The Amsterdam district court declined to rule on the issue whether the registrar same and opposite-gender couples. In ad dition, the district court noted that granting te eep refusal to issue a marriage license to the petitioners violated international treaties stating that to do so would fall outside the scope of the role of the judiciary. 8 In essence, the district court was saying that it was not up to the judiciary to remedy claims of inequality betw petition, thereby allowing same-gender couples to marry, would have tremendous consequences in society and that this issue was one that should be left to the legislature to solve because there was no need to deal with this issue quickly 9 Consequently, the Amsterdam d istrict court refused to decide the second issue raised in this case. deferring instead to parliament 20 In the second case, however, the Netherlands Supreme Court did address the petitioners= allegations of violations of the Netherlands Constitution and of international law The petitioners first argued that an interpretation of the language in the marriage statute to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples violated Article 1 of the Netherlands Constitution, accept this argument. It held that Article 1 of the Constitution >cannot change_ the which prohibits discrimination on any ground. The Netherlands Supreme Court did legislative intent of the marriage statute which was to limit marriages to opposite -gender 13 februari 1990, NJCM-Bulletin 1990, p. 456-458 The court referred to legal rights granted same-gender couples in Califonia, presumably domestic partnership enactments, and in Denmark, presumably registered pa rtnership legislation Lov om registreret partnerskab, 7juli 1989), as supporting its position that it was the legislative function to find solutions to the issues in this case The annotation that accompanied the amsterdam district court case criticized the court=s refusal to rule on the violations of the treaties because there was a case precedent in 1989 in an intermediate appellate court the Hof Den Haag, which held that the refusal to issue a marriage license to a same-gender couple did ne violate these provisions of the treaties. Hof Den Haag2 juni 1989, NJ1989, 871. (It was this case in the Hof Den Haag that was eventually referred to the Hoge raad, which is also being discussed in this section of the article. HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ1992, 192). In addition, the annotation states that the court should have ruled on the issue of treaty violations because treaty provisions take precedence over any domestic laws that might be incompatible with treaty provisions. Finally, the annotation mentioned tha t it was also surprising that the court did not rule on the issue of the possible violation of those particulartreaty provisions that could be enforced directly by the petitioners. Rb Amsterdam 13 februar 1990, NJCM-Bulletin 1990, p. 456-460, m nt. K. Boele- Woelki en P C. Tange HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ1992, 192, m nt EAAL en EAa(homohuwelijk; trans. Duck Obbink)The Amsterdam district court declined to rule on the issue whether the registrar=s refusal to issue a marriage license to the petitioners violated international treaties stating that to do so would fall outside the scope of the role of the judiciary.18 In essence, the district court was saying that it was not up to the judiciary to remedy claims of inequality between same and opposite-gender couples. In addition, the district court noted that granting the petition, thereby allowing same-gender couples to marry, would have tremendous consequences in society and that this issue was one that should be left to the legislature to solve because there was no need to deal with this issue quickly.19 Consequently, the Amsterdam district court refused to decide the second issue raised in this case, deferring instead to Parliament.20 In the second case, however, the Netherlands Supreme Court did address the petitioners= allegations of violations of the Netherlands Constitution and of international law. The petitioners first argued that an interpretation of the language in the marriage statute to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples violated Article 1 of the Netherlands Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on any ground. The Netherlands Supreme Court did not accept this argument. It held that Article 1 of the Constitution >cannot change= 21 the legislative intent of the marriage statute, which was to limit marriages to opposite-gender couples. 18 13 februari 1990, NJCM-Bulletin 1990, p. 456-458. 19 The court referred to legal rights granted same-gender couples in California, presumably domestic partnership enactments, and in Denmark, presumably registered pa rtnership legislation (Lov om registreret partnerskab, 7 juli 1989), as supporting its position that it was the legislative function to find solutions to the issues in this case. 20 The annotation that accompanied the Amsterdam district court case criticized the court=s refusal to rule on the violations of the treaties because there was a case precedent in 1989 in an intermediate appellate court, the Hof Den Haag, which held that the refusal to issue a marriage license to a same-gender couple did not violate these provisions of the treaties. Hof Den Haag 2 juni 1989, NJ 1989, 871. (It was this case in the Hof Den Haag that was eventually referred to the Hoge Raad, which is also being discussed in this section of the article. HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ 1992, 192). In addition, the annotation states that the court should have ruled on the issue of treaty violations because treaty provisions take precedence over any domestic laws that might be incompatible with treaty provisions. Finally, the annotation mentioned tha t it was also surprising that the court did not rule on the issue of the possible violation of those particular treaty provisions that could be enforced directly by the petitioners. Rb Amsterdam 13 februari 1990, NJCM-Bulletin 1990, p. 456-460, m.nt. K. Boele￾Woelki en P.C. Tange. 21 HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ 1992, 192, m.nt. EAAL en EAA (homohuwelijk; trans. Duck Obbink)