RIGHTS: U.N. Deeply Split over Same Sex Marriage

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 15 2004 (IPS) - The United Nations is heading for a rancorous new political dispute – this time over same sex marriage – that threatens to split the world body.

The 56-member Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), with strong support from the Vatican and most Catholic countries, is challenging an administrative ruling by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that restrictively recognises gay marriages among staff members.

The European Union (EU), whose 15 members include France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Greece, Ireland and Spain, is defending Annan, arguing that his prerogative as the U.N.’s chief administrative officer should remain uncontested.

The United States, which is divided nationally over the issue of same sex marriage, is watching the growing U.N. battle from the sidelines, tight-lipped.

The dispute comes as the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which began a five-week session in Geneva on Monday, is expected to resurrect a resolution from last year calling for protected minority status for homosexuals worldwide.

In the United States, with various states’ courts studying the issue, President George W. Bush has said he will push for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman only.

In a mid-January circular sent to the U.N.’s 14,000 staff members worldwide, Annan said the definition of ”family status” for the purposes of U.N. entitlements will be based on a long-established principle that ”matters of personal status are determined by reference to the law of nationality of the staff member concerned”.

These entitlements include medical coverage, education grants, home leave and pension rights for spouses or gay partners.

”As a result,” Annan said, ”a marriage recognised as valid under the law of the country of nationality of a staff member will qualify that staff member to receive the entitlements provided for eligible family members”.

The Netherlands is one of the few countries, perhaps the only one, which extends full recognition to same sex marriages.

But, according to U.N. employees, several other U.N. member states, including Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, France, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, provide certain domestic partnership rights.

”While respecting the secretary-general’s authority as chief administrative officer, it is the prerogative of member states to change or amend the U.N. staff rules and regulations,” Shozab Abbas of Pakistan told the administrative and budgetary committee Monday.

He said the U.N. Secretariat had not taken into account that there is no consensus among member states on the term ”domestic partnership”.

The OIC has taken the position that only U.N. member states have the ”prerogative” to supplement or amend staff regulations, and, therefore, Annan has no legitimate right to make administrative changes without the blessings of the General Assembly, the U.N.’s highest policy making body.

”Whereas no decision has been taken by the General Assembly to change the long-established scope of the family definition for the purposes of entitlement, therefore there is no justifiable basis for the approval of expenses” based on Annan’s administrative ruling, said Alireza Tootoonchian of Iran, speaking on behalf of the OIC.

Since the budgetary committee is the final arbiter on the U.N. budget, the OIC has implicitly threatened to vote against any attempts to provide entitlements to gay partners among staff members.

On Monday, the OIC’s position was backed by several Islamic nations, including Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Sudan, Bangladesh and Turkey – whose delegates openly challenged Annan’s directive.

Speaking on behalf of the Holy See, Joseph Klee backed the OIC stand, telling delegates the issue of family status for U.N. entitlements is not just a routine administrative matter.

In Annan’s circular, he said, ”domestic partnerships” were being equated with a ”family”. ”That was in conflict with the understanding of the family in the (U.N.) Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its implementing conventions,” Klee added.

He also said that although Annan’s ruling seemed to guarantee the decision would continue to ensure respect for the diversity of member states and their nationals, he found it difficult to reconcile that with proposed extension of valid family member status to same sex partners.

”That would contradict the basic understanding of a marriage as a union between a man and a woman,” Klee added, reiterating the Vatican position on gay marriages.

Jerry Kramer of Canada, who also spoke on behalf of New Zealand, said the issue was not whether member states agreed or disagreed with any particular family model or relationship, but whether the United Nations should continue to apply national norms.

”The answer to that is yes,” he said. ”Since family practice touches on most deeply felt cultural, social and religious values, how could the diverse membership of the United Nations agree on a single definition?” he asked. ”The secretary-general was really required to act as he did,” Kramer added.

Annan’s Spokeswoman Marie Okabe told reporters he will respond in writing to the questions raised by OIC.

Last year U.N. staff members challenged the Secretariat to follow guidelines set by the World Bank, which provides full benefits for same sex partners.

Responding to that request, Widney Brown of Human Rights Watch (HRW) pointed out that the battle for gay rights was a ”politically charged” issue at the United Nations, where some countries -particularly Zimbabwe and Namibia – practise ”state-sponsored homophobia”.