Thanks, Pinscheline. I just read about that this morning and was thinking about posting something here but hadn't yet been able to do so. It's nice to see that yet another understands equal to mean equal. I wonder if the parliament will keep civil unions open to opposite-sex couples (and the court decision allows). Frankly, I think that's a good idea for various reasons. When my home state decided upon marriage equality, they did so. (I believe, though, that civil unions there were already open to opposite-sex couples, and the state, as much as it was able under federal law, had already been giving civil unions and marriages equal standing.

What I don't really understand is why the court delayed implementation by a year, but the same type of thing happens here in Germany for other issues as well. It's a different understanding of the highest court's decision, I guess. When SCOTUS makes such a decision, it is typically implemented immediately (such as was the case with the Obergefell decision, in which those states that did not yet have same-sex marriage were to begin doing so basically without delay). But, (to create an awful mixed metaphor) -- there's now a rainbow at the end of the tunnel in Austria as well.

MiMo: I haven't heard of further movement in Germany (aside from the fact that the Innenministerium (I believe) "forgot" to have its software for the Standesämter updated to include same-sex marriages for this year's release -- and they typically update the software only once a year). Is there something else going on (such as a challenge by the CSU or similar? If such discussion doesn't belong here, then a PM might be more appropriate.

Happy to, hbberlin. I did remember our brief discussion in an earlier threat. The reason for the one-year delay is purely technical. We are about to get a new government (probably by December 20 or earlier) following the legislative election in October. The Constitutional Court wanted to give that new government enough time to decide whether or not to keep the civil union option (sometimes called by the press "marriage light"). As you said, it is then up to parliament. If they do nothing, the civil union, now open to all, will simply continue to exist.

The court's decision itself could only be overturned via a new law that would have to be of constitutional rank. That would need a two-third majority in parliament which is not going to happen. Also, despite all dire predictions, the new coalition is extremely unlikely to go against the decision. Which is also popular with the citizens.

By the way, if a couple is already living in a civil union, they have to first dissolve that union (not hard to do) and then get married. This might also be a reason for the delay as the parliament first has to pass the regulations and amendmends needed by the magistrates to properly conduct that procedure. The women who filed the complaint may get married immediately.

Thanks for the further information!

Interesting about needing to dissolve the existing civil union. Has it always been fairly easy to do that? I think here it would be just as difficult, time consuming, and expensive as getting divorced from a marriage.

At least we don't have to do that here in Germany, where we can simply "upgrade" (and, yes, I've seen that term being used in this regard in German) our civil union at the Standesamt. They're not making that particularly easy, though, as, at least at one time, they wanted us to resubmit all of the documents that we submitted in order to get our civil union -- but we'd have to get certified copies of our birth certificates etc. that are less than three months old (as if they'd have changed in the past five years), and, of course, I'd need to have new certified translations of those documents prepared. It's as if they don't have them in their records on us from the first time around!

Marriages of hetero couples married in the US but living in Germany are recognized automatically without being registered or similar here, but it is still possible to have marriages performed outside of Germany officially recognized if you want. It is simply even more paperwork and requires more documents than getting married, so it's not a terribly attractive option. Theoretically, we now shouldn't need to do that either, but I'm not totally convinced that some sort of official won't challenge our US marriage at some point.

I'm sorry to hear of all your troubles with red tape (or should I say scarlet tape).

The civil union has more liberal rules. For instance: in a marriage, partners have to be faithful to each other, while in a civil union, partners may agree to have a more open relationship. Marriage knows the concept of engagement and it can have legal consequences should the engagement be broken. A civil union only starts with signing the papers at the registry office and not already with the exchange of vows. Hence the moniker "Ehe leicht". And it is somewhat easier to dissolve - of course unless the partners came to hate each other.

You are asking very interesting questions and that again points at the reason for the one year deadline. Will the CU exist, will you be able to go straight from a CU to a marriage, will that option only be available to couples who legally could not get married or will that "upgrade" continue to be available? MONTHS of discussions ahead ;-)

Ist das in Österreich so? In Deutschland ist es dem Staat zum Glück ziemlich egal, wer mit wem in die Kiste steigt und welchen rechtlichen Status die Leute jeweils haben, solange keine Ehe aufgelöst werden soll (und natürlich nichts strafrechtlich Relevantes passiert).

In Deutschland ja, aber wir reden hier ja über Österreich. Und meines Wissens muss man auch in Deutschland noch nachweisen, dass die Ehe zerrüttet ist. Eine Schuldfrage gibt es aber tatsächlich nicht mehr.

Nun, nachdem ich weder verheiratet mit Scheidungsabsichten, noch geschieden, noch mit einem Ehevertrag konfrontiert bin, sind mir die entsprechenden Rechtsvorschriften nicht wirklich geläufig. Sorry.

Jan, das war ein Scherz. Aber, die Schuldfrage ist soviel ich weiß auch in Österreich nicht mehr rechtlich relevant und kommt bei einer einvernehmlichen Ehescheidung auch sicher nicht zum Tragen. Jedoch bei "dreckigen" Scheidungen, bei denen sich die Partner bis auf's Blut um die Vase von Tante Paula, die eh keiner je wollte, streiten (das ist leider kein Scherz, eine Verwandte von mir war am Familiengericht), dann wird die Frage der ehelichen Treue sehr wohl ein Anliegen. Wir sprechen hier nicht mehr von einer Schuldfrage, sondern von der Frage, wer bekommt das Sorgerecht für die Kinder, wieviel muss der eine Partner dem anderen bezahlen etc.p.p.

@hbberlin. In früheren Zeiten (bis weit ins 20. Jahrhundert) war die Verlobung sogar sehr relevant, weil ab dann die Verlobten, naja, ein wenig rummachen durften (nicht unbedingt bis zum Vollzug) und besonders eine Frau nach einem Bruch des Verlöbnisses mit einem gewissen Verlust ihrer Ehrbahrkeit und Vermittelbarkeit rechnen musste - das sollte dann abgegolten werden.

Mittlerweile ist die Frage der Verlobung relevant, wenn es um Geschenke (z.B. Diamantring der Großmutter) oder Geschäfte geht, die im HInblick auf die bevorstehende Hochzeit geschlossen worden sind (z.B. Mietverträge). Wiederum - wenn sich die beiden einig sind, kein Problem, aber ein potentieller Vermieter könnte schon krätzig werden. Ich schätze mal, die Lage ist ähnlich wie in den USA.

OK, das kam bei mir nun gar nicht so an, aber gut.

Richtig, das war das so genannte Kranzgeld, das gibt es (zumindest in D) nicht mehr.

Ist das nicht genau das, was hbberlin auch meint?

Ach ja:

Welche könnten das dann noch sein? Nachdem gleiches Geschlecht als Hinderungsgrund für eine Ehe nun wegfällt, blieben noch zu geringes Alter bei mindestens einem Partner, bereits bestehende Ehe bei mindestens einem Partner, enge Verwandtschaft zwischen den Partnern oder irgendwelcher fehlender Papierkram bei ausländischen Staatsbürgerschaften der Partner. Letzteres ist der einzige Grund, bei dem ich mir vorstellen kann, dass man eine eingetragene Partnerschaft statt einer Ehe zulassen könnte.