Gay Marriage

[brodski]

Norway still struggling over the Gay adoption uh-boy-I-might-be-kinda-a-Gayhippie-sometimes thang? Sounds like closed minded nazi nerd gypsy whispering from the San Diego Comic Con or something to me. Yet another nerd prom . . . unfolds.

I had good experiences with Gays as a teen (Rocky Horror Picture Show) and believe that it is possible for Gays to adopt children. I have had some problems with Gays but that's just due to their desire to be Communists. I cackle at my Southern friends for being NaziCatholics also so who is to say which extreme is worse? They're both closed-minded mindsets.

It's that friendly banter we need more of, "She's a Nazi . .. because she's Catholic!!! Dum dum DUUUMMM" . .. I said this to my neice recently because we were both raised Catholic and I wanted to help her. It's that half-teasing sugar coated jibe thing and I believe that in this case what works for family can work for a country or possibly the world.

Actually, I'd bet on it working for the world. I'd bet on it right now because we're all family. If that sounds at all ominous, then may I suggest that we have to stop worrying about who has been appointed for the, "Dad" position (who cares anyway?? Dad just gives us the quarters, we go play video games, and sub-leaders, pecking rights, and leadership are of the highest importance during the gaming mission. During play, we boss ourselves for the fun of it more than we get bossed by dear ol' pappy) and just try every day to do what we do with our family (even biting a head off or two when wronged).

Get er dun.

Whisky Tango Foxtrort?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What if those people don't want to share in the rights and responsibilities of marriage?

If society has decided that acting in a certain fashion should bring certain rights and responsibilities then if you act that way, you are covered.

In effect it is a substance over form treatment - if you meet the conditions you are in, even if you want to call what you do something else. This is used elsewhere (for example if you act in the manner of a director of a company, you are subject to all the rights and responsibilities of such a director whether you are formally appointed as one or not - ie your actions, not the paperwork, determines the treatment).

http://www.ffw.com/Publications/Files/817688b8-c272-4386-8c06-0aa94d6b5df0.PDF

 

[Damien Evans]

Whisky Tango Foxtrort?

my thoughts exactly

 

[Segnosaur]

[*]Marriage is a religious institution and allowing gay marriage infringes on religious freedoms.
Frankly, I don't see the problem here, either. If we accept that marriage is a religious institution then nobody should be able to get married under the law and each church can decide for itself who it wants to allow to marry.

There is one problem with that argument (at least for us Canadians).

Thanks to our flawed charter of rights, Canadians do not have property rights. While we do have freedom of religion, the re-definition of marriage did not contain any explicit protection for churches not willing to marry gay couples.
This means that there is a danger that a gay couple will sue a religious congregation that refused to allow its church to be used for the ceremony, and since churches do serve a semi-public function they could be forced to perform the ceremony. (Remember, while we do have freedom of religion, we also have the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So, when 2 rights are in conflict, one of them will have to fall.)

In fact, prior to the vote which legalized same sex marriage in Canada, several Liberal MPs threatened to vote against the bill because of just that risk. (The were demanding an addition to the bill which would say "no church will be forced to perform marriages".

There are a couple of legal precidents (although they are weak)... a catholic school was successfully sued by a homosexual student who was refused the right to bring his boyfriend to the prom. (Admittedly, this isn't a perfect precident since the school was partially funded by government dollars). And, a lesbian couple sued a "Knights of Columbus" hall for not allowing them to hold their wedding reception there. (Again, this isn't a perfect precident, since there were also contract issues.)

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

This means that there is a danger that a gay couple will sue a religious congregation that refused to allow its church to be used for the ceremony, and since churches do serve a semi-public function they could be forced to perform the ceremony. (Remember, while we do have freedom of religion, we also have the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So, when 2 rights are in conflict, one of them will have to fall.)

We had a similar issue in the UK, where new anti-discrimination legislation in the area of adoption meant that adoption services run by the Catholic Church would be required to consider gay couples as adoptive parents.

Issue was slightly fudged in that they were given longer to comply with the legislation (end of 2008), but essentially the position was that if they were involved in a public function, they did not get a free pass to discriminate on religious grounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6473831.stm

 

[Ryokan]

Given the queries in this thread about how to define a cohabiting couple, how does Norway go about it?

Sorry for the late reply, I have been deprived of my internet connection for a few days

Any couple that has lived together for at least 9 months.

 

[Oliver]

...the position was that if they were involved in a public function, they did not get a free pass to discriminate on religious grounds.

...and Jesus would fully agree with that. Amen.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Sorry for the late reply, I have been deprived of my internet connection for a few days

Any couple that has lived together for at least 9 months.

Thank you. Is it any couple (for example would it cover the two sisters in my previous example) or do they need to be "living together" as well as living together?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please spell out the circumstances in which adoption or being a blood relation allow you to be treated as spouses/partners in the eyes of the government, which is the subject under discussion.

You did not specify the nature of the relationship you wanted recognised.

 

[Ryokan]

Thank you. Is it any couple (for example would it cover the two sisters in my previous example) or do they need to be "living together" as well as living together?

I'm not a lawyer, and has not been in such a relationship myself, so I don't know for sure, but I assume the latter. I'll look around a bit and see if I can't find the details of the law.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You did not specify the nature of the relationship you wanted recognised.

There may have been some clues in the context. Can I suggest starting with the thread title and then reading the posts?

 

[ponderingturtle]

If society has decided that acting in a certain fashion should bring certain rights and responsibilities then if you act that way, you are covered.

Yes and the acting in a certain fashion is filling out a marriage licience, not living arangements. So you are right about that.

In effect it is a substance over form treatment - if you meet the conditions you are in, even if you want to call what you do something else. This is used elsewhere (for example if you act in the manner of a director of a company, you are subject to all the rights and responsibilities of such a director whether you are formally appointed as one or not - ie your actions, not the paperwork, determines the treatment).

No it is perception over stated intent.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Yes and the acting in a certain fashion is filling out a marriage licience, not living arangements. So you are right about that.

That must be why society doesn't restrict your benefit entitlement if you live with somebody, only if you marry them. After all the paperwork is the important bit, right?

Which bit do you think society has an interest in encouraging, signing a piece of paper or acting as a responsible member of a couple/family?

No it is perception over stated intent.

So you think shadow directors who actually do manage the affairs of a company and act in all ways as a director should not have the same responsibilities as those who complete the correct paperwork to be appointed directors? Because they have not stated their intent to become directors that should be the defining matter?

If you think that paperwork is more important than actions we are not going to reach agreement.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That must be why society doesn't restrict your benefit entitlement if you live with somebody, only if you marry them. After all the paperwork is the important bit, right?

So roommates should get your benefit entitlement also, as it is the living situation that counts not any public statement of commitment in a legally binding sense? Potential private statements of possible commitment are enough.

Which bit do you think society has an interest in encouraging, signing a piece of paper or acting as a responsible member of a couple/family?

But with out a piece of paper how can you tell the existence of a couple/family? Here is a different question, why should you need a living will or anything powers of attorney documents? Who they are living with should clarify that right? Medical proxy should not require documents to decide just the privately stated intent, as no one would think to lie about such a thing.

So you think shadow directors who actually do manage the affairs of a company and act in all ways as a director should not have the same responsibilities as those who complete the correct paperwork to be appointed directors? Because they have not stated their intent to become directors that should be the defining matter?

If you think that paperwork is more important than actions we are not going to reach agreement.

Where did this come from? I have made no points about corporations. But clearly you think medical proxies and other pointless legal paperwork should be abolished.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So roommates should get your benefit entitlement also, as it is the living situation that counts not any public statement of commitment in a legally binding sense? Potential private statements of possible commitment are enough.

Not necessarily, as they do not form a sexual couple which is what the benefits are aimed at. However I am open to extending the system to allow people who are not currently covered (such as the sisters I referred to earlier) to access those benefits if they choose to. As they could not do so by action, a piece of paper would be required.

But with out a piece of paper how can you tell the existence of a couple/family?

By actions.

Here is a different question, why should you need a living will or anything powers of attorney documents? Who they are living with should clarify that right? Medical proxy should not require documents to decide just the privately stated intent, as no one would think to lie about such a thing.

Not clear what you are trying to get at here - do you think that unmarried couples are more likely to lie about their partners wishes than married ones? If so can I see some evidence for that?

Where did this come from? I have made no points about corporations. But clearly you think medical proxies and other pointless legal paperwork should be abolished.

It comes from the example in the part you quoted and that your statement ("No it is perception over stated intent") which I quoted was in response to. Which involved shadow directors. I have never said paperwork is pointless or should be abolished, you appear to have made this up. What I have said is that paperwork is not DEFINITIVE, which is a very different thing.

Of course that principle is already accepted in relation to marriage, particularly when it comes to immigration. For example here,

http://www.iasuk.org/module_images/Family - spouses (Jan 06).pdf

where legal marriage is not sufficient to allow someone to bring a spouse to the UK and there is a need to see whether there is a genuine relationship. Helpfully there are examples of the type of evidence you would need to establish that the relationship was genuine - so your "practical" points appear to have been dealt with as it appears that the government is quite capable of identifying where two people are genuinely a couple or not.

 

[tsg]

If society has decided that acting in a certain fashion should bring certain rights and responsibilities then if you act that way, you are covered.

Who decides whether you meet the requirements, and who decides what those requirements are?

But more to the point since I haven't seen you address this yet, what exactly is the harm in signing a piece of paper declaring your intent?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Who decides whether you meet the requirements, and who decides what those requirements are?

But more to the point since I haven't seen you address this yet, what exactly is the harm in signing a piece of paper declaring your intent?

Those who grant the benefit, same as always. See above post on requirement to demonstrate a genuine relationship to access one of the benefits of marriage.

It allows discrimination. By excluding people from being able to sign the piece of paper, you can exclude them from benefits. If you define access to benefits by someone's actions, it makes discrimination more difficult (or at least requires it to be more overt therefore increasing the likelihood it will be challenged) because if they meet the test, they get the benefit.

Given that I have answered your question, how about you answer mine?

"All the evidence may be perfectly clear that there is a relationship, you could have 100 witnesses to testify that you have lived together as a couple for 60 years, but if you don't have a bit of paper then the government ignores that relationship entirely. Why? What harm comes from extending rights to those relationships?"

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not necessarily, as they do not form a sexual couple which is what the benefits are aimed at. However I am open to extending the system to allow people who are not currently covered (such as the sisters I referred to earlier) to access those benefits if they choose to. As they could not do so by action, a piece of paper would be required.

So why are you determining that sexual couples should be merited over non sexual couples? I guess that would mean that many marriages would lose that status as they are no longer sexual. So now marriages do not get divorce but people who shack up together do.

By actions.

And filling out the license and getting married is an action. And it shows exactly what you want, and not what society thinks someone in your apparent position should want.

Not clear what you are trying to get at here - do you think that unmarried couples are more likely to lie about their partners wishes than married ones? If so can I see some evidence for that?

I mean that with out direct proof of intent, in the form of a marriage or a living will or medical proxy what do you have? Intent is not enough it is the documents that matter.

For example as an EMT I was not allowed to listen to anyone but the patient as to what they wanted, and if the patient could not express their wishes no one could say have me forgo treatment, with out a DNR(another of those annoying forms)

 

[tsg]

Those who grant the benefit, same as always. See above post on requirement to demonstrate a genuine relationship to access one of the benefits of marriage.

And what if these two people don't want those rights or responsibilities? Do they have a say?

It allows discrimination. By excluding people from being able to sign the piece of paper, you can exclude them from benefits. If you define access to benefits by someone's actions, it makes discrimination more difficult (or at least requires it to be more overt therefore increasing the likelihood it will be challenged) because if they meet the test, they get the benefit.

Do you really think getting rid of the piece of paper will eliminate the discrimination?

Given that I have answered your question, how about you answer mine?

"All the evidence may be perfectly clear that there is a relationship, you could have 100 witnesses to testify that you have lived together as a couple for 60 years, but if you don't have a bit of paper then the government ignores that relationship entirely. Why? What harm comes from extending rights to those relationships?"

Nothing. In fact many places have a similar system called "common law" marriage. As stated before, it's problematic at best. Signing a piece of paper to declare that relationship eliminates the need for 100 witnesses testifying as to the nature of the relationship.

Your problem is not with the piece of paper, but who's allowed to sign it. That's what we're trying to resolve with the issue of gay marriage.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So why are you determining that sexual couples should be merited over non sexual couples? I guess that would mean that many marriages would lose that status as they are no longer sexual. So now marriages do not get divorce but people who shack up together do.

Marriage is an attempt by society to reward certain behaviour, whether you or I like it or not that sexual partnership IS what marriage is intended to cover.

You must also have missed my post where I said I was quite happy to extend the scope to include non-sexual couples, as that demonstrates that your conclusion is wrong.

And filling out the license and getting married is an action. And it shows exactly what you want, and not what society thinks someone in your apparent position should want.

Do you really think that society introduced marriage so people would fill in bits of paper? Or, just possibly, was it to reward certain behaviours? Do you really think the paperwork is more important than the reality?

I mean that with out direct proof of intent, in the form of a marriage or a living will or medical proxy what do you have? Intent is not enough it is the documents that matter.

For example as an EMT I was not allowed to listen to anyone but the patient as to what they wanted, and if the patient could not express their wishes no one could say have me forgo treatment, with out a DNR(another of those annoying forms)

Why do you continue with your assertion that I oppose paperwork when I have told you this is untrue? It is almost as if you wish to set up a strawman to attack.

If you can only listen to the patient to find out their wishes, then I fail to see whether it matters if they are married, living together, single or cohabiting with a hamster called Nigel. i.e no impact from extending the availability of the rights of marriage in this situation. What was your point?