|
|
unsui
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 17:11] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Make no mistake, I support 100% all of the benefits that we all agree should accrue to committed same gender partnerships, and all of the rights.
What I do not support is the naive use of the word "marriage".
I don't care what we call this legal, contractual partnership except marriage. But the idiots that started the campaigns chose the one key word that wouidl alienate the religious and the bigots.
Instead of making forward progress they have given the moral majority a flagpole to nail their flag of bigotry to, and done it almost on purpose. It's almost as if a religious bigot infiltrated the various organisations to say "Lets call it 'marriage'!", thereby setting the stage for the wrecking of forward progress.
Why did we use "the other side's" own special word? How stupid could we possibly be?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Michael,
I don't think your solution would work. People who believe things that are false with all their heart are close to unmoveable.
My fundamentalist friend believes I am going to hell. He finds that less unbearable because he knows I don't believe in hell. But I can't persuade him he's wrong.
The only way to improve things is through education. As they say 'truth will out' and eventually religious beliefs will wither as more and more is known about the world and how it works and the religions of the book are shown to have a really inadequate book. I'm aware that is an inadequate and weak hope.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Google up the "laws of non-recognition" as regards the federalization of unterstate reciprical recognition of state laws.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I tried, and can't see what you are telling us. Any chance of a bullet point summary?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Equality and Domestic Partnerships
The very nature of life requires that for there to be social progress there must be, by definition, a pivotal event or condition that motivates a cause to action. A reason to take a stand for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.
Basic to the establishment of a healthy home environment is the right to choose with whom a person spends their life. At some point in history, there was a defining moment where attraction between two persons of the same sex was recognized as a social phenomenon. Plato described pederasty as early as the 4th century BCE. The Athenian tradition of pederastic mentoring was common place where an older, more experienced man would instruct a youth in the ways of the world. While sexual encounters were not frowned upon, more often than not, mentoring was kept to a platonic, philosophical level.
Homosexuality, being gay, is commonly viewed as the physical and psychological attraction between two members of the same sex. As such, society has a long history of religious and legal mandate which demonized gays, causing them to remain closeted. This continued until 29 June, 1969, and the several days following, when the New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, 53 Christopher Street, Greenwich Village. This event rippled across the gay community and was the cartelist from which the Gay Rights Movement began.
Since the time of Stonewall, gay culture has blossomed. Pride parades march across hundreds of cities not only in the United States, but globally. Gays have made advances in mainstream cinema, television, as well as print media. Gay support groups are becoming more prevalent in high schools across the country and community support groups such as Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) are found in every state.
With a growing presence within general community life, it is only natural that the Gay community as a cultural and social group would strive for the same rights and privileges accorded to more conventional, heterosexual community. The question has to be whether gays are entitled to the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts? As citizens in a democracy the constitution guarantees equal rights for all, but, it is clear in our country that some people are clearly more equal than others.
The Supreme Court of the State of Vermont determined in Dec. 1999 that it was unconstitutional and discriminatory to deny gay couples the benefits of marriage. In an effort to comply with the Supreme Court ruling the Vermont Legislature passed landmark legislation affording gay couples the same rights and protections accorded to married couples. Since that time, Connecticut in 2005, and New Jersey in 2006, has passed similar legislation legalizing same sex unions in their respective states. At the same time, the Massachusetts legislature, in spite of tremendous opposition from right wing politicians as well as fundamentalist religious sects throughout the country, passed the nation’s first law legalizing marriage between same sex couples.
Denmark 1989
Norway 1996
Sweden 1996
Iceland 1996
France 1999
Vermont USA 2000
Germany 2001
Finland 2002
Luxembourg 2004
Canada 2004
Massachusetts USA 2004
New Zealand 2004
Connecticut USA 2005
United Kingdom 2005
New Jersey USA 2006
South Africa 2006
New Hampshire USA 2008
Oregon USA 2008
In recent years several countries have passed legislation legalizing, same sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. Clearly there is a momentum building and in time more jurisdictions will recognize that basic human rights overrule the pressure applied by the religious fundamentalist agenda intent on promoting the sanctity of marriage and the family. In a public interview conducted by ABC News, Republican Senator Dodd of Connecticut poignantly stated that by virtue of the fact that every parent wants what is best for their children, if circumstances warranted it he would support his children as members of the gay community. Dodd confirmed that if his children had a different sexual orientation he would want for them, the same opportunities for employment, lifestyle, housing, inheritance, and so on, as their traditional counterparts. (Dodd, ABC News). Senator Dodd clearly is speaking more as a parent than a legislator, and his resolve was rightly reflected in the legislation he, among others, promoted in Connecticut and passed in 2005.
In an interview with afrol News, South African archbishop retired, Desmond Tutu declared that homophobia was likening it to apartheid, and goes further to state:
We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given.
Furthermore he continues, adding:
Yet, all over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are persecuted. We treat them as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God - and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are.
The clarity with which Desmond Tutu views homosexuality crystallizes the issue to a clarity that surpasses the religious, cultural, or legislative mantras which denounce gays as immoral, deviant.
The ability of all persons to form relationships, establish households, provide a livelihood for themselves and their chosen life partners, gain education, health benefits, rights of next of kin, inheritance, community property for jointly invested assets, to raise a family, should be afforded to all citizens. To allow one group to form life partnerships with these privileges and prevent another because they are in some way different is unconscionable. It is discrimination at its worse.
Same sex marriage is in no way a threat to the sanctity of conventional marriage considering the divorce rate in the United States, which, according to statistics presented by Divorce Rate U.S.A. is:
Divorce rate in America after first marriage is from 41% to 50%.
US divorce rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67%
After 3 marriages the US divorce rate is from 73% to 74%
It is plain to see that sanctity and commitment is no longer associated to a great degree with the act of marriage in the conventional sense.
It has been argued that same sex couples cannot provide the stability, support and role models necessary for the proper rearing of children. In fact due to the fact that most states do not provide equal rights status to same sex domestic partners data is at best piecemeal. According to the book, The Age of Independence, by Michael J. Rosenfeld, the 1990 and 2000 census years data compiled indicates that the numbers of same sex households with minor children are growing, indicating 1/934 children per household in 1990 and 1/571 in 2000. (Rosenfeld, 173)It is also reasonable to assume, due to the fact that many couples still live in the closet that the actual numbers of same sex households with children could be much greater than the census count. Also the majority of same sex households comprise lesbian couples, due to the fact that traditionally, upon divorce, children are left in the custody of mothers.
The primary objection to same sex unions in any form, be they marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, are based on traditionally held beliefs that domestic partnerships must be recognized as that of a man and a woman. In reality there is no evidence that same sex relationships have any detrimental effect on society in any way. Under the topic Same-Sex Marriage in Light of Historical Precedent, Rosenfeld states that opponents in Massachusetts to same sex marriage declared: (Rosenfeld, 140)
Gay marriage would have disastrous and immediate consequences for the social fabric of Massachusetts.
After two years, with no extreme effects to any aspect of the social order of Massachusetts it is apparent the status quo is intact. Rosenfeld then speculated:
If same sex marriage follows the trajectory of interracial marriage, there will be slow incremental growth in the number of states granting same sex marriage licenses.
As same sex unions become more common they will collectively add credence to the fact that gender identity is not a factor when it comes to basic rights as a citizen. Eventually, the legal and religious arguments will lose credibility as did the arguments against interracial unions in the 1960’s. (Rosenfeld, 181)
In an attempt to discourage the gay community, many states have passed constitutional amendments to prevent gay marriage, also allowing them to not recognize unions duly registered in other states. This blanket nonrecognition has effects that reach much further afield than to those who reside within those states. In Same Sex Different States, author Andrew Koppelman describes the effects of various states blanket nonrecognition rules as:
• Parties to marriages could dissolve the marriages without any obligation to account for the marital assets, possible leaving a dependant spouse deprived of assets that the spouse has spent years helping to amass.
• More generally, blanket nonrecognition would mean that states following this rule would become havens for people wanting to avoid obligations of spousal property and child support that they had validly entered into.
• Travelers to a state that would not recognize marital rights and obligations would not be able to rely on those rights and obligations should the need unexpectedly arise.
• If the children of same sex relationships were brought into a state with a blanket nonrecognition rule, voluntarily or by force, their non-biological parents would have no right to get them back.
• A blanket nonrecognition rule would also be convenient for non-biological parents who want to be free from child support obligations if the couple separates.
• A same sex spouse could marry again in another state without having to dissolve the earlier marriage or even having to disclose to the new spouse the existence of the previous marriage. That previous marriage would continue in existence in the place where it was celebrated, effectively legalizing a form of polygamy.
The problem with legislation that targets specific groups for exclusion to rights and privileges enjoyed by the majority of citizens is that it is in direct conflict with the federalist system. In other words, it violates the obligation of one state to recognize the laws and rules of another. One important consideration which is directly related to the federalist system is that constitutionally afforded the right to travel at will.
As quoted from an 1868 Supreme Court decision regarding the open accessibility policy between states. We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states. (Koppelman, 75-76)
Works Cited
“Divorce Rate U.S.A.” Aboutdivorce.org, 4 Nov. 2007
Dodd, Christopher J., Senator, Dem. Conn. “Dodd on Marriage,” ABC News, 16 Aug. 2007. 4 Nov. 2007
Koppelman, Andrew. “Same Sex, Different States”. Yale University Press, New Haven Conn. 2006
Rosenfeld, Michael, J. “The Age of Independence” Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. 2007
Sexual Oneness Commitment, The. “Philosophy of Greek pederasty - Chaste pederasty”
Tutu, Desmond, “Homophobia Equals Apartheid,” afrol News. 7 July, 2007. 4 Nov. 2007.
Additional Resources
Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage fails in the Senate for a second time. 7 June, 2006
Thompson says his gay marriage position preserves the principles of federalism. 1 Oct. 2007
New Jersey is the third state to ratify a same-sex civil union law. 19 Feb. 2007
South Africa is the first African country to legalize same-sex weddings. 14 Nov. 2006
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Timmy, I agree with what you say here. I find hardly anyone really opposed to a union between two people of the same sex, but most will universally object to the word marriage being ascribed to the union of two people of the same gender.
If you doubt that it can cause a problem then read an article in the New York Times by Sharon Otterman which talks about the ruling in Connecticut by their Supreme Court on sanctioning marriage of same sex couples. They had passed a civil union legislation there which grants gay and lesbians the same legal rights as others. It reads (quote from the paper)"The Connecticut civil union law stated that parties to a civil union 'have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law' that are granted to spouses in a marriage." It also had a clause that defined marriage as between only a man and a woman. So when it went to the Supreme court of that state they have ruled that to be unconstitutional and that civil unions and marriage cannot be equal but separate.
I would say that since states only grant civil unions and that a marriage is the union between man and woman made by a religious ceremony, we ought to realize that marriage is only one subset of a civil union. Which means that although all marriages are civil unions, all civil unions are not marriages. It seems to simple to me! The state says what rights you have under their civil union and should have no right to interfere with any church related issue such as a marriage. The state does not perform any marriage ceremony; technically a justice of the peace is only performing the civil ceremony and not a wedding.
I can see if this were to go forward, then someone will surely sue a church to make it perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple; something which may be totally against the church's beliefs. So since when do we have the state dictating how a church should be run? Is this any different than some religion telling us how to run the government? It is clear to me that there is supposed to be seperation of church and state in American and this would certainly violate that tenant.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Electroken,
Yes, civil union perhaps ought not to be called marriage and there should be a word for those joined by religion as distinct from those joined by their own choice. That distinction between religion and choice gives the game away. Except for arranged marriages most religious weddings are also by choice. The blurring of the distinction allowed those who just went to the register office and not to church (me for example) to obtain society's approval to their union and in the days when we got married that was important.
I think that is why gay rights people want their unions to be called marriage and, of course, they are right to claim that there is really no difference. I disagree with Timmy; I don't think it was a mistake to want to call it marriage but a careful choice and it shows an understanding of the working of social prejudice.
And I agree with you completely about the separation of church and state and only wish it could happen here. But, just as the separation in the USA is crossed by the law which applies to all, including religious organisations, so the fact that here the separation is merely partial and traditional allows the bishops in the house of lords to act with restraint on legislation which upsets religious sensitivities. In the UK you get Tony Blair (now a Roman Catholic) voting in favour of abortion.
Just think how many votes McCain would lose if he did that!
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
(snip)
> I think that is why gay rights people want their unions to be called marriage and, of course, they are right to claim that there is really no difference. I disagree with Timmy; I don't think it was a mistake to want to call it marriage but a careful choice and it shows an understanding of the working of social prejudice.
(snip)
Marriage in the UK is a *civil* contract, although officials of *certain* (CofE, Quaker, etc) religions are permitted to carry it out in connection with a religious ceremony. This point is very clear: if a Muslim couple get married here, the usual form is a visit to the Registrar Office, with the religious ceremony following ... although it is legal for the Registrar to perform the civil ceremony in the place where the religious one is to take place (provided it is not "a venue regularly used for religious worship", no food is present, and various other restrictions). I have worked on a couple of hundred such events ... different Registrars interpret the rules slightly differently.
These restrictions also apply to Civil Partnerships, with the added restriction that in NO case may they be carried out as part of a religious event. This has made the Quakers, in particular, rather cross: they don't see why they should be prohibited from conducting CPs as they are allowed to conduct marriages!
So, CP's and (civil) marriage are essentially identical in the UK. CPs are called "marriage" informally in the UK press and media, and by most of the people I know who are CP'd. The new relationships created by a CP should - according to Home Office (as it was) guidance be called "brother-in-law", "father-in-law" etc, exactly the same as for a heterosexual marriage.
I believe timmy is wrong to say that we should not push for CP's to be legally called "marriage". Nothing less than full equality is ever enough. While it's appealing to say that tactically we may have to settle for what we can get, and we can re-visit the situation later, I think this is a mistake: it doesn't show a great deal of faith in the case for equal treatment. Too many people were pathetically grateful when the gay age of consent in England was dropped from 21 to the age of legal adulthood at 18 ... the objective (now achieved) should always have been full legal equality with heterosexuals age 16.
I'm afraid that I think not calling legally-recognised gay partnerships "marriage" is a concession to bigotry, and the readiness of many gay men to settle for anything less suggests, to me, that - deep down - there may be niggling feeling that as gay men we are either in some way inferior, or at least "different". We all suffer from this to some extent, but we need to face up to it and root it out!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
electroken wrote:
(snip)
> I can see if this were to go forward, then someone will surely sue a church to make it perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple; something which may be totally against the church's beliefs. So since when do we have the state dictating how a church should be run? Is this any different than some religion telling us how to run the government?
(snip)
See also my post further down. I certainly wouldn't want any church to be compelled to perform valid marriage ceremonies for individuals of the same sex. But if a church actively believes that it SHOULD do so - as, for example, the Quakers in the UK generally do - having "government" telling us that we are NOT ALLOWED to do so is equally wrong.
Let's have full marriage, but leave it up to each individual religious grouping which groups of humans they want to conduct marriages for - be it virgins-only, divorced couples, gay men or whatever.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 17:10] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Michael,
I am not trying to be argumentative,......really! I am simply stating the view I have heard and also believe myself, that when the civil license to join two people is officially referred to as a marriage license (when it is really not such) can give cause to force any institution to perform the marriage ceremony. You should read that whole supreme court judgement made in Connecticut as I did in that newspaper article. BTW it was in our noticeably liberal newspaper here in Minneapolis called the Star Tribune.
The official judgement was that there is NO difference in whether a civil license is given for same sex couples or hetro-sexual couples and you cannot then discriminate in performing a ceremony for either. I am not a lawyer, but I have seen almost unbelievable things in the courts in the last few years and I do not think it is unlikely there will be a lawsuit the first time a church refuses to do a marriage of a gay couple in Connecticut.
As a side note, you have to understand that the law allowing a civil union of any two people was passed in Germany. In the months previous to the law being passed there was this same argument about it being unequal and that gays would not have the same rights etc. After a few months of its passing, if a gay couple were announcing that they were going to get a civil union, most of the responses went like this: "Oh you are getting married then?" and this was among most of the hetro-sexual population.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 17:08] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ProfZodiac
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 115
|
|
|
It's a "separate but equal" issue regardless. The term "civil union", by distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual unions, demonizes the latter by assigning them a supposedly equal but different term. It's a blatant violation of the 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Ed.
Let me also say that it's incredibly naive to think a church could be forced into performing a marriage it does not agree with. I am not a virgin. I therefore would be in violation of the Catechism were I to wish to marry a woman in a Catholic church. The church would have the right to refuse to marry me to that woman. The same applies if a divorced person is one of the parties in the Catholic church.
Applying full-fledged equality does not compel the churches within the state (or country) to perform them. It compels the civil authorities to perform them, and them alone. An American marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace is not valid in any church, but a church-performed marriage is valid in the eyes of the state. It would be entirely the same if homosexual couples were allowed to wed: the state would recognize any church-sanctioned gay married couples, but churches would not be forced to recognize any state-performed marriages.
This is not even to mention that the Fourteenth Amendment is being willfully violated through the Defense of Marriage Act, wherein states that do not permit marriage equality are not forced to recognize as married the couples who were legally wed in states that do permit marriage equality.
I'm shocked and somewhat dismayed that anyone posting on this board would not be in favor of full marriage equality, and instead would accept a term that continues to divide gay and lesbian individuals, labeling their committed relationships as anything other than "normal". I'm disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
I applaud you Marc, this has to be the finest piece of writing I have ever seen you post in any of theses this threads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will simply say that I do not see any distinctions made by the term civil union as to whom the two persons are to be that are legally put in that union unless it is stated in the law of that state. What I desire to see is any and all of those distinctions removed making a civil union, just that. It would not be a marriage per se'. I see a marriage performed by a church to be "one of the types of civil unions sanctioned by the state" and not the only one if the law is written not to exclude anyone. Can you not see the difference? The law would then not distinguish amoung any of the unions it sanctions as to what benefits, rights, priviledges, responsibilities that it would demand.
I think you and I agree but just not in the way you seem to think the law has to be written. Of course I see no threat to a church sanctioned marriage if other same sex couples are allowed to join in a civil union. But, I think that if you call that civil union a marriage within the law as it is written by the legislature, you will be saying implicitly that there can be no difference no matter who performs the ceremony. Therefore, I would see that it could be construed as to force anyone who marries anyone to be compelled to marry "anyone" no matter there race, color, creed, sex etc. It is not a far fetched thought of mine to think there could be lawsuits made against a church. I think there are quite a few gay couples who would almost faint with joy at being able to make some specific religious institutions be compelled to marry a gay couple.
Again I will state that all that are joined under a civil union are equal but not all who would be joined under a civil union would be forced to be married by a church...........even you seem to state that as a fact which could not be forced to happen. So is there not still a difference between the two couples if not all are married in a church? How far will we carry the equality?
You make the statement:"Applying full-fledged equality does not compel the churches within the state (or country) to perform them. It compels the civil authorities to perform them, and them alone. An American marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace is not valid in any church, but a church-performed marriage is valid in the eyes of the state. It would be entirely the same if homosexual couples were allowed to wed: the state would recognize any church-sanctioned gay married couples, but churches would not be forced to recognize any state-performed marriages."
I disagree that churches would not be forced to recognize ALL unions; it would be the state and probably federal law.
I think we are confusing the definition of marriage which I say is the civil ceremony performed only by a clergyman in a church and which you seem to feel can be done by a justice of the peace. I think the justice can only perform a civil ceremony in most states, but I could be wrong there.
Where I have the most problem with things is where you seem to think that churches would not be forced to perform a gay marriage.
Besides, if we manage to at least pass a law granting equal civil union status to all couples, it would soon make the distinctions a mute point in most cases. It would go the way of racial discrimination........well I am still hoping we will someday not see any differences there!
I agree that defining a civil union as a marriage and then stating that a marriage can only be between a man and woman will end up being against equal rights as defined in the Constitution. It is only a matter of time, but I feel it is better to simply bet the civil union to be defined as not excluding gay couples and it will come quickly to be totally equal.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Mark,
Regardless of what people may think by my posts above, I agree this is a very good synopsis of the issue over the years. I think it shows that where all the parties can sit down with each other and be reasonable, there is a solution reached.
I think that giving equal civil rights to all couples is going to happen in the USA but it is going to take some time. Those who are most threatened by it need to see it will not be what they fear it to be.
I saw my church have a lot of its members leave over this issue of gay rights and marriages and allowing sanction of gays in the clergy. Some left for the obvious reason, but some also left because it was not happening soon enough. I would say to have patience! I strongly believe God has nothing against loving someone - on matter who they are. Strange that I find as many also have found, that there can be hatred of others coming from within a church body. How anyone can leave his church over such an issue is beyond my thinking but I will not stop them. That they can be blind to God's love is not something I can comprehend.
I will not advocate homosexuality as being a good thing for someone, but it is certainly not something I would condemn. Hopefully that idea that "love will conquer all" will prevail and we will all live more happily with each other.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
