Abstract
This note analyses the decision of the House of Lords in Fitzpatrick, which held that gay partners could fall within the legal definition of ‘family’ for some purposes. The note argues that despite the real (if overstated) benefits that this case bestows on gay partners in the form of legal rights, under analysis, the decision self-deconstructs to reveal that it is grounded on the principle of discrimination on the basis of sexuality. However, it is also suggested that the encounter between discursive legal reasoning (underpinned by normative heterosexuality), and aversion of the family which is ‘other’ to this discourse, is one which leaves its mark on law, as the potential undermining or deconstruction of law’s normative assumptions. The note further argues that although this decision is properly seen as a moment in the struggle for gay rights, it also serves as a reminder that the fortunes of critical theories and political movements that seek to challenge the legal paradigm of the white, heterosexual male are inextricably linked. Fitzpatrick, whatever else it is, is also an object lesson in the debt that current campaigns for gay legal rights owe to feminist critiques of, and campaigns that have successfully challenged, the role of this norm in legal discourse.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Derrida, J., “Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority’”, in Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, ed. D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld and D. Gray Carson (London: Routledge, 1992).
Flynn, L. and Lawson, A., “Gender, Sexuality and the Doctrine of Detrimental Reliance”, Feminist Legal Studies III/1 (1995), 105-121.
Hyde, A., Bodies of Law (Princeton University Press, 1997).
Sandland, R., “Feminist Theory and Law: Beyond the Possibilities of the Present?” in Feminist Perspectives on Law and Theory, ed. J. Richardson and R. Sandland (London: Cavendish, 2000).
Sandland, R., “Seeing Double, Or, Why To Be Or Not To Be Is (Not) The Question For Feminist Legal Studies”, Social and Legal Studies 7/3 (1998), 307-338.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sandland, R. Not `Social Justice': The Housing Association, the Judges, the Tenant and his Lover Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association [1997] 4 All E.R. 991; [1998] 1 F.L.R. 6 (C.A.); [1999] 4 All E.R. 705 (H.L.). Feminist Legal Studies 8, 227–239 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009241108589
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009241108589