|
|
kiwi
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: New Zealand
Registered: August 2009
Messages: 317
|
|
|
There is HUGE debate going on in NZ on the topic of Same-Sex marriage. An Opposition Labour MP's bill seeking to legalise 'gay marriage' is coming before parliament soon and suddenly everybody has got an opinion. The controversy may even split the Labour party, which would be a shame - they ain't perfect, but they're better than the mongrel mob in power at the moment.
The long-term gay couples that i know personally - 2 lesbian & one male - are not at all interested, they're happy with the way things are at the moment.
For myself, i think it's all a bit ho-hum really. Civil Unions have been legal in NZ since 2005 and they tie-up all the legal aspects, inheritance etc, so why bother? The only reason i can see is that it's 'in yer face!' to the misguided churchy people.
Interesting though, surveys are showing that the younger the age group the more strongly in favour people are. So it's inevitable really, once the dinosaurs die off. http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_12104.php
cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lots of debate over the past few months here in the UK, as well: the Government is committed to legalising same-sex CIVIL marriages within the next couple of years. IMO, a step in the right direction, but not far enough: churches that wish to celebrate the marriage of same-sex partners should be free to do so if they wish (as the Quakers very much would like to, for example). I've just written to my MP (who supports the existing proposals) urging him to push for such religious freedom.
Civil partnerships are all very well, but they're not recognised internationally in the same way as marriages, and (in the UK at least) have slightly different rules. But, more importantly than that, while there is a different legal form for same-sex unions, thre is no equality: separate but equal is a completely discredited notion.
I'm highly unlikely to marry anyone, of either sex. But I strongly believe that legally I should be able to marry a person of either sex, if that's what we both want, in a civil marriage or in a church that supports same-sex relationships as well as opposite-sex ones.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitzyma
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 215
|
|
|
"kiwi wrote on Thu, 09 August 2012 00:55"
The long-term gay couples that i know personally - 2 lesbian & one male - are not at all interested, they're happy with the way things are at the moment.
For myself, i think it's all a bit ho-hum really. Civil Unions have been legal in NZ since 2005 and they tie-up all the legal aspects, inheritance etc, so why bother? The only reason i can see is that it's 'in yer face!' to the misguided churchy people.
cheers
--
I basically agree with this 'ho-hum' sentiment. Most of the important benefits that the state gives to married couples are available in civil partnerships. Indeed, I might go further and ask: why would anyone of whatever sexuality want the church or state poking their noses into a private decision by two lovers to commit to each other?
My suggestion is that instead of gay people campaigning for the 'equality' of availability of institutionalised marriage, everyone should be campaigning to get rid of the institution of marriage. This does not mean that I don't want people to be able to commit to being together forever. It means that I believe that such commitment is a private matter that should not be under the control of church or state.
This is my reasoning.
There have always been people who use religion or politics to gain power over others. One means they try to gain power is by trying to get control of how others express basic instincts like sex and the desire to bond with a sexual partner.
One means by which the church gained power was by controlling the bonding process (marriage) and saying that sex outside of that marriage was a sin that could lead to eternal suffering in hell. At one time, the church even told married people how and when they could have sex without sin.
Similarly, by offering incentives like tax concessions, the state gets people to register their civil partnerships, thereby gaining information and more power over people. They decide on the terms of the civil partnership and even control how and under what conditions the partnership can be ended.
There are other conveniences besides tax advantages that the state may offer to married couples, e.g. automatic inheritance rights, but AFAIK those conveniences are now available to civil partnerships. I use the word 'conveniences' because it seems to me that, even without registering a partnership, the couple could mostly accomplish the same things with very simple wills or other documentation. So getting it all in one 'package' by getting married is really just a convenience.
Now, it may well be that a couple who decide to commit together want some sort of ceremony to show it and to celebrate that union in the presence of friends. That ceremony need not be controlled or even monitored by church or state.
It may also be that the couple want to have some sort of agreement as to what exactly is entailed in the commitment that they are entering into. For shorthand, let's refer to this as a contract. Of course, the state definition of marriage provides an off-the-shelf contract. There is probably much in that contract that most couples would want, but state-defined marriage provides an all-or-none, take it or leave it contract. Often the couple accepts the state-defined contract without knowing or understanding the 'fine print'.
Without the state institution, the couple could choose from a selection of off-the-shelf contracts or make up one of their own. The act of choosing will enable them to get a better idea of exactly what is involved before they sign up to it.
Perhaps there could be a role for the state in helping with any contract disputes, just as the courts may be useful if there is a dispute in any other civil contract, such as buying a new computer. Also, it could be argued that, for the benefit of society, the state should insist on certain items being included in a contract, e.g. what to do about children in the event of the contract being terminated.
All that may seem cold and calculating when considering two people in love who want to spend the rest of their lives together. However, one might also argue that entering into the marriage contract without knowing all the small print is the height of folly. And if it all the above seems to be too legalistic at the start of a commitment, there is no doubt that it will certainly become very legalistic if a divorce is involved. IIRC, about a third of marriages end in divorce. Surely it's better to think about details and ramifications of the contract while feeling the bliss of love than have to deal with them while suffering the pain and/or anger of a divorce?
So, to summarise:
When two people fall in love and wish to commit to a life together, they should feel free to choose a ceremony (if any) and conditions (contract) that are suitable for themselves. If they wish to have terms which are the same as the current state-sponsored marriage they can do so, but the partnership itself should be no business of the church or state.
It seems to me that for gay people to demand access to the institution of marriage on the grounds of equality is little different from someone seeing a neighbour in shackles and, in the name of 'equality', asking for themselves the right to wear shackles in public.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
