Daily news in Dutch can be found HERE      Listings, click HERE

No gay marriage in The Netherlands

 
Historic day

April 1st 2001 was a historic day. An action taken in The Netherlands can be put in the history books. For the first time in the world, lesbian and gay couples can use Civil Marriage to bind their union. According to Dutch law, only people living in The Netherlands, gay or straight, can use this institution. However, foreigners who want to marry, have new possibilities, thanks to the Dutch situation.

 
First of all, they can use the Dutch example to strengthen their position in the battle for equality in their own countries. Furthermore, in some cases they can even use the new Dutch law as precedence so to be able to claim reciprocity in another jurisdiction or country. A foreigner, living with a Dutch women or man, can marry. Two foreigners, living permanently in The Netherlands, also have this possibility. Europeans, living in the European community, can also try to claim access to the Dutch institution of Civil Marriage. It seems that they have protection under European laws.

 
Equally interesting, are the possibilities for gay and lesbian couples living elsewhere in the world. In Amsterdam, they could announce their wedding using a temporary address, and then return six months later and get married.

Just like Dutch gay couples, foreign gay couples do not yet know whether their new situation will bring them new rights outside of The Netherlands. Some countries will recognize the Dutch marriage, others will wait. In those cases, couples can challenge discriminatory laws and force new rights by going to court. The more couples who do so, the quicker the rest of the world will follow the Dutch example of recognizing equality.

 
History will not stop in Amsterdam…

 

Henk Krol, editor in chief Gay Krant

The Long Road to Civil Marriage

From Trial Process to Reality

When, on 1 April 2001, at the stroke of midnight, the first same-sex couples were joined in marriage in the Amsterdam City Hall, it marked the end of an almost 15-year process. The road to equal rights in personal relationships encompassed court trials, symbolic wedding registers, registered partnership and, finally, opening  civil marriage to all gay and lesbian couples. At times, it looked like a long struggle, but in politics, things happen at their own pace. And no matter what, the Netherlands has made world history. On the next pages, we review the history in chronological order.

1985 - 1988

By the mid-1980s, the only tool gay couples had at their disposal for legally taking care of the most essential things was a notarised cohabitation contract, including a will. Such a contract offered the possibility of arranging things communally; the contract had little, if any, societal value. Matters such as adoption, succession rights and pension entitlements were not covered by these contracts. In those days, marriage was not done in certain gay circles. Indeed, it was seen as a submission to heterosexual norms, and by no means was everyone interested in equal rights in personal relationships at that time. Still, there was a growing group of people who experienced the need to legally formalise their relationship. De Gay Krant newspaper reported extensively on the issue. Problems with landlords, adoption, inheritance (at a time with a lot of AIDS-related deaths), partner pensions ... It is therefore not surprising that the gay movement was called upon more and more to do something to demand better partner rights. But the Dutch gay movement COC did not respond to the call. The then-leadership placed (too) much weight on individual rights. The idea of equal partner rights did not fit into this picture. During a COC conference on this issue in Utrecht at the time, Henk Krol, chief editor of Gay Krant (who is known as The Netherlands spokesman on gay issues), tried to persuade the COC to become a pioneer for the cause. But the time was not right. He therefore turned to the Friends of Gay Krant Foundation, which had been set up a couple of years earlier by former Vice Prime Minister and Commissioner of the Queen Molly Geertsma and others to advance gay rights, including relationship rights. By 1985, a number of people started carefully considering ways to get the issue off the ground.

On a sunny Sunday afternoon in the spring of 1985, Krol got a call from Jan Wolter Wabeke, at the time chief public prosecutor. Wabeke wanted to know if Krol had ever read the marriage legislation. Of course not. Get into your car immediately, if you have the time, and come over. I have to show you something, Wabeke said.

Moments later, Krol arrived at the home of Wabeke and his partner, Jan Swinkels, a theatre photographer and Gay Krant contributor. The couple received him outside, seated at the garden table, on which there was a bottle of wine and three legal textbooks. ‘Believe it or not,’ Jan Wolter started, ‘nowhere in Dutch law does it explicitly state that a man can only marry a woman, or a woman only a man. Do you realise what this means? We could provoke a trial case, and in so doing, make civil marriage accessible for gay and lesbian couples. Wouldn’t that be fantastic? A lot of people may think that marriage is cozy and old-fashioned, but it also happens to be the only contract which extends to third parties. In other words, only marriage is binding on third parties as well. This has huge consequences for pension funds, taxes and all other imaginable regulations.’

Jan Wolter was under no illusion that the battle to open up marriage would be an easy one. ‘Put aside at least 15 years, and start with the gay community,’ he said. ‘That is where you are going to experience the most resistance, because all people are thinking about is individualisation. Furthermore, you are going to have to be the locomotive. What’s more, you have been a spokesman for the Dutch Parliament and for some members of government, so you have the best political contacts. My position prevents me from doing that, but you can always count on my support.’

It was agreed that Friends of Gay Krant Foundation would look for a suitable gay or lesbian couple wishing to formalise their relationship. As it happened, the following week, Gerard Kuipers from Vlaardingen phoned. He was looking for a sympathetic public notary in order to formalise his relationship with Frans Stello as best as possible. ‘Do you know of someone?’

The best secretary ever of Gay Krant, Bets van Hoek, was on the telephone. She was aware of the discussions at Jan Wolter Wabeke’s home and put Gerard in contact with Henk Krol. The first plans were laid that summer. On September 5, 1988, the first official follow-up meeting took place in the home of Wabeke and Swinkels. The focus was on the legislation as it stood then, in particular on text in the civil marriage legislation that failed to state that couples had to be of opposite sexes. That opened the door for testing the law in court. A specialist think tank started work. It included Loes Gijbels, a legal expert on partner legislation. Soon afterwards, legal expert Kees Waaldijk ( University of Leiden) also joined. He happened to be working in the same area with a female couple. His first aim was a special register for gay couples. However, Waaldijk soon supported the radical idea of looking into how the civil marriage could be opened up for everyone.

 

1989

In 1989, the issue moved onto the fast track. After months of study by the think tank of the Friends of Gay Krant Foundation, it was concluded that the texts of the Civil Code could be interpreted to mean that gay and lesbian couples should be able to get married. The time had come for Frans Stello and Gerard Kuipers, the couple from Vlaardingen, to step forward.

 
The first obstacle was to find a city where they would be able to obtain a marriage licence. Would there be a mayor somewhere who would cooperate? If only there were one single city prepared to rule - in the same way as Jan Wolter Wabeke - that the law did not really prohibit it, it would advance a major step in the right direction. It would be possible for Frans and Gerard to get married in that district. It was highly likely that the public prosecutor would request annulment of the marriage, paving the way for a court ruling. It was decided to start close to home: the city of Best, home of Gay Krant. The then-mayor, Hans de Widt, was invited to attend one of the meetings. He requested a week’s time for reflection. The following Sunday he said ‘yes’, much against everyone’s wildest expectations. He would see to it that the first marriage between two men would take place in his city of Best. Gerard and Frans moved to Best - at least, on paper. In the meantime, Jan Wolter Wabeke began inquiring of his colleagues in the court district of Den Bosch what the chances were for a positive ruling.

It soon became clear that there were quite a few conservative judges in the district court of Den Bosch. Frans and Gerard’s marriage ran a considerable risk of being derailed by this court.The think tank was convened, and the group concluded that the Amsterdam district court probably had the most liberal judges. That would be a good place for writing legal history.

Ed van Thijn, mayor of the capital at the time, was contacted. He showed the same enthusiasm as De Widt and promised full cooperation. The legal advisor of the Friends of Gay Krant Foundation and Stello and Kuipers went to talk to mr. J.E. Geuzinge, head of Register Amsterdam, the civil-affairs department in the Dutch capital. As agreed, he informed the couple that he would turn down their request for a marriage license (‘We are obliged to formally turn down your request’) but leave open a legal back door. He tactfully concluded: ‘But it is up to you to request a review of this decision. In the end, we can only hope that legislators will pick up the signal and come up with sensible relationship legislation.’ Loes Gijbels, the lawyer for the foundation representing Stello and Kuipers and other parties who had expressed their interest, announced, with the knowledge of the Amsterdam district, that she would appeal  Geuzinge’s decision.

Meanwhile, things had started stirring abroad. Denmark adopted a bill giving gay couples much the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts via ‘registered partnership.’ The legislation was to enter the statute books the same year (1989). Issues such as adoption, however, did not fall under the scope of this legislation. The local gay movement in Switzerland also started some initiatives.

The moment of truth arrived on December 12: Stello and Kuipers faced the Amsterdam district court. The ruling in this case would have consequences for another pending case: a female couple wishing to force recognition of their relationship through a court ruling. The ruling at the time was that it was possible for gay couples to enter into a notarised cohabitation contract and, as such, there was no question of discrimination in partnership legislation.

It soon became clear in the Amsterdam courtroom that this case was being taken very seriously; this was borne out by the fact of the presence of a full court, represented by no less than three judges: U. van der Pol, A.H. Kist and Chief Justice J.A. Schröeder. In her counsel’s argument, Loes Gijbels once again set out clearly what the inequalities between gay and heterosexual couples were. She also reminded the court of the Danish legislation having entered the statute books on October 1st. The same as the Netherlands, Denmark was also a Member State of the European Community and, as such, it would not be possible to close our borders to similar legislation from abroad, she argued. The court announced that it would rule early in 1990.

1990

The full Amsterdam court made history in February 1990: it referred the ‘issue’ to the politicians. And if they failed to find a solution soon, the Foundation could turn to the court again. This was a clear signal by the court that it could yet act as legislator in the future. For the time being, it was noted: ‘Homosexuals and lesbians wishing to ensconce in their relationship the same rights as married couples should approach national authorities. They are the ones who will have to make the final decision.’

 
Awarding rights applicable in marital cohabitation to homosexual partners would have far-reaching societal and legal consequences, which the court could not anticipate. This is why the court delegated the authority to decide to the national legislature. Important, though, is the fact that the court acknowledged that the Civil Code did not explicitly require that marital partners should be of the opposite sex.

The first political signal after this came from the former deputy prime minister, W.J. Geertsma, who, in his capacity as a patron of the Friends of Gay Krant Foundation, called upon national politicians to make speedy work of decent and adequate relationship legislation. In the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament, Jan Krajenbrink, representing the Christian Democrats (CDA), was all for proper legislation. Referring to the CDA report, ‘1+1=Together,’ he did not wish to give gay relationships marital status, but as far as he was concerned, many other issues had to be taken care of. Representing the Labour Party (PvdA), Willie Swildens said that they were waiting for an opportune moment to present a workable proposal to the chamber. The Liberal Party (VVD) spokesman, Benk Korthals, the later Minister of Justice, called for an opportunity to reconsider the institution of marriage. He could imagine that it was quite possible for a form of cohabitation similar to marriage to be established in a different manner. The Democrat (D66) member, Louise Groenman, was the clearest of all: the advantages of marriage should not be reserved for heterosexual people alone. Peter Lankhorst, Green (GroenLinks) member, found this an example of renewed dowdiness, but if homosexual people wanted it, they should certainly be able to have it. The smaller parties on the right were radically opposed, and would remain so for all the years to come. The reaction of the new government of Ruud Lubbers (he later became the United Nations high commissioner for human rights), however, was harsh. Minister of Welfare, Minister of Health and Cultural Affairs (WVC) and feminist Hedy d’Ancona (Socialist and later member of the European Parliament) was opposed, and the minister of justice, Ernst Hirsch Ballin (Christian Democrat), announced there would be no proposals under his reign to make it possible for gay people to marry. D’Ancona proposed a contract, adjusted to suit the wishes of the couple, whether gay or heterosexual. The then-director of the Dutch Gay Movement, COC, Anja Kooten-Niekerk, agreed with the minister: ‘it’s sad that gay and lesbian couples are demanding the right to get married. It actually annoys me,’ she said.

So, national politicians saw no reason to make a priority of this; but at the grassroots level, things were stirring. First, Stello and Kuipers, who had moved again on paper from Best to Vlaardingen, were informed that their local district might be prepared to marry them. However, later on, the Council took fright at the idea and changed its mind. Then the province of Friesland came into the picture. it’s capital city Leeuwarden, to be exact. In a letter to Prime Minister Lubbers, the city threatened to be provocative in the continued absence of legislation they would openly allow marriage between people of the same sex. It would then be up to the national politicians to sort it out. Naturally, the Friends of De Gay Krant Foundation and the couple Stello-Kuipers were contacted, which lead to a new action, led by Henk Krol.

The Foundation sent a letter to all 650 Dutch municipalities, asking them if they would be prepared to marry a gay couple. This lead to the first national debate over relationship legislation. Schiedam replied that they also would be prepared to marry Kuipers and Stello. The Dutch Association of Civil Affairs Officers announced that their members would have great difficulties with the matter. ‘On a personal level there may well be individual members who would have no objection to performing such a marriage, but the public prosecutor would immediately take legal action to annul the act,’ the association said. Suddenly, Hirsch Ballin was a wide-awake man of action. He sent a strongly worded letter to Leeuwarden, which then meekly announced that it had no further interest in performing the ‘symbolic act’ of a gay marriage. From the reactions of the municipalities approached by letter, it appeared that many local authorities were very sympathetic to the idea of making marriage possible for gays. Of all the cities, Schiedam, together with the municipality of Strijen, appeared willing to go the furthest. It seemed that Kuipers and Stello could prepare themselves for a wedding in the southern Dutch city in October, but at the last minute, officers of the Civil Affairs Department refused to prepare for the act. The wedding was cancelled. The search started for a new municipality, and Rheden in Gelderland appeared particularly cooperative. Then came a ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court. The court stated that, in its opinion, marriage between two men or two women was absolutely impossible under the laws of the time. The court also ruled that the matter could only be resolved by legislation, thus returning the ball to the politicians. At the end of the year, inquiries by Henk Krol revealed that the national political parties had come no further than studying some models and proposals. Soon after the Supreme Court ruling and following a request by the foundation, local authorities continued their work. In Rheden, two local government officers said they were willing to marry gay couples, and a number of these couples expressed interest. However, public prosecutor Besier prohibited the action.

A survey conducted by Gay Krant and Veronica Television revealed that a majority of the Dutch population supported equal relationship rights. No less than 52.8% gave an unqualified yes, while only 35.6% opposed it. This enthusiasm, along with the sympathy of a large segment of the media, slowly started to wake up the Binnenhof (seat of the Dutch government). Hirsch Ballin, former radical opponent, now acknowledged the undesirability of inequality and declared himself ready to pick up the glove thrown down by the Supreme Court. It started to dawn upon the more liberal and progressive parliamentary parties that opening up civil marriage might yet become reality. During the COC conference later that year, a member of the executive council had to reassure members that ‘gay marriage’ would not be given any priority whatsoever within the organisation. Lesbians with childcare responsibilities, in particular, tried to change the minds of the executive council. The first sign of this was a special meeting on the issue.

At the end of that year, and following a study by the think tank, the Friends of Gay Krant Foundation proposed an interim solution to get out of the impasse. In the wedding room of the municipality of Rheden, they launched their plans for an alternative marriage register which would guarantee the same rights and duties as the official register of marriages. According to Wabeke, Gijbels and Waaldijk, the foundation’s most important legal advisers, it would be relatively simple to compile such a register because it would fit in with existing legislation and could be easily implemented. The Foundation stressed, however, that the main objective remained opening up civil marriage to all. The alternative register should also be open to heterosexual couples, so that ties between two people could be formalised in a completely equal legal framework. In order to gain public support for the register, the Friends of Gay Krant Foundation sent a letter to all sorts of organisations, e.g. the ANWB (Dutch Automobile Association), pension funds, the NS (Dutch railways) and KLM airlines, with the request to recognise such a register and to award the rights and entitlements bestowed by such a register to couples who were members of or working for their organisations. The year ended with a bang: liberal grandee Hans Wiegel, a former vice prime minister and good friend of Henk Krol, was a guest at the COC conference and called on the gay community to fight for equal partner rights.

1991

Initially, most municipalities were doubtful and negative about setting up the proposed register. The chair of the Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG) announced that the Civil Code did not provide the scope for setting up such a register, which was exactly the point disputed by the legal advisers of the foundation. Not all municipalities, however, heeded the advice from the VNG. Opposition grew and a number of progressive cities got together to discuss strategy. This group consisted of initiator Beverwijk along with Enschede, Utrecht, Groningen, Haarlem, Leiden, Amsterdam, Schiedam, Nijmegen, Emmen and Leeuwarden. The mayor of Leeuwarden, Te Loo, announced that his city was prepared to be counted and take the initiative for a register. He said: ‘It should be more than a symbolic register; for the sake of communal action, I would prefer joint action by a number of other municipalities. Together, we can exert more pressure on the politicians in The Hague.’ The mayor also made it clear that Leeuwarden was prepared to do it alone.

It was Deventer, however, that went first. The city stated that the register should only have a symbolic function, but by and large, their plans ran parallel to the objectives of the Friends of Gay Krant Foundation. And the ceremonies would take place in the wedding room. But, no officer of the Civil Affairs Department would be present. The wish was also expressed that numerous organisations would recognise the register, thus extending its scope to third parties. The Civil Service Pension Fund (ABP) was the first organisation to do so. But there was a trap: the ABP emphasised that parliament would first have to agree to a change in legislation that would force the ABP to explicitly introduce a partner pension. On June 5th, Pauly van der Wildt and Janna van de Hoef became the first to register in Deventer. Seef Moester, the officer performing the service, addressed the politicians: ‘Using this occasion today, I would like to call on the legislators to enshrine ‘gay marriage’ in law as soon as possible.’

The events in Deventer brought the Friends of Gay Krant Foundation into action again. Henk Krol wrote to all municipalities requesting that they set up a register similar to the one in Deventer, thus giving a clear signal to national politicians. The female couple in Deventer was the focus of attention. Hundreds of people lined the street to demonstrate their support as the coach rolled by, and the couples answer to the question ‘why?’ was unambiguous: ‘If I loved a man, I would want to marry him. I love a women, so why should that be different?’

As summer continued, more and more municipalities decided to join the initiative and set up a register. Gorinchem, Groningen, Zoetermeer and Vianen joined Deventer. Frans Stello and Gerard Kuipers, pioneers of the first years, registered their relationship in the municipality of Giessenlanden. Local politics, meanwhile, did not remain quiet. On the initiative of Beverwijk, the club of 11 cities approached all other municipalities, requesting them to sign a petition urging Minister of Justice Hirsch Ballin to get rid of the legal inequality between marital and non-marital relationships. During the course of autumn, the number of municipalities with a register increased and national politicians began stirring. The Christian Democratic Youth called for a civil marriage for ‘long-term homosexual relationships’, in which partners wished to carry responsibility for each other. In the meantime, the Beverwijk petition proved to be a success: more than 100 municipalities signed it.

 

1992

A survey carried out for De Gay Krant and Veronica by pollsters InterView, showed that public opinion favoured equal partner rights: no less than 63.5% of the population was in favour by now, an increase of more than 10% over the Veronica survey 18 months earlier. Minister Hirsch Ballin therefore had his hands full when the Beverwijk petition, signed by more than 140 municipalities, was delivered to him. Leefvormen (‘Ways of Living’), a report by the special Kortmann Commission, concluded in February that it was high time for a legal framework for relationships. Jan Wolter Wabeke, analyzing the report in Gay Krant, drew a clear conclusion for resolving all the problems in one go: open up civil marriage.

Hirsch Ballin was not prepared to go that far, but still came to a remarkable conclusion: In 1993, work could start on a white paper for registering different forms of cohabitation. During the same year, the number of districts with a register grew to 41 and the number of registered partnerships topped 100. The political hen in The Hague was hatching and, as the saying goes, you don’t disturb a hatching hen.

 

1993

Next, Haarlem had had enough of lying low. A large number of councilors of this northern Dutch city wanted to make it possible for local gay and lesbian couples to enter into a civil marriage. However, no majority could be found after the public prosecutor threatened legal action. So, again, it came to nothing. ÒI believe that there is opposition both on the left and the right of the Cabinet against partner registration legislation,’ legal expert Kees Waaldijk concluded in Gay Krant. ‘Hirsh Ballin is doing everything in his power to prevent it from looking too much like marriage. In addition, the minister responsible for gay rights (Hedy d’Ancona) is known to be a supporter of individualisation and is sceptical about marriage.’

In April, a cloud of white smoke rose above the Binnenhof (the Dutch Parliament): couples who were not allowed to get married, yet lived together, would be given the opportunity to enter their relationship in the Registry, the Cabinet decided. This registration should ensure that gay couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples. With one exception, however: It would not change existing legislation with regard to parental rights over children. Adoption would therefore remain the privilege of married people. The Cabinet presented this proposal in a white paper that was expected to result in firm legislation before the end of the government’s term. The Second Chamber had different thoughts, though, and demanded that gay couples be given adoption rights. That such a law would otherwise be passed, was beyond doubt. During the remainder of 1993, the number of municipalities with a register approached 80 but, breaking its own promises, the Cabinet did nothing more. The 1994 elections were approaching ... 

1994

Waaldijk’s words of a year earlier proved prophetic: The third Lubbers Cabinet glittered in their silence on the issue, and with an eye on the elections, no one seemed prepared to burn their fingers on the marriage question. The elections that year produced a surprise coalition: VVD, PvdA and D66. The birth of the first ‘purple’ cabinet (a gouvernment without Christian Democrates) was born, and everyone involved in the marriage issue was optimistic. If this did not result in decent legislation... New members joined parliament, and soon it became clear that the troika Mieke van der Burg (PvdA), Anne Lize van der Stoel (VVD) and Boris Dittrich (D66) were prepared to pull the cart.

In May, departing Junior Minister Aad Kosto (Socialist) left politics with the introduction of a white paper that should finally legalize registered partnership. He expressed that was not his opinion but the policy of the minister Hirsch Ballin that adoption rights should not be included in the legislation. Otherwise, the register would be almost identical to marriage. Kosto also believed that there should be a lighter version of the register for couples wishing to include fewer matters in a legal framework.

In response to the government proposals, Henk Krol launched his two parks theory: Two identical parks are developed in a particular city; however, one park has no playground for children, the other one does. Why the need for two parks if the Constitution clearly states that all people are equal? Would it not be easier to have a bigger park that is accessible to everyone? Krol’s message was clear: Awarding ‘a little bit of equal rights’ is also a form of discrimination. His views were forwarded to the Second Chamber. The CDA, via spokesperson Soutendijk, announced that the issue of adoption rights was not up for discussion, and the smaller parties on the right stuck to their familiar view.

Tara Singh Varma of the Greens was the first to announce that her party supported the idea of opening civil marriage to gay couples. Meanwhile, Kok’s Cabinet was complete, and Elisabeth Schmitz (Socialist) was the new junior minister of justice responsible for initiating partner legislation in the years to come. In October, she announced that she would present a white paper on forms of cohabitation. It was not clear, though, whether she was prepared to include opening up civil marriage. Her colleague, Erica Terpstra (Liberal), suggested in Gay Krant that it might be a good idea to first conclude the debate on the different forms of cohabitation, and only then tackle the difficult legal issues, such as inheritance and adoption rights. Terpstra did not think that plans for opening civil marriage would survive the deep-seated opposition from some sectors of society. 

1995

In 1995, as the number of municipalities with a symbolic register continued to increase, everyone waited for national politicians to act. This was still against the advice of the VNG, the organization of all Dutch cities, which wanted to wait on a political decision. Local politicians, encouraged by the Friends of De Gay Krant Foundation, continued to send signals to The Hague to move forward with legislation.

Tjeerd Herrema, a member of the COC executive council, announced that the gay organization had definitely come to a different point of view. ‘Marriage in its traditional function should be given the boot, but because it offers the best advantages at the moment, we believe that it should be opened up.’ The Friends of Gay Krant Foundation was very happy with this decision: henceforth, it was a joint struggle with considerable extra impetus.

Adoption became more and more an issue in discussions about partner legislation. Many politicians were nervous that society was not yet ready to accept adoption by gay couples, because of the belief that they would not be fit to raise children. Corry Moolhuysen-Fase, chairwoman of the Dutch Family Council, made it very clear: Everyone has a right to a family, regardless of the form of cohabitation. ‘There are no known reasons why a child would not be brought up well by two men or two women,’ she said. ‘Part of the CDA, therefore, speaks with a forked tongue when it concerns forms of cohabitation.’ She was also of the opinion that gay and lesbian couples should be given the right to adopt children. A survey by the National Committee of the International Year of the Family supported Moolhuysen’s conclusion. Seventy percent of those surveyed believed that adoption should be possible, and 69 percent supported the idea of marriage between two men or two women.

In April, the 100th municipality with a symbolic register joined the list. Soon afterwards, Junior Minister Schmitz presented her long-awaited white paper, Leefvormen, in which partner registration would be enshrined in law. It promised to be a clever piece of work. Rights and duties would be just about identical to those of the civil marriage. A number of disadvantages of the ‘traditional’ marriage, such as a fast-track divorce, were removed. The register would also be open to heterosexual couples. Mieke van der Burg (Socialist) regretted that marriage was not yet opened up, but found it a step in the right direction. Boris Dittrich (D66) pointed out that there were still no satisfactory regulations for children growing up in a gay or lesbian relationship. ‘we’re talking about at least 20,000 children who will remain second class citizens as a result,’ he said.

Soon afterwards, the socialistic party PvdA presented their discussion paper Keeping Up with The Times (Bij De Tijd), in which family-rights issues were discussed. The PvdA wanted equal rights for gay and heterosexual couples, including adoption rights. In addition to marriage, a separate register should be introduced, in which the same rights as in a traditional marriage would exist, yet with fewer duties. During the presentation of this paper, Elisabeth Schmitz, acknowledged the urgency for amending personal and family legislation. ‘However’, she said, ‘small steps at a time, because achieving the ideal situation is something that will never succeed.’

In July, a new InterView poll commissioned by Gay Krant proved once more that the majority of the Dutch population had gone further in their belief than national politicians had dared fear. No less than 73.1% percent supported the idea that gay people should be able to marry legally. The majority of these also believed this should be achieved by opening up the civil marriage.

The moment arrived in September: Elisabeth Schmitz tabled her white paper on cohabitation. She did not exclude the possibility of opening up civil marriage, but the centrepiece of her proposals was partner registration. Male and female couples could now legalize the same matters covered by civil marriage, and heterosexual couples not wishing to get married could also make use of the measure. Adoption, however, would remain excluded and the door leading to marriage for gay people remained firmly locked – ‘unless the Chamber sends me back to the drawing board,’ she added philosophically. And this was not inconceivable at the time, because, apart from the Greens and D66, most PvdA and VVD parliamentary members appeared to support opening up marriage. Of course, the register would have gone a long way to resolve many important matters, but it was clear: a miss is as good as a mile - almost equal is not equal.

Anne Lize van der Stoel (VVD), liberal Member of Parliament, also remained sceptical. She shot down the argument that it would not be possible to include adoption matters because it would not be accepted outside the Netherlands. Still, in an interview with Gay Krant, Elisabeth Schmitz stuck to her guns: ‘I am fully convinced of the fact that same-sex couples are more than capable of bringing up children,’ she said. ‘But if other countries refuse to accept this, thereby jeopardizing the availability of children for adoption, I would not be moved by the Second Chamber.’ 

In the same interview, she confirmed that she would resubmit her proposals to the Cabinet, should that be the wish of Parliament.

At the end of the year, a delegation of members of Parliament visited the offices of Gay Krant in Best (near Eindhoven). The marriage issue was high on the agenda.  Mieke van der Burg, Peter Rehwinkel (both PvdA),  Leoni Sipkes (Greens) and Boris Dittrich (D66) agreed with Peter Rex, EVP-member of the European Parliament and member of the Dutch CDA, that opening up civil marriage should remain the final aim. Remarkable was the fact that the VVD representative, Broos van Erp, supported this point of view. Initially, Van Erp, like most VVD members of Parliament, had conservative views on the matter. However, once it dawned upon him just how important the equality principle was in all of this and he realized the importance of it for children growing up in a same-sex relationship, he changed his mind and became a committed supporter of gay marital rights, both inside and outside of his parliamentary party.

Important, too, is the fact that Greetje den Ouden, chair of the Emancipation Council and an active VVD member, thought that the inequality between gay and heterosexual couples should be abolished. ‘Gay people don’t have a choice? Now, that is inequality!’ she said. 

1996

For a moment, it looked as if the Netherlands might not be the first country where it would be possible for gay people to get married. After Sweden, Norway and Iceland followed Denmark in setting up a cohabitation register, Hawaii came on the scene. The American state appeared determined to allow gay couples to get married. But it was not to be. The state Supreme Court was ultimately blocked by the state legislature. 

In March, Henk Krol decreed that the discriminating term ‘gay wedding’ should become history. After all, Krol argued, there was but one marriage, civil marriage, and that should be open to all. Krol also supported a diluted version of registration, which should be open to everyone. It seemed as if a majority in Parliament shared his view. The coalition parties and the Greens told Schmitz to start again, because they supported opening civil marriage. Serious discussions about the matter had taken place in all parties. VVD and D66 were unanimous; within the PvdA, there were two dissenting voices: Houda and Apostolou.

The CDA remained in the conservative corner. CDA leader Helgers confirmed his opposition to opening up marriage. The needs of 20,000 children in gay relationships did not sway him. His argument was that gay couples would always need a third person in order to bear children. As such, and as far as relationship legislation was concerned, they should be treated separately and, therefore, in the eyes of the CDA, required separate, diluted registration.

When, in March, Schmitz’s white paper came up for debate in the Second Chamber, it soon transpired that there was a majority in Parliament that wished a special inquiry to look into the possibilities of opening up civil marriage. Initially, Schmitz did not see the need for it, but she later gave in. Remarkable is the fact that no time limit was agreed on. 

The interim implementation of the registered partnership seemed only a matter of time. The difficulties experienced within the coalition partners were borne out by the fact that Anne Lize van der Stoel (VVD) announced that a number of parliamentary party members had difficulties with linking civil marriage rights for gay people to adoption rights abroad.

In April, the white paper received a majority in the Second Chamber. The Chamber was also for a motion stating that a draft bill should be prepared to make it possible for gay and lesbian couples to adopt Dutch children. This was an historical vote in Parliament. No fewer that 81 members of Parliament supported the motion calling for civil marriage to be opened to gay couples (40 members voted against). The adoption motion also got a nice majority with 83 for and 58 against. Prime Minister Wim Kok, an opponent of opening up civil marriage from the beginning (according to insiders), said that he would look very seriously at the matter. There was an element of surprise, though, when it became known that the liberal VVD leader Frits Bolkestein voted with the opposition.

Good news in June: the Cabinet took over the motion from the Chamber. A non-official commission would investigate opening up civil marriage. Meanwhile, the government continued preparations for a registered partnership. The commission had to report before August 1997. Some of the people involved were ambivalent and placed question marks behind the names of some of the commission members, such as Professor Hoksbergen, known to hold conservative views. The fear grew that it might take another five years before the civil marriage would actually be opened up, in spite of the comfortable majority in Parliament. In August, it appeared that State Secretary Schmitz had amended her plans for a registered partnership. An important difference from the initial plans was that the registered partnership would now also include maintenance and duty of support. The same applied to inheritance rights and the use of each other’s family names. Furthermore, Schmitz wanted to award the same ceremonial rights as with marriage, such as the presence of witnesses and their signatures. The news was not so good for the 322 couples already entered into 130 city registers: their status would not be converted automatically. With these changes, Schmitz responded to the majority wish in the Chamber to model the registered partnership on marriage as much as possible.

In the meantime, the Kortmann Commission started working. De Gay Krant stimulated public debate at the time with a range of interviews in which experts also stressed that gay and lesbian people could be excellent educators. Scientific contributions, including from mr. Kees Waaldijk and Prof. Dr. Rob Tielman, confirmed that from both a legal and scientific viewpoint, nothing should stand in the way of opening up civil marriage. 

Henk Krol had discussions on TV, radio, with university students and regional political parties Ñ and he travelled to all parts of the world to explain what was happening.

What did appear to stand in the way was the sluggishness of the bureaucracy. In November, Boris Dittrich expressed his concern about this. ‘So many surveys and investigations were commissioned by Schmitz that it could seriously hamper progress,’ he said. ‘The special commission should not sit around waiting on the findings of other commissions. We must not sit here waiting for the cows to come home.’ In the meantime, a remarkable change was taking place within the smaller parties on the extreme right. Senator Holdijk of the SGP, one of the small religious parties, could support ‘some form of registration’ of alternative forms of cohabitation. He did insist, though, on a clear distinction from marriage.

In mid-December, the draft bill for the registered partnership was debated in the Second Chamber. As expected, the reading passed without a hitch. Many people still had ambivalent feelings: on the one hand, more had been achieved than anywhere else in the world while, on the other hand, the final objective, opening up civil marriage, was far from becoming reality. 

1997

The overwhelming majority (104 of the 150 Members of Parliament) who voted to pass the registered partnership bill was widely seen as a positive development. Barring any other obstacles, the register would be implemented on January 2nd 1998, giving the Netherlands the most progressive relationship legislation in the world. Schmitz announced that she would insist with the VNG (Dutch Cities) that partners in the existing registers could have their status converted automatically. She had no qualms about debate in the Senate. ‘I will have great pleasure in defending this issue,’ she said.

Work on the road leading to opening up of civil marriage continued unabated. At the end of January, a survey by the Family Council was published. Their conclusion did not surprise anyone: Marriage and adoption by same-sex couples should be allowed. Prof. Dr. Verhulst and Dr. Versluis-den Bieman of the Rotterdam Academic Hospital joined the supporters. The results of their survey, also presented to Schmitz, clearly showed that gay couples made excellent educators/parents and that a child could grow up in this environment without any additional risks. The survey had been carried out in response to the Chamber motions from 1996.

In the meantime, it appeared as if the passage of the registered-partnership legislation was being delayed in the First  Chamber. The CDA, in particular, had problems with the proposals. The party wished to await the report of the Kortmann Commission, and that report would not be published before August that year. Fortunately, the party could not muster a majority on its own. The coalition parties and the Greens did not want to wait, and, come the beginning of July, the registered-partnership law was a fact. ‘A foolish interim measure,’ Henk Krol concluded on behalf of the Friends of Gay Krant Foundation. Hope for open civil marriage remained alive in part due to Schmitz saying, after the partnership measure passed the Senate, that it was possible. 

‘I don’t exclude anything,’ she said. The biggest blot on the new register was that it did not include a transitional arrangement in respect to partner pensions. Partners who had been together for years would to a large extent miss the boat. Relationships would only ‘count’ after January 1, 1998.

As January 1 approached, more and more couples started preparing for their ceremony. On the one hand, many districts revealed that there was little or no interest in the register, on the other hand, numerous couples announced that they would be the first to register. A rat race threatened to ensue around an issue that had been exactly arranged out of dire need. The biggest misunderstanding came from couples thinking that as the fireworks began exploding at midnight on New Year’s Eve, they would be able register. ‘Wrong!’ said many Civil Affairs officers. 

The intended marriage notice period of two weeks also applied in this instance. This could only be waived if a court granted an exemption. There was also a lot of misunderstanding because Parliament still had to pass some minor adjusting legislation. Rumours swirled that registration would be possible around March or April. However, Frans Stello and Gerard Kuipers, as well as the two other pioneers, Pauly van der Wildt and Janna van der Hoef, remained undaunted and visited the Town Hall on January 15 and 16. In the Second Chamber, meanwhile, dissatisfaction broke out with the delay in the findings of the Kortmann Commission. They were supposed to be published in August, but there was still nothing in October. Mieke van der Burg pointed this out to the State Secretary: ‘It really must be ready before Christmas.’

These words of the PvdA politician made the difference. The long-awaited report appeared in November. The most important conclusion of the Kortmann Commission: civil marriage should be opened up. Another important conclusion was that opinion ‘abroad’ was a lot more positive than had been assumed. All eight members of the commission were unanimous in their ruling. Five of the eight supported all the conclusions. The rest added some reservations, without opposing the overall principle of opening up civil marriage.

Schmitz was full of praise for the thoroughness of the report. ‘The conclusions are very clear. I will submit this to the Cabinet, and there should be a clear Cabinet response before Christmas.’ The report made mincemeat of the arguments by known opponents, such as notary Maarten-Jan van Mourik. It said: ‘The argument that a large part of the population would no longer be able to identify with marriage if it were opened up, applies to an ever diminishing part of society. They can continue to identify with a marriage in church.’ The eight commission members also supported the idea of extending adoption rights for Dutch children.

As the end of the year approached, the race to become the first couple to register began to look more and more like a soap opera. The Amsterdam district Zuid took the prize with a sponsored Hollywood-like session with ‘two attractive ladies who are going to say  ‘I will’ to each other in the night of February 14/15.’ Sugar Lee Hooper, a bald-headed local singer of more than 240 pounds, also confessed wanting to be the first to register, and she was going to throw her weight behind it.

Just before Christmas, things were sorted out. The Senate passed the minor pieces of repair legislation, but silence reigned from Kok’s office. The promised response to the Kortmann Commission waited till 1998. In the meantime, it became clear why there was no mass storming of the Town Halls to get registered: A survey by the University of Utrecht revealed that 45% of gay and lesbian people would only marry once civil marriage was opened up. People were prepared to wait...

1998

In the end, three couples wishing to remain anonymous were the first to register on January 1. All cases involved couples in which one partner was seriously ill. Thanks to an exemption on the required notice period, granted by a public prosecutor, they were able to register as soon as the New Year dawned. Sugar Lee Hooper and her partner distanced themselves from the lyrical press reports released nationwide by the party centre they used. They had nothing of any political substance to report. The entire preceding struggle had passed both women unnoticed.

February saw the long-awaited Cabinet response to the report of the Kortmann Commission. It was disappointing. Adoption should be made possible, but there was no question of civil marriage being opened up during the next three years. Kok mentioned a fundamental breakthrough, but ‘[didn’t] want to get ahead of events.’ The Cabinet wanted time to see how the registered partnership would develop. The ‘purple’ troika in the Second Chamber (Van der Stoel/Van der Burg/Dittrich) did not accept this. They insisted on the 1996 motion being implemented and considered a new motion or even draft legislation. They wished to put the government on the spot during the Chamber debate of March 23.

The Child Protection Agency responded that extending adoption rights would have very few practical implications; it would affect at the most 40 children coming up for adoption each year. The Friends of Gay Krant Foundation and COC nevertheless announced that they were glad that the disadvantage of children in gay families would now end. Exactly how great the need for proper measures was, was demonstrated by a real-life incident as reported in Gay Krant. A week after her registered partnership with Brigitte Christiaans, Carien Boom unexpectedly passed away. Because civil marriage had not been opened up yet, their three children did not automatically pass into the care of Brigitte. A difficult time awaited the surviving family. ‘Hopefully this will shake especially The Hague from its sleep,’ Henk Krol hoped aloud.

Meanwhile, well-known gay couples started utilizing the register. In Huize De Voorst, the historic home of a former gay member of the Royal Family in Zutphen, American/Dutch singer Ronnie Tober stepped into the ‘register boat’ with his partner, Jan. They were soon followed by Albert Mol, an emotional film actor, dancer and writer and his American lover, Guerdon Bill, in the same town. A large contingent of friends on that day honoured the man who, once upon a time, had been the first to announce on Dutch TV that he was gay. Moreover, his marriage was also the breakthrough for press coverage. Until then, all newspapers, with the exception of De Telegraaf, had reported on the struggle to open up civil marriage. By getting the gossip page ‘Privé’ to exclusively report on this occasion, the readers of the most-widely read newspaper in The Netherlands finally got to read about the ongoing debate.

In April, the Second Chamber made quick work of the Cabinet response to opening up civil marriage. It had to be finalized in 2000, and as of January 1, a majority in the Chamber wanted draft legislation tabled to extend adoption rights. Junior Minister Schmitz announced that the then Cabinet would take no further steps on the issue. Elections were due in less than two months, and Schmitz did not think it was possible to set the agenda for the next government. A new period of silence loomed. In order to give a clear signal to the incoming Cabinet, a motion was tabled calling for draft legislation to open civil marriage to be agreed by January 1, 1999. An overwhelming majority favoured the motion: 81 for, 56 against. An even larger majority (95-42) passed a motion urging the government to grant adoption rights to gay and lesbian couples. Another motion was passed, asking the government, where possible, to get rid of pension-right inequalities between married and registered couples. Peter Rehwinkel did not believe that the new government could prevent this and was therefore full of optimism.

The results of the election for a new Second Chamber were anxiously awaited. All those concerned hoped for a new ‘purple’ cabinet, because Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, CDA leader, had made it clear that opening up civil marriage would not be on the agenda of a cabinet in which the CDA participated. The results were positive for the government in power, even though D66 had taken a beating. The PvdA and VVD gains made up for that, though. That summer work continued, sometimes with great difficulty, on the formation of the second Kok Cabinet.

Developments abroad did not stop either. A partnership register was set up in Belgium, and Paris was experiencing a hot summer of discussion on the so-called PACS legislation, which gave gay couples some equal rights. In spite of extensive lobbying from the right, the legislation was passed in Paris.

In June, the coalition parliamentary parties reached an agreement for a second cabinet. Everyone, including negotiators Bolkestein and Kok, agreed that civil marriage should be opened up to gay and lesbian couples during the following parliament. In this respect, the Netherlands became the first country in the world. The Friends of Gay Krant Foundation and COC called the decision to include the opening up in the coalition agreement a milestone in the struggle for emancipation.

Subsequently, it appeared as if the entire gay community turned their energy towards the Gay Games to be held in Amsterdam that summer. In September, the Hague Adoption Treaty took effect, enabling gays and lesbians to adopt a foreign child after all. It was no reason for joy, though: The partner of the adopter would not gain any parental rights. 

The registered partnership proved to be a small success. After nine months, 5000 couples had made use of it. Most remarkable, perhaps, was that more heterosexual than homosexual couples registered. In the meantime, the Cabinet once again appeared to be brooding about definite draft legislation, and a broody hen it was. It was confirmed, though, that the Government would definitely extend adoption rights to gay people. 

1999

At the beginning of the year Henk Krol learned he was suffering from colon cancer. He had to undergo surgery, chemotherapy and many radiation treatments. For more than 12 months he had to fight for himself and regretted that he did not have enough energy for political lobbying. Because of this and in spite of the fact the opening up of civil marriage appeared to be around the corner, the first months appeared conspicuously quiet in The Hague politics. A serious crisis did not make it easier for the coalition. All energy was focused on healing the break. The Cabinet considered it important to first ask the advice of the Council of State before launching definite plans. However, Joop Wijn (CDA, who later became the Dutch minister of Foreign Trade, new CDA Member of Parliament, did cause a stir.

He did not agree with CDA parliamentary party chairman, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, and announced his support for opening up civil marriage and said he would vote for it in the coming parliamentary vote.

News only arrived in June, but it was a direct hit. The Council of State gave a negative advice to the Cabinet. The council’s fear was that by passing this law, the Netherlands would step too far out of line with the rest of the world. Prime Minister Kok and Junior Minister Job Cohen decided to ignore the Council’s advice and to take the plunge once and for all: Civil marriage would be opened up. If everything went according to plan, it was possible that first couples would marry in the second half of 2000. At the same time, an adequate transitional arrangement for registered partners was being considered. A survey showed that 62 percent of them would like to make the change to a proper marriage. If separation was required before being able to get married, it would create a gap of at least a few weeks during which nothing would be legally settled. The tragic death of Carien Boom in 1999 had demonstrated how real such a problem could be. The government promised to look for a transitional arrangement. Good news for ‘partner shippers’ came in July when the Cabinet decided that registered partners who were members of a pension scheme would be entitled to a survivors pension the same as a married people. There was also good news for Belgians: The new Purple-green coalition of Prime Minister Verhofstad announced a partnership plan, which would be very similar to a marriage. The Flemish gay community was happy, but pointed out that where there were differences, discrimination continued to exist.

When popular Radio 3 DJs Rob Stenders and Fred Siebeling registered their partnership as a joke in September, it was reason for the Second Chamber to urge the Government to hurry up with definite legislation. ‘We will make sure that no time is lost,’ Peter Rehwinkel summed up. ‘It has to be brought before the Second Chamber this year still,’ colleague Boris Dittrich said. Fears for delay were not unfounded. The grapevine produced more and more rumours that high officials in the Ministry for Justice were not impressed with the planned legislation and were doing everything in their power to delay it. It was suggested that even Queen Beatrix was opposed to opening up civil marriage. On top of The Netherlands’ liberal drug policies and euthanasia legislation, she did not look forward to also having to defend ‘gay marriage’ during official visits abroad.

In September, Job Cohen announced that the government first wished to arrange a hearing in order to initiate a broad public debate over opening up civil marriage and adoption rights for gay couples. He did confirm, though, that registered couples would automatically be given parental rights the moment their child was born. Many lesbian couples, in particular, found this an enormous improvement. The hearing in question took place in the Second Chamber at the beginning of November.

Of course, the mainly religious opponents and Professor Hoksbergen were there, but the overwhelming message was, ‘Go for it, Cabinet!’

In December Queen Beatrix announced that she had decided to knight Henk Krol in the order of Oranje Nassau for all the work he had done for gay and lesbian emancipation. Two months later there was even better news. His cancer seemed to be healed.

Marriage between gay couples gained more and more popularity in public opinion. At the end of the year, the CDA still tried to mount a rearguard action by suggesting that the registered partnership should be strengthened instead of opening up civil marriage. Joop Wijn did not agree and stuck to his guns. In spite of everything, the 2nd Millennium ended without marriage for gay and lesbian couples. But it did not look as if it was going to take much longer...

2000

The year in which all will end well, started with a VVD memorandum concerning opening up civil marriage. In contrast to the CDA, the liberals saw nothing worthwhile in further expanding registered partnership. The parliamentary party supported opening up civil marriage, as well as extending adoption rights.

Abroad, things continued apace. As of January 1, Belgian gay couples got limited registration legislation, which did not include matters such as inheritance and adoption. In the US, Vermont was the first state to pass partnership legislation. In Germany, plans for a register were firmly off the ground.

Meanwhile, March arrived and the Second Chamber still sat waiting on the final draft legislation to open up civil marriage. PvdA Member of Parliament Usman Santi did not trust the situation. ÒI would support anyone calling for a plenary session to deal with the matter with some speed,’ he said in Gay Krant. On behalf of the coalition parties, he urged quick action, as did the Greens and the Socialist Party (SP). Some commotion was caused by two journalists from Algemeen Dagblad, Redmar Kooistra and Stephan Koole. They gave new life to the rumour that Queen Beatrix personally had a finger in the pie to delay progress. Their book, ’Beatrix, Influence and Power of a Stubborn Sovereign’, reported the Queen ‘had her doubts’.

In May, Junior Minister Job Cohen vigorously fielded parliamentary questions on the matter. The Chamber would discuss the issue immediately after the summer break. He revealed that discussions in the Cabinet had been rough but a positive decision had been made. ‘The arguments in favour finally weighed more than in the previous Cabinet.’

Cohen believed, the same as the VNG, the organization of Dutch Cities, that no exceptions could be made for local government officers with conscientious objections.

Mr Cohen kept his word, and early in September the historic Chamber debate on opening up civil marriage took place. The majority by which the legislation passed, was impressive to say the least: 109 for, 31 against. This was the reward for 15 years’ hard work and lobbying by Gay Krant. Cohen, who showed remarkable vigour in defending the Cabinet proposals, did give in to the wishes of the confessional parties one point: Civil servants with conscientious objections to marrying gay couples could refuse to do so. He did insist, though, that it should be possible for gay and lesbian couples to marry in every municipality in the Netherlands. The exemption caused some grumbling. It would also be possible for registered partners to ‘upgrade’ to marriage without there being a period in which the relationship would not be official.

Media interest was remarkable. The Dutch press was mostly quiet, so self-evident had the matter become. The foreign press, however, was falling all over itself: this was, after all, a question of world history in the making!

At the end of the year, it was the Senate’s turn. Green Senator Bob van Schijndel told Gay Krant not to expect any problems. He would vote for the measure, albeit with some reservations. He called marriage an archaic institution, but he was against all forms of discrimination including in relationship legislation. During the last pre-Christmas session, Cohen, in one of his last actions as Minister (he would become mayor of Amsterdam), steered the proposals through the First Chamber. He did add one peculiarity at this juncture, though: Even a crown prince would be able to marry a male partner. With only the Christian Union and most members of the CDA opposed, there were no problems getting the legislation passed. This was the end of the road: as of April 1, 2001, civil marriage would be open!

2001

The last bit of political work concerned amendments to the civil-marriage laws. If a gay couple was getting married, you couldn’t use certain words. Across the nation, preparations began for the first ceremonies, and for some time there was fear these amendments would cause new delays. Perhaps the Christian right would have a final go. But on March 6, 2001, the matter was concluded and both the First and Second Chambers finalised the last pieces of legislation.

Gay Krant and COC joined hands and decided - together with the City of Amsterdam, and the Ministry of Justice - to organise a ceremony that would do credit to a 16 years struggle. At midnight on April 1, four registered partners will be joined in marriage in the City Hall of Amsterdam. The end of a remarkable chapter in worldwide gay emancipation had arrived. Even though it is certain that on some sunny Sunday afternoon, in someone’s back garden, over a bottle of wine, new plans will be born’

Author: Hans van Velde

Translation: several friends from Gay Krant Friends Foundation, like Gilbert Strauss and singer/poet Labi Siffre

10 Questions

Foreigners living in The Netherlands can also marry. For tourists we don’t have Las Vegas-like chapels. If you live elsewere you have to come to The Netherlands first and take out a marriage license. Fot that you need an address. A lot of hotels are willing to let you use their address. This license must be obtained at least 2 weeks before the edding date, but can alse be obtained a year earlier.

After you have your licence, you can go back to your country and you have to come back for the wedding day (Don’t forget to invite us ;-)). After that day you go on a honnymoon: home!

Address Register (to get the license):

Stadhouderskade 85 (Burgerlijke Stand)

Monday till Friday 8.30-16.30 Hours.

1. Is this Gay marriage?

No, The Netherlands does not have a Gay marriage. This is the real civil marriage, the same one as used by your parents.

2. Is this unique in the world?

Yes, The Netherlands has no registration for gays apart. Same sex couples are treated equal to straight couples. Belgium became second.

3. Is this the only possible registration?

No, next to civil marriage The Netherlands also has the possibilty for a registered partnership, again open for gays and straights.

4. Is there a difference between civil marriage and a notary contract?

Yes, wedding is binding automatically third parties. This has huge consequences for pension funds, taxes and all other imaginable regulations.

5. Has marriage for gay couples also consequences for children?

Yes, the none-biological parents has the obligation to nurse the child and to pay for it.

6.  Is it possible for gays and lesbians to adopt children?

Yes.

7. Are there special formalities for gay couples?

Yes, the same as for straight couples.

8. How about foreign gays?

A Dutchman can marry a foreigner.

9. Is it possible for foreign gays to marry in The Netherlands?

See text in red above!

10. Is the Dutch marriage recognised elsewhere?

The European parliament passed bill asking all member countries to recognise each others marriages. In the rest of the world these rights are up to consideration for foreign judges or parliaments

11. Can you use the name of the other partner?

Yes, during the wedding you can decide to use one name together or to keep your own name.

12. Is there a difference between civil marriage and marriage in church?

Yes, in The Netherlands marriage in church has no legal meaning. It’s up to every church to decide weather they will bless a marriage or not.

Thanks to mr. Kees Waaldijk and mr. Jan Wolter Wabeke 

Epilogue   

After the huge international media coverage of the night of the first civil marriage of gay couples, reality set in. Many registered partnerships were ‘converted’, including that of Henk Krol and his partner Reon Nettenbreijers. Because of his serious illness, and very much against what he really wanted, Henk had registered his partnership with Reon in 1999. He was one of the proudest people when, after a 15-year struggle, he could put his relationship on an equal footing with a hetero marriage, after that April 1st of 2001.

Throughout Dutch society a marriage between two gays or lesbians soon became accepted. The terms ‘gay marriage’ began to lose currency because, increasingly, the media and official bodies understood that a same-sex marriage was no different from that of a heterosexual couple.

What remained a hotly disputed issue was the role of the marriage official. In Christian circles there continued to be problems with some of these officials who, because of their religious beliefs, refused to marry gay and lesbian couples. The city of Leeuwarden, which had earlier proved to be in the vanguard, decided to remove an uncooperative official from her function and sack her. The court battle, which followed, was still in progress when this book went to press.

Other countries also saw new developments. In Germany, a registered partnership was introduced with substantial equal rights in housing, inheritance and labour laws. The Belgian parliament passed a bill in the spring of 2003 which opens civil marriage to same-sex couples. It is interesting to note that the Christian democrats, unlike those in The Netherlands, fully supported the bill. A serious disappointment for Belgian gays and lesbians was that the legislation does not cover adoption. The Verhofstad government decided to leave this sensitive issue to the next government. There marriage is opened finally on June 2nd 2003. The following week a judge in the biggest province of Canada, Ontario, decided that marriage must be opened.

At the European level, progress was made as well. It was of crucial importance that the European parliament adopted a proposal calling on the EU member-states to recognise registered partnerships, co-habitation contracts and marriages of same-sex couples.

Each EU country will now discuss the proposal, which was put forward by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Green Left) and Joke Swiebel (PvdA). When these discussions have been completed the European parliament will hold a second vote.

So there is still a lot of work to be done, especially with the entry of ten, largely conservative, new European Union member-states. The same goes for foreign adoptions. There is still no legislation allowing gay or lesbian couples to adopt a child from another country. The only way to get round this is the so-called Paul de Leeuw construction. This well-known Dutch entertainer caused a stir in 2002 when he adopted a child from the US. The loophole he found is fairly simple. You adopt a child as a single parent, say from one of the states in the US, which offers this possibility. Once the child is in The Netherlands, it obtains Dutch nationality and the partner can then apply for adoption as well.

Looking back over 15 years of struggle for equal relationship rights the Friends of the Gay Krant Foundation is proud of what has been achieved. Many bills of the past period have never been settled and that hampers the Foundation in continuing its work. That is a pity, for although the opening of the civil marriage to same-sex couples is a milestone, the final goal is not in sight yet.

Financial contributions to the Foundation - Giro 3940 - will therefore remain welcome.

  - -

CHRONOLOGY

Legal status of gay couples worldwide

August 6, 1885: The United Kingdom
The British Parliament votes to make homosexual acts a criminal offence.

1930s: Europe
Adolf Hitler takes power and launches a campaign against Jews and other groups. Thousands of homosexuals are sent to concentration camps. Gay men are identified with pink triangles and lesbians are identified with black triangles.

1961: The United States
Illinois repeals its sodomy laws making it the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize homosexuality between consenting adults in private. The law takes effect in 1962. Connecticut follows in 1969 with the law taking effect in 1971. In the 1970s a rush of other states decriminalize homosexuality including Colorado, Oregon, Ohio, Hawaii, Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine, California, Washington, New Mexico, West Virginia, South Dakota, Indiana, Iowa, Wyoming, North Dakota, Vermont, Arizona, and New Jersey.

July 27, 1967: The United Kingdom
Britain decriminalizes homosexuality between consenting adults in private, except for those in the military and police.

June 27, 1969: The United States
At about midnight, New York City police raid the Stonewall Inn, a private gay club on St. Christopher St. in Greenwich Village. Raids on gay and lesbian bars were common but this time people fight back. The events of June 17, 1969 and the violent protests that occurred during the nights that followed are known as The Stonewall Riots, which is seen as the beginning of the gay civil rights movement in the United States.

February 25, 1982: The United States
Wisconsin becomes the first state in the U.S. to pass a gay civil rights law. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota and Rhode Island follow, with Massachusetts passing a law forbidding the placement of children for adoption or foster care with gay people.

July 27, 1982: The United States
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention replaces the acronym GRIDS (Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome) with AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).

December 1, 1988: Switzerland
The first World AIDS Day is held by the World Health Organization.

October 1, 1989: Denmark
Denmark becomes the first country to legally recognize same-sex partnerships, essentially sanctioning gay marriages. The Danish Registered Partnership Act states "Two persons of the same sex may have their partnership registered" and "the registration of a partnership shall have the same legal effects as the contracting of marriage."
By 2001, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands and France recognize registered partnerships and Italy, Spain and Israel are considering adopting similar legislation.

July 1, 2000: The United States
Vermont's civil union law comes into effect making it the first state in the U.S. to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits and responsibilities similar to those of heterosexual couples, including medical decision-making, tax breaks and inheritance. However, the unions won't be recognized in other states.
Hawaii allows adults who can't legally marry to register as domestic partners.

April 1, 2001: The Netherlands
The Netherlands is the first country in the world to open Civil Marriage. The Dutch law allows same-sex couples to marry and gives them the same adopting rights as heterosexuals. Foreign same-sex couples have to live there, they can't come to the Netherlands to marry unless al least one of them lives there.

The law tops Denmark's law, which allows gays and lesbians to adopt their partners' children but not children outside the marriage.

Pope John Paul II criticizes the new law saying no adult relationship other than that of a man and a woman should be recognized as marriage.

June 7, 2003: The United Kingdom
An openly gay Anglican priest announces he will not accept an appointment as bishop of Reading after bitter arguments within the Church of England. Canon Jeffrey John acknowledges that he's in a long-term relationship with a man, but says he's been celibate since the 1990s. Traditionalist groups within the Church insist the Bible forbids homosexuality.

July 31, 2003: The Vatican
The Vatican issues a 12-page set of guidelines, approved by Pope John Paul, warning Catholic politicians that it is immoral to support same-sex unions. "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," it says. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."

August 5, 2003: The United States
Episcopalian Church leaders in the United States vote to accept the election of the American Anglican church's first openly gay bishop. The vote was 62-to-45 to confirm Rev. Gene Robinson as the new bishop of New Hampshire. Robinson, 56, is a divorced father of two. He has been living with his partner for 13 years. Conservative church members warn that Robinson's installation could trigger a split in the church.

Nov. 3, 2003: The United States
Rev. Gene Robinson becomes the first openly gay Anglican bishop. Before the consecration, two Episcopal clerics read letters of protest denouncing Robinson's appointment as Bishop of New Hampshire.

Feb. 12, 2004: The United States
City officials in San Francisco marry a lesbian couple in a closed ceremony at City Hall, defying a state ballot measure defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the following days, more than 3,200 same-sex couples are married.

Feb. 24, 2004: The United States
President George W. Bush calls on Congress to prepare a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, and "define and protect marriage as the union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

March 3, 2004: The United States
New York's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, says gay marriage is illegal in his state. The mayor of New Paltz, a village outside of New York City, faces 19 criminal charges for marrying 25 same-sex couples.

March 11, 2004: The United States
The California Supreme Court orders San Francisco to stop same-sex marriages, nearly one month after the city issued its first same-sex marriage licence to a lesbian couple. In that time, more than 3,700 same-sex couples were wed, including comedian Rosie O'Donnell and her partner Kelli Carpenter.

April 13, 2004: Zanzibar
The parliament of this semi-autonomous and mainly Muslim island unanimously passes a bill outlawing homosexuality. The penalty for being in a homosexual relationship is a prison term of 25 years for men and seven years for women.

May 17, 2004: The United States
City clerks across the state of Massachusetts hand out marriage licence applications to gay couples, making it the first state to legalize same-sex marriages.

May 24, 2004: Australia
Prime Minister John Howard asks Parliament to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The government also takes steps to block gays from adopting children from overseas. However, homosexuals would be allowed to name their partners as beneficiaries for pension and death benefits.

July 14, 2004: The United States
The U.S. Senate rejects a bid to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. Before the vote, Republicans said a setback in the Senate would not deter their efforts to get the amendment passed. Six Republicans voted with the Democrats against the measure.

Aug. 3, 2004: The United States
About 72 per cent of Missouri voters support an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, making Missouri the first state to do so. Missouri already has laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but some opposed to gay marriages say an amendment is the only way to prevent courts from legalizing it, as they did in Massachusetts.

Aug. 12, 2004: The United States
The Supreme Court of California voids more than 4,000 same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco between Feb. 12 and March 11, 2004. The justices rule that the city's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing marriage licences to gay couples.

Oct. 18, 2004: The United Kingdom
The Anglican Church criticizes the U.S. Episcopal Church for consecrating Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, as bishop of New Hampshire. The report also suggests the 38 national churches that make up the Anglican Communion sign an agreement to support the church's current teachings, which also prohibit same-sex marriages.

Nov. 2, 2004: The United States
In the U.S. national election, voters in 11 states – Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Ohio, North Dakota, Oregon and Utah – pass amendments to state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.

Nov. 29, 2004: The United States
The Supreme Court rejects a challenge to the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowing same-sex couples to get married. The challenge was launched by conservative religious groups and 11 state lawmakers.

Nov. 30, 2004: South Africa
The Supreme Court of Appeal rules in favour of a lesbian couple seeking to have the common-law definition of marriage changed to a "union between two persons." The government would later announce plans to appeal the decision to the Constitutional Court, the country's highest.

January 2005: The United States
The Indiana Court of Appeals supports a state law prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages, including those that take place in states where they are legal. Louisiana's Supreme Court reinstates a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. A judge in Florida throws out a lawsuit filed by two women who want their Massachusetts marriage recognized there.

February 2005: Canada

Canada unveils draft legislation to permit Civil Marriage to be opend for lesbian and gay couples (as in The Netherlands and Belgium) after courts in 7 of the 10 provinces had already ruled in favour of same-sex marriages. 

June 2005: Spain

Spain becomes the 3rd country to open up Civil Marrigae

July 2005: Canada

Canada is 4th.

November 2006: South Africa
On November 30, South Africa opens Civil Marriage registers as the first country on the African continent.

Dec 2007: Partnerlaws in the world - evalutation
More and more countries opens register for domestic partnership regulations. The state of the art on Dec 31 2007:

Civil Marriage opened in:
The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa and the US State of Massachusettes. Sweden is expected to join in start 2008.

Registrated partnerships possible in:
Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Great Brittain, Czechia, France, Switzerland, Slovenia, Portugal, Hungary and Croatia, US-states Vermont, Connecticut, Hawaï, Maine, California, New Jersey and the district or Columbia, in Mexico the provinces Mexico City and Coahuila and the city of Buenos Aires. In Latin America Uruguay introduced as first civil partnerships in December 2007.

Plans are on their way in Australia, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Cuba and Brazil.
 

This whole story is printed as a book. The first one was handed to Job Cohen in his function as Mayor of Amsterdam on August 15^th, 2003.

The book can be ordered on our website, just go to SHOP, or send a letter together with 10 dollars or 10 euros to: Gay Krant, P.O.Box 10, NL-5680 AA Best, Holland.