Workplace Pride

The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton Countyon 15 June 2020 with major implications for 8,1 million LGBTQ+ workers (1 million of which transgender individuals), that now enjoy protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This contribution delves into the Court’s decision and its consequences, and also discusses its past key LGBTQ+ related rulings that have brought much-needed equality for the LGBTQ+ community in the last 20 years.

Continue Reading →

The Federal Rainbow Dream: On Free Movement of Gay Spouses under EU Law

After a pretty disappointing and self-contradictory judgement on the wedding cakes delivered yesterday by the US Supreme Court, the CJEU came up today with the long-awaited decision in the Coman case – putting a thick full stop on a long debate about the interpretation of the term ‘spouses’ under the EU Free Movement Directive. In short, the Court held that the term does cover spouses of the same sex moving to an EU Member State where a gay marriage remains unrecognized. This simple YES is a huge step forward in federalizing the EU constitutional space in a time of multiple crises.

Continue Reading →

Same-sex marriage before the courts and before the people: the story of a tumultuous year for LGBT rights in Romania

This article will briefly recount a particularly agitated year for LGBT rights in Romania, marked by a highly contentious campaign to amend the constitutional definition of marriage through a referendum, as well as the first referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union by the Constitutional Court, in a freedom of movement case involving a married mixed nationality same-sex couple.

Continue Reading →

Warum das Grundgesetz die Rehabilitierung strafrechtlich verfolgter Homosexueller fordert und nicht verhindert

Bundesjustizminister Heiko Maas hat angekündigt, nach der erst 1994 aufgehobenen Anti-Homosexuellen-Strafnorm § 175 StGB Verurteilte zu rehabilitieren. Das hatten zuvor Verfassungsrechtler für rechtswidrig gehalten: angeblich verstoße eine solche legislative Aufhebung von Urteilen der Justiz gegen die Prinzipien der Gewaltenteilung, der Rechtssicherheit und der Gleichheit. Halten diese Einwände näherer Betrachtung stand?

Continue Reading →