The world remains divided on granting legal recognition to homosexual partnerships.

(Angus Reid Global Scan) Mario Canseco - Two years ago, some cities located in the states of California, Oregon, New Mexico and New York chose to extend marriage certificates to homosexual couples. In a matter of weeks, the courts, the Congress and the executive branch concluded that these documents had no legal value. In May 2004, Massachusetts—regarded as one of the most liberal states in the country—officially allowed same-sex couples to get married.

The views of United States president George W. Bush had been clear since January. In his State of the Union address, Bush expressed dismay at what he called "activist judges" who "have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives."

In some states, a compromise has calmed down both sides. In Vermont and Connecticut, couples can enter into a civil union, which provides same-sex partners with the same legal rights of married couples such as inheritance, insurance and hospital visiting privileges. In California, a law grants domestic partners with the same legal rights of married couples, with the exception of filing joint income tax returns.

The Netherlands was the first country to allow homosexual couples to get married. Belgium, Spain and Canada were next on the list, and at least 18 countries offer some form of legal recognition to same sex unions that is not called marriage. Still, some of these laws could change in the future. Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper has promised to hold a free vote in the House of Commons, which could signal the start of a process that seeks to overturn the legislation. Harper's Conservative party, then in opposition, mostly opposed the same-sex marriage bill in 2004.

Same-sex marriage has been successful for Canada's tourism industry, but homosexual foreign couples who get married in Canada know that their certificates will not be acknowledged in their homelands. Dozens of cases are being reviewed in several countries, including the U.S. and Britain, to define the global reach of same-sex marriage.

On Jun. 7, the second debate on U.S. laws—which took place with the support of the president—finished in the Senate with a 49-48 vote. Bush needed at least 60 votes to set in place his plan to amend the constitution and define marriage as "the union between a man and a woman." For the Democrats, the debate was simply a manner in which the governing party sought to motivate its base a few months before a congressional election. For the Republicans, the situation threatens society as a whole.

Polls recently conducted in Spain and Canada show a public that agrees with existing same-sex marriage legislation. Other countries are starting to ponder changes in their laws. In Ireland, where homosexuality was considered a crime until 1992, a majority of respondents to a Red C survey support the creation of civil unions. In Australia, 52 per cent of respondents to a Newspoll would accept a similar solution.

In Italy, where the influence of the Catholic Church led to the cancellation of a referendum on stem cell research due to a low turnout, 70 per cent of respondents to an Ispo Ltd. study rejected same-sex marriage. A poll by TNS-Sofres in France also showed opposition to both same-sex marriage and adoption for homosexual couples.

In Latin America, polls conducted on the topic over the past two years place the area more in tone with Italy and France than with Spain. 67.1 per cent of Colombians, 78.8 per cent of Panamanians, 78.4 per cent of metropolitan Peruvians, and 76.8 per cent of Mexicans do not agree with allowing homosexual marriage.

The last two countries that have changed their law to allow same-sex marriage—Spain and Canada—reached their conclusion after very different processes. The reform was one of many campaign promises made by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, and when the Socialist Worker's Party (PSOE) managed to win, implementation proved much simpler.

In Ottawa, Liberal prime minister Paul Martin relied on the support of the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Québécois to pass the legislation. Still, a row of decisions from Canadian courts, which took place after several couples requested equality under the terms of 1982's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, precipitated the debate. In Canada, the point of view of judges enticed the government to take a look at the situation and frame it within the realm of minority rights. In the United States, at least for now, the view from the bench has been branded as activism.

Archive Search

Search the Angus Reid Global Monitor Politics In Depth archive.