I woke up to the surprise headline that the Supreme Court recognizes co-ownership rights for same-sex couples. And it wasn't even the result of some marriage equality case going up to the court, but a property dispute where the lower courts had denied the claimant. And what was most interesting was how they cited the Family Code as the basis for this decision, which has been one of the biggest pillars against marriage equality in the country since it strictly defines marriage as being a union involving a man and a women. Thus, the related provisions (Article 147) for common law marriages also don't apply to same-sex couples because...the Family Code.
But the justices cited the next provision, Article 148, which applies to "couples not allowed to marry". And broadly speaking, all same-sex couples are couples who are not allowed to marry...so I guess that interpretation tracks. As if that wasn't enough, several justices also made very clear statements that same-sex couples need to be recognized under the law somehow - a very liberal view that could be interpreted as judicial overreach by more conservative circles. This is not something I expected to hear from the Supreme Court in, well, my lifetime.
That said, it's a very limited legal victory, but one with limited utility. There's the burden on same-sex couples to provide "proof of contribution" for any property, and who the heck tracks purchases that way when you've been living together for over a decade? It's not the automatic shared ownership of things conferred by marriage, but it's something.
The pessimist in me is half-expecting some lawmaker to announce a new law further restricting the Family Code somehow to prevent future use of Article 148 in this manner. Looking at the actual wording of this part of the Family Code makes this ruling all the more impressive since the justices really chose this case to make a stand for some reason. Whether or not our lawmakers will rise to the challenge presente by the Supreme Court is anyone's guess. But it's a very interesting day indeed.
Comments
Post a Comment