Opening Civil Marriage to Same-Gender Couples: A Netherlands-United States Comparison Nancy G. Maxwell Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright. While they are free to use the ideas expressed in it, they may not copy, distribute or publish the work or part of it, in any form, printed, electronic or othenwise, except for reasonable quoting, clearly indicating the source. Readers are permitted to make copies, electronically or printed, for personal and classroom use Abstract This article examines and compares the legal developments in the Netherlands and the United States concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. These two countries were selected for this comparison because the Netherlands and some states in the United States appear to be on the verge of opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. However, the routes that each country is taking to this same destination have come from completely different directions. For example, in both countries same-gender couples have filed lawsuits seeking to marry. In the 1990s, five different cases were filed in the U.S., and the jud ges in at least three of these cases have been receptive to the petitioners= attempts to obtain marital rights. In the states of Hawaii and Alaska, lower court judges have held that the denial of marriage licenses to same-gender couples is unlawful discrimination in violation of state constitutional provisions; in the state of Vermont, the highest appellate court has ruled that the Vermont Constitution requires same-gender couples be granted the equivalent rights as married opposite-gender couples. Court challenges to the marriage laws in the Netherland however, have been unsuccessful and the dutch judges have been unwilling to find that -gender couples have a right to marry On the other hand, in July of 1999, the Dutch government introduced a bill in the Parliament that would allow same-gender Dutch couples to marry one another in civil ceremonies. Ironically, just the opposite legislative activity is occurring in many of the U.s states. In fact, in Hawaii and Alaska the state legislators and citizens recently passed constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples, to prevent the court decisions in those states from taking effect This article discusses and compares the contrasting legal developments in the United States and the Netherlands concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. It does so by discussing the case law and the current legislative activity, first in the Netherlands and then in the United States, dealing with the right of same-gender couples to marry. The next section analyzes and compares the dutch and United States legal histories concerning opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. This section examines how the differences in Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law, Topeka, Kansas, USA. The author wishes to thank Washbum University School of Law for funding the research of this article through an academic sabbatical; the Molengraaff Institute of Private Law and its faculty sponsor, Ineke de Hondt, Associate Professor of Private Law, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, for welcom ing the author as a visiting scholar, Kees Waaldijk, Lecturer in Law, Leiden University, The Netherlands, for his thoughtful discussions during the research of this article, Caroline Forder, Professor in Private Law, Maastricht University, The Netherlands, for her insightful comments on earlier drafts, and william Petulla, Washburn Law School, Class of 2001 and Gerrit Diederick Maassen, the Molengraaff Institute of Private Law, Class of 2000, for their able research assistance
Opening Civil Marriage to Same-Gender Couples: A Netherlands-United States Comparison Nancy G. Maxwell1 Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright. While they are free to use the ideas expressed in it, they may not copy, distribute or publish the work or part of it, in any form, printed, electronic or otherwise, except for reasonable quoting, clearly indicating the source. Readers are permitted to make copies, electronically or printed, for personal and classroom use. Abstract This article examines and compares the legal developments in the Netherlands and the United States concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. These two countries were selected for this comparison because the Netherlands and some states in the United States appear to be on the verge of opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. However, the routes that each country is taking to this same destination have come from completely different directions. For example, in both countries same-gender couples have filed lawsuits seeking to marry. In the 1990s, five different cases were filed in the U.S., and the judges in at least three of these cases have been receptive to the petitioners= attempts to obtain marital rights. In the states of Hawaii and Alaska, lower court judges have held that the denial of marriage licenses to same-gender couples is unlawful discrimination in violation of state constitutional provisions; in the state of Vermont, the highest appellate court has ruled that the Vermont Constitution requires same-gender couples be granted the equivalent rights as married opposite-gender couples. Court challenges to the marriage laws in the Netherlands, however, have been unsuccessful and the Dutch judges have been unwilling to find that same-gender couples have a right to marry. On the other hand, in July of 1999, the Dutch government introduced a bill in the Parliament that would allow same-gender Dutch couples to marry one another in civil ceremonies. Ironically, just the opposite legislative activity is occurring in many of the U.S. states. In fact, in Hawaii and Alaska the state legislators and citizens recently passed constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples, to prevent the court decisions in those states from taking effect. 1 Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law, Topeka, Kansas, USA. The author wishes to thank Washburn University School of Law for funding the research of this article through an academic sabbatical; the Molengraaff Institute of Private Law and its faculty sponsor, Ineke de Hondt, Associate Professor of Private Law, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, for welcoming the author as a visiting scholar; Ke es Waaldijk, Lecturer in Law, Leiden University, The Netherlands, for his thoughtful discussions during the research of this article; Caroline Forder, Professor in Private Law, Maastricht University, The Netherlands, for her insightful comments on earlier drafts, and William Petulla, Washburn Law School, Class of 2001 and Gerrit Diederick Maassen, the Molengraaff Institute of Private Law, Class of 2000, for their able research assistance. This article discusses and compares the contrasting legal developments in the United States and the Netherlands concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. It does so by discussing the case law and the current legislative activity, first in the Netherlands and then in the United States, dealing with the right of same-gender couples to marry. The next section analyzes and compares the Dutch and United States legal histories concerning opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. This section examines how the differences in
the two countries=legal systems, as well as the social status of homosexuals and the leg status of nonmarital cohabitation, have influenced the contrasting routes these two countries have taken toward opening marriages to same-gender couples Contents 1 Introduction 2. Legal developments in the Netherlands 2/ Dutch case lay 2. 1. 1 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: The 1990s cases 2. 1.2 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: An analysis of the Dutch case law 2. 2 Dutch legislation 2. 2. 1 Moving toward equality: Registered partnership legislation 2.2.2 Opening civil marriage to same-gender couples: The report of the Kortmann Committee 3. Legal developments in the United States 3. United States case l nwy 3. 1. 1 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: An overview of the constitutional analyses in the U.Scases 3.1.2 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of interracial couples 3. 1.3 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: The 1970s cases 3. 1. 4 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: The 1990s cases 3. 1. 4. I Jurisdictions limiting marriage to opposite-gender couples District of Columbia and New York 3. 1.4.2 Jurisdictions supporting claims of discrimination: Hawai, Alaska, and vermont 3.1.4.3 The Hawaii and Alaska cases: Baehr v Lewin and Brause v Bureau of vital statistics 3.1.4. 4 The Vermont case: Baker v. State of vermont 3.1.5 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: An analysis of the United States case law 3. 2 United States legislation 3. 2. 1 The United States legislative response to Baehr v. Lewin 3.2.2 The enactment of domestic partnership legislation 4. Comparison and analysis of the Dutch and United States legal histories on opening civil marriage to same-gender couples 4.1 Differences in legal systems 4.2 Differences in the social status of homosexuals 4.3 Differences in the legal status of nonmarital cohabitation Conclusion 1 Introduction This article examines and compares the legal developments in the Netherlands and the United
the two countries= legal systems, as well as the social status of homosexuals and the legal status of nonmarital cohabitation, have influenced the contrasting routes these two countries have taken toward opening marriages to same-gender couples. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Legal developments in the Netherlands 2.1 Dutch case law 2.1.1 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: The 1990s cases 2.1.2 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: An analysis of the Dutch case law 2.2 Dutch legislation 2.2.1 Moving toward equality: Registered partnership legislation 2.2.2 Opening civil marriage to same-gender couples: The report of the Kortmann Committee 3. Legal developments in the United States 3.1 United States case law 3.1.1 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: An overview of the constitutional analyses in the U.S. cases 3.1.2 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of interracial couples 3.1.3 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: The 1970s cases 3.1.4 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: The 1990s cases 3.1.4.1 Jurisdictions limiting marriage to opposite-gender couples: District of Columbia and New York 3.1.4.2 Jurisdictions supporting claims of discrimination: Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont 3.1.4.3 The Hawaii and Alaska cases: Baehr v. Lewin and Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics 3.1.4.4 The Vermont case: Baker v. State of Vermont 3.1.5 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples : An analysis of the United States case law 3.2 United States legislation 3.2.1 The United States legislative response to Baehr v. Lewin 3.2.2 The enactment of domestic partnership legislation 4. Comparison and analysis of the Dutch and United States legal histories on opening civil marriage to same-gender couples 4.1 Differences in legal systems 4.2 Differences in the social status of homosexuals 4.3 Differences in the legal status of nonmarital cohabitation 5. Conclusion 1. Introduction This article examines and compares the legal developments in the Netherlands and the United
States concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. These two countries were selected for this comparison because the Netherlands and some states in the United States appear to be on the verge of opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. However, the routes that each country is taking to this same destination have come from completely different directions. For example, in both countries same-gender couples have filed lawsuits seeking to marry. In the 1990s, five different cases were filed in the U.S., and the jud ges in at least three of these cases have been receptive to the petitioners= attempts to obtain marital rights. In the states of Hawaii and Alaska, lower court judges have held that the denial of marriage licenses to same-gender couples is unlawful discrimination in violation of state constitutional provisions; in the state of Vermont, the highest appellate court has ruled that the vermont Constitution requires same-gender couples be granted the equivalent rights as married opposite-gender couples. Court challenges to the marriage laws in the Netherlands, however, have been unsuccessful and the dutch jud ges have been unwilling to find that ne-gender couples have a right to marry On the other hand, in July of 1999, the Dutch government introduced a bill in the Parliament that would allow same-gender Dutch couples to marry one another in civil ceremonies. Ironically, just the opposite legislative activity is occurring in many of the U.S states. In fact, in Hawaii and Alaska the state legislators and citizens recently passed constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples, to prevent the court decisions in those states from taking effect. 7 This article discusses and compares the contrasting legal developments in the United States and the Netherlands concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. It does so by discussing the case law and the current legislative activity, first in the Netherlands and section analyzes and compares the Dutch and United States legal histories concern hext then in the United States, dealing with the right of same-gender couples to marry. The opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. This section examines how the differences in the two countries= legal systems, as well as the social status of homosexuals and the legal status of nonmarital cohabitation, have influenced the contrasting routes these two countries have taken toward opening marriages to same-gender couples Baehr v Milke, 1996WL 694235(Haw. Cir. Ct. Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743(Alaska Super. Ct.) Bakerv.Vermont744A.2d864,1999wl1211709(vt.1999),httplwwwstatevtus/courts/98. 032xt HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ1992, 192, m nt EAAL en EAA (homohuwelijk) rb Amsterdam 13 februari 1990, NJCM-Bulletin 1990, p. 456-460, m nt. K Boele-Woelki en P.C. Tange Wetsvoorstel openstelling huwelijk voor personen van hetzelfde geslacht(Wet openstelling huwelijk), Kamerstukken /1998/99, 26672, nr 1-2. For an English translation of the text of the bill, see the summary translationbyKeesWaaldijk,http:/ruliis.leidenunivnluser/cwaaldii/wwwl(publicationsaboutLawand Homosexuality, Unpublished papers and minor publications) See ALASKA CoNST. Art. I, Sec. 25; see HAW. CONST. Art. 1, Sec. 23. In Alaska, 68 percent of voters voted in favor of upholding traditional marriage as opposed to 32 percent opposing the constitutional amendment By a margin of 69 percent to 29 percent, Hawaii voters upheld a constitutional amendment giving the Legislature >the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. See Cheryl Wetzstein, Gays Cant Marry, 2 States Say, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Nov, 5, 1998, atAl6
States concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. These two countries were selected for this comparison because the Netherlands and some states in the United States appear to be on the verge of opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. However, the routes that each country is taking to this same destination have come from completely different directions. For example, in both countries same-gender couples have filed lawsuits seeking to marry. In the 1990s, five different cases were filed in the U.S., and the judges in at least three of these cases have been receptive to the petitioners= attempts to obtain marital rights. In the states of Hawaii2 and Alaska,3 lower court judges have held that the denial of marriage licenses to same-gender couples is unlawful discrimination in violation of state constitutional provisions; in the state of Vermont,4 the highest appellate court has ruled that the Vermont Constitution requires same-gender couples be granted the equivalent rights as married opposite-gender couples. Court challenges to the marriage laws in the Netherlands, however, have been unsuccessful and the Dutch judges have been unwilling to find that same-gender couples have a right to marry.5 On the other hand, in July of 1999, the Dutch government introduced a bill in the Parliament that would allow same-gender Dutch couples to marry one another in civil ceremonies.6 Ironically, just the opposite legislative activity is occurring in many of the U.S. states. In fact, in Hawaii and Alaska the state legislators and citizens recently passed constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples, to prevent the court decisions in those states from taking effect.7 2 Baehr v. Miike, 1996 WL 694235 (Haw. Cir. Ct.). 3 Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Super. Ct.). 4 Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864, 1999 WL 1211709 (Vt. 1999), http://www.state.vt.us/courts/98- 032.txt 5 HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ 1992, 192, m.nt. EAAL en EAA (homohuwelijk); Rb Amsterdam 13 februari 1990, NJCM-Bulletin 1990, p. 456-460, m.nt. K. Boele-Woelki en P.C. Tange. 6 Wetsvoorstel openstelling huwelijk voor personen van hetzelfde geslacht (Wet openstelling huwelijk), Kamerstukken II 1998/99, 26 672, nr. 1-2. For an English translation of the text of the bill, see the summary translation by Kees Waaldijk, http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/user/cwaaldij/www/ (Publications about Law and Homosexuality, Unpublished papers and minor publications). 7 See ALASKA CONST. Art. I, Sec. 25; see HAW. CONST. Art. 1, Sec. 23. In Alaska, 68 percent of voters voted in favor of upholding traditional marriage as opposed to 32 percent opposing the constitutional amendment. By a margin of 69 percent to 29 percent, Hawaii voters upheld a constitutional amendment giving the Legislature >the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.= See Cheryl Wetzstein, Gays Can't 'Marry,' 2 States Say, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Nov. 5, 1998, at A16. This article discusses and compares the contrasting legal developments in the United States and the Netherlands concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. It does so by discussing the case law and the current legislative activity, first in the Netherlands and then in the United States, dealing with the right of same-gender couples to marry. The next section analyzes and compares the Dutch and United States legal histories concerning opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. This section examines how the differences in the two countries= legal systems, as well as the social status of homosexuals and the legal status of nonmarital cohabitation, have influenced the contrasting routes these two countries have taken toward opening marriages to same-gender couples
2. Legal developments in the Netherland 2.1 Dutch case law 2. 1. 1 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: The 1990s cases In 1990, two Dutch courts were confronted with the issue whether a same-gender couple could marry. The first issue in these cases involved the statutory construction of the marriage statute. Because the marriage statute, Article 30, Book 1 of the Dutch Civil Code(Burgerlijk Wetboek),did not contain gender-specif ic language, the petitioners argued that there was no statutory requirement that the marriage partners must be of opposite genders. The courts, one a district court in Amsterdam, and the other, the highest appellate court of the Netherlands the Supreme Court( Hoge raad), disagreed with the petitioners that the statutory language could be interpreted to allow same-gender individuals to marry one another. The district court of Amster am agreed with the petitioners that the statutory language in article 30, Book 1 did not limit marriage to opposite-gender individuals. However, the court relied on the legislative history of the statute, and found that, at the time the law was enacted, marriage was only possible for persons of opposite genders. Consequently, even though the language of the Code did not limit marriage to opposite-gender individuals, the district court held that it was the legislators= intent to limit marriage to opposite-gender persons when they enacted the marriage laws The decision of the Hoge raad several months later, in October of 1990, was in accordance with the Amsterdam district court=s analysis of the language of Article 30, Book 1. In addressing the petitioners= argument that the statutory language did not prohibit same- gender persons from marrying each other, the Hoge Raad found that this argument was based on a literal interpretation of a number of articles of Book 1, which was an incorrect way of ad ing the statutes given the history of the enactment of Book 1 of the Netherlands Civil Code. The court also stated that, even if developments that later became socially accept were to support the idea that prohibiting same-gender individuals from marrying one another was no longer justified, this change in public opinion would not support a reinterpretation of the Code, >especially as the subject matter relates to public order, and whereby legal certainty Is an important issue =12 Art 1: 30 BW Rb Amsterdam 13 februari 1990, NJCM-Bulletin 1990, p. 456-460, m nt. K. Boele-Woelki en PC HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ1992, 192, m nt EAAL en EAA(homohuwelijk) CivIc For example, same-gendermarriages were considered void ab initio at the time of the enactment of the HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ1992, 192, m nt EAAL en EAA(homohuwelijk; trans. Duck Obbink)
2. Legal developments in the Netherlands 2.1 Dutch case law 2.1.1 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: The 1990s cases In 1990, two Dutch courts were confronted with the issue whether a same-gender couple could marry. The first issue in these cases involved the statutory construction of the marriage statute. Because the marriage statute, Article 30, Book 1 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek),8 did not contain gender-specific language, the petitioners argued that there was no statutory requirement that the marriage partners must be of opposite genders. The courts, one a district court in Amsterdam,9 and the other, the highest appellate court of the Netherlands, the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad),10 disagreed with the petitioners that the statutory language could be interpreted to allow same-gender individuals to marry one another. The district court of Amsterdam agreed with the petitioners that the statutory language in Article 30, Book 1 did not limit marriage to opposite-gender individuals. However, the court relied on the legislative history of the statute, and found that, at the time the law was enacted, marriage was only possible for persons of opposite genders. Consequently, even though the language of the Code did not limit marriage to opposite-gender individuals, the district court held that it was the legislators= intent to limit marriage to opposite-gender persons when they enacted the marriage laws. The decision of the Hoge Raad several months later, in October of 1990, was in accordance with the Amsterdam district court=s analysis of the language of Article 30, Book 1. In addressing the petitioners= argument that the statutory language did not prohibit samegender persons from marrying each other, the Hoge Raad found that this argument was based on a literal interpretation of a number of articles of Book 1, which was an incorrect way of reading the statutes given the history of the enactment of Book 1 of the Netherlands Civil Code.11 The court also stated that, even if developments that later became socially accepted were to support the idea that prohibiting same-gender individuals from marrying one another was no longer justified, this change in public opinion would not support a reinterpretation of the Code, >especially as the subject matter relates to public order, and whereby legal certainty is an important issue.= 12 8 Art 1:30 BW. 9 Rb Amsterdam 13 februari 1990, NJCM-Bulletin 1990, p. 456-460, m.nt. K. Boele-Woelki en P.C. Tange. 10 HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ 1992, 192, m.nt. EAAL en EAA (homohuwelijk). 11 For example, same-gender marriages were considered void ab initio at the time of the enactment of the Civil Code. 12 HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ 1992, 192, m.nt. EAAL en EAA (homohuwelijk; trans. Duck Obbink)
The petitioners in both Dutch cases also argued a second issue, viz. that the denial of a marriage license infringed on certain individual rights and violated laws on equal treatment and nondiscrimination. Specifically, the petitioners maintained that the refusal to issue them a marriage license violated Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantee the freedom to have a family and the freedom to marry,and Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 26 of the ICCPR, b which prohibit discriminatory behavior. 7 Article 8 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ECHR Art. 8(entered into force Sept. 3, 1953) Article 12 Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right ECHR Art. 12(entered into force Sept 3, 1953) Article 23 The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State The right of men and women of marria gea ble age to marry and to found a family shall be No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to mariage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children ICCPR, Dec. 16, 1966, Art. 23, UNTS 171 Article 14 discrim ination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationalor social origin, association with a nationalminority, property, birth or other status ECHR Art. 8(entered into force Sept 3, 1953) Article 26 All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrim ination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the la w shall prohibit any discrim ination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrim ination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language religion, political or other opinion, nationalor social origin, property, birth or other status ICCPR, Dec 16, 1966, Art. 23, UNTS 171. The petitioners in the Amsterdam district court case also maintained that the registrars treatment refusing to issue them a marriage license- was humiliating and in violation of Article 3 ofthe ECHR, and the petitioners in the Hoge Raad case claimed a violation of Article 2 of the ICCPR. Article 3 of the ECHR states:>No one shall be subjected to. degrading treatment . s and Article 2 of the ICCPR states under Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
The petitioners in both Dutch cases also argued a second issue, viz. that the denial of a marriage license infringed on certain individual rights and violated laws on equal treatment and nondiscrimination. Specifically, the petitioners maintained that the refusal to issue them a marriage license violated Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)13 and Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),14 which guarantee the freedom to have a family and the freedom to marry, and Article 14 of the ECHR15 and Article 26 of the ICCPR,16 which prohibit discriminatory behavior.17 13 Article 8 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. ECHR Art. 8 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953). Article 12 Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right. ECHR Art. 12 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953). 14 Article 23 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. 3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children. ICCPR, Dec. 16, 1966, Art. 23, UNTS 171. 15 Article 14 The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other st atus. ECHR Art. 8 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953). 16 Article 26 All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. ICCPR, Dec. 16, 1966, Art. 23, UNTS 171. 17 The petitioners in the Amsterdam district court case also maintained that the registrar=s treatment - refusing to issue them a marriage license - was humiliating and in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, and the petitioners in the Hoge Raad case claimed a violation of Article 2 of the ICCPR. Article 3 of the ECHR states: >No one shall be subjected to . . . degrading treatment . . .= and Article 2 of the ICCPR states under section 1: Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national