of Canada by court decisions beginning in 2003 before being legally recognized nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act on July 20, 2005. On June 10, 2003, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a decision immediately legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario, thereby becoming the first province where it was legal. The introduction of a federal gender-neutral marriage definition made Canada the fourth country in the world, and the first country outside Europe, to legally recognize same-sex marriage throughout its borders. Before the federal recognition of same-sex marriage, court decisions had already introduced it in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents collectively made up about 90 percent of Canada's population. More than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in those areas before the Civil Marriage Act was passed. In 2023, polling by Pew Research suggested that more than three-quarters of Canadian residents supported the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

<i>Egan v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by the Supreme Court of Canada in the second quarter of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Africa since the Civil Union Act, 2006 came into force on 30 November 2006. The decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie on 1 December 2005 extended the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex spouses—as the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equal protection before the law to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation—and gave Parliament one year to rectify the inequality in the marriage statutes. On 14 November 2006, the National Assembly passed a law allowing same-sex couples to legally solemnise their union 229 to 41, which was subsequently approved by the National Council of Provinces on 28 November in a 36 to 11 vote, and the law came into effect two days later.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Austria since 1 January 2019. On 4 December 2017, the Constitutional Court ruled that the non-discrimination and equality provisions of the Constitution of Austria guarantee same-sex couples the right to marry. The decision took effect on 1 January 2019, making Austria the 24th country in the world and the fifteenth in Europe to allow same-sex couples to marry nationwide. Polling indicates that a majority of Austrians support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state</span>

This article summarizes the same-sex marriage laws of states in the United States. Via the case Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States legalized same-sex marriage in a decision that applies nationwide, with the exception of American Samoa and sovereign tribal nations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Gibraltar</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights have evolved significantly in the past decades in the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1993 and the age of consent was equalised to 16 in 2012. The Supreme Court of Gibraltar ruled in April 2013 that same-sex couples have the right to adopt. Civil partnerships have been available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples since March 2014, and in October 2016, Gibraltar voted to legalise same-sex marriage with the Civil Marriage Amendment Act 2016 passing unanimously in Parliament. The law received royal assent on 1 November and took effect on 15 December 2016.

<i>Varnum v. Brien</i>

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, was an Iowa Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the state's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The case had the effect of legally recognizing same-sex marriage in Iowa. In 2007, a lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of six same-sex couples who sued Timothy Brien, Polk County Recorder, for refusing to grant them marriage licenses.

Same-sex marriage has been provisionally recognised nationwide in Nepal since 24 April 2024. On 28 June 2023, Supreme Court Justice Til Prasad Shrestha directed the government to establish a "separate register" for "sexual minorities and non-traditional couples" and to "temporarily register their marriages". Despite the directive, a district court in Kathmandu denied a same-sex couple's application to marry on 13 July 2023. In the last week of November 2023, the couple was informed by the Ministry of Home Affairs that their marriage would be registered. They successfully registered their marriage on 29 November 2023 in Dordi, followed by other couples, including transgender couples, over the following months. On 24 April 2024, Home Affairs' National ID and Civil Registration Department issued a circular to all local registration authorities, instructing them to enter all same-sex marriages into the separate register. However, the temporary registration does not grant same-sex couples the same legal rights and recognition as opposite-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot inherit property, receive tax subsidies, make spousal medical decisions or adopt children, among others. They are also labeled as "groom and bride" on marriage licenses, and it is unknown if all local governments are complying with the instructions of the National ID and Civil Registration Department.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Utah since October 6, 2014. On December 20, 2013, the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as a result of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah's ruling in the case of Kitchen v. Herbert, which found that barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the U.S. Constitution. The issuance of those licenses was halted during the period of January 6, 2014 until October 6, 2014, following the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. On that day, following the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal in a case that found Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Carolina since a federal court order took effect on November 20, 2014. Another court ruling on November 18 had ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Following the 2014 ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, which found Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and set precedent on every state in the circuit, one judge accepted marriage license applications from same-sex couples until the South Carolina Supreme Court, in response to a request by the Attorney General, ordered him to stop. A federal district court ruled South Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 12, with implementation of that decision stayed until noon on November 20. The first same-sex wedding ceremony was held on November 19.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

<i>Du Toit v Minister for Welfare and Population Development</i> South African legal case

Du Toit and Another v Minister for Welfare and Population Development and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which granted same-sex couples the ability to jointly adopt children. LGBT people had already been able to adopt children individually, but only married couples could adopt jointly; the decision was handed down in September 2002, four years before same-sex marriage became legal in South Africa. The court ruled unanimously that the statutory provisions limiting joint adoption to married couples were unconstitutional, and the resulting order amended the law to treat same-sex partners in the same way as married couples.

Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State of Alaska, 122 P.3d 781, is an Alaska Supreme Court case holding that Alaska's Ballot Measure 2, which bans same-sex marriage, does not foreclose state equal protection claims brought on behalf of same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Texas since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Previously, the U.S. state of Texas had banned same-sex marriage both by statute since 1973 and in its State Constitution since 2005. On February 26, 2014, Judge Orlando Luis Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found that Texas's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. On April 22, 2014, a state court came to the same conclusion. Both cases were appealed. The district court's decision was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could issue a ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the United States in Obergefell on June 26, 2015. Within a few months of the court ruling, all counties had started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, except for Irion County, which announced in 2020 that it would begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples, making it the last county in the United States to comply with the ruling.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Puerto Rico since July 13, 2015, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. On June 26, 2015, the court ruled that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Same-sex couples could begin applying for marriage licenses on July 13, and the first marriages occurred on July 17, 2015.

Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd was a 1999 legal case heard by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords regarding the meaning of the word 'family' with regards to the Rent Act 1977. The Lords found that a gay couple living together could be seen as a family for the purposes of housing law, and that a family relationship did not require either a blood relationship or marriage.

Hong Kong does not recognise same-sex marriages or civil unions. However, same-sex couples are afforded limited legal rights as a result of several court decisions, including the right to apply for a spousal visa, spousal benefits for the partners of government employees, and guardianship rights and joint custody of children.

Lesbianism in Gibraltar became legal in 1992.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Union Amendment Act, 2020</span> Act of the South African Parliament

The Civil Union Amendment Act, 2020 is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which repealed section 6 of the Civil Union Act, 2006, a section which had allowed civil marriage officers to opt out of solemnising same-sex marriages on the grounds of conscience, religion or belief.