|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The freedom to blur boundaries
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
On this week's 'Sunday' programme (BBC Radio 4) the Bishop of Leicester said that he will not support Lord Alli's amendment to the Equality Bill. This amendment, which has been supported by the Bishop of Salisbury, the Dean of Southward and 4 prominent retired bishops, would allow those religious groups who so choose (Quakers, Unitarians and liberal rabbis) to 'marry' gay couples. The Bishop argued that this will involve a blurring of the boundaries, leading to a 'confusion' about the difference between marriage and civil partnerships in the public mind.
If you take the view that marriage has "all sorts of ingredients that a civil partnership cannot have", then you are entitled to preach that, and you are entitled to refuse marriage to same-sex couples - but you don't have the right to prevent other faith groups doing so. If that blurs the boundaries for your congregations, that is your problem and you should deal with it. You don't hold copyright on the word 'marriage'.
At the moment, the law does not allow religious language to be used in a civil partnership ceremony - surely this is totally unacceptable in a free society? The bishops who wrote to 'The Times' apparently said that everyone who supports spiritual independence should support this amendment. The Bishop of Leicester has a right to a different opinion; but surely, if he votes against the motion, rather than abstaining, he is abusing his rights as an Anglican Bishop and adding power to the voices of those who call for a radical reduction of CofE representation in the Lords?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
If that blurs the boundaries for your congregations, that is your problem and you should deal with it. You don't hold copyright on the word 'marriage'.
How true. I would add one thing: it's his faith's problem. It's not a personal stance of the bishop. He is trying to be faithful to the religion he received, a religion which changes more the more as years go by, in a society that has little to do with it.
And it's not just the odd bishop of CoE. Bishops in other churches speak as if they own the copyright for marriage, priesthood and of course God. Statements of Greek Orthodox bishops that didn't make it in the English-speaking press for example would be enough to make one's hair stand on end.
And it's not just bishops. Simple laypeople think they own the copyright of all kind of concepts. My recent exchange with various Shipmates who thought my not accepting their version of God makes me an atheist comes to mind. It's a much bigger problem than what it appears at first glance.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I must admit that I listened to the broadcast this morning with some dismay. I agree with the OP. My view is that 'marriage' isn't a trade mark and that it isn't up to members of the established church to define it for everyone or every faith tradition.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
quote:
The Bishop of Leicester has a right to a different opinion; but surely, if he votes against the motion, rather than abstaining, he is abusing his rights as an Anglican Bishop and adding power to the voices of those who call for a radical reduction of CofE representation in the Lords?
I don't see that at all. Surely the Anglican Bishops don't vote as a block and are entitled to vote according to their own opinions.
Also I don't think that the bishops in the Lords are representative of Anglican opinion as such though they would tend to have similar opinions on many things.
Hensley Henson was notorious for disagreeing with his fellow bishops in the Lords and out.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Good for the Bishop of Salisbury et al.
The Bishop of Leicester really has no leg to stand on. Having said that, I can't see any procedural reason why he shouldn't try to stand on his non-existent leg. I mean, yes, it doesn't look good if bishops start arguing with each other in public, but I think that at this point that's trying to shut the bag after the cat has bolted.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The Bishop of leicester, or any Anglican bishop for that matter, has full right to discuss what is appropriate for Anglicans, and to legislate those matters.
If he is engaged in direct discussion with that other denom on matters that might affect their intercommunion, he has more voice
But he has no more right to an opinion than any other citizen in a public space on how another church should manage its affairs.
Unless you actually want an ecclesiocracy (lovely word, glad I came across it here on The Ship). And then the can of worms is: which one?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Haven't unitarians, quakers and other types of sane-to-moderate religious people been blessing gay marriages for ages already?
As I understand it, you get the legal formalities of the civil partnership done at the registry office, then trundle along to the local unitarian shack, or whatever, and get married.
It's really no different from, say, a heterosexual couple in a civil-law country, where civil marriage precedes "nuptial benediction".
The weird thing in Britain (and other common law countries?) is that the clergy, in the case of heterosexuals, can do both the legal and the spiritual parts. Why this should be so I cannot understand. Rather than giving clergy the right to do this for homosexual couples, why not just require a civil partnership for all as the legal basis, and then let those who so wish to go to a church afterwards?
[ 28. February 2010, 19:09: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Our yearly meeting has only confirmed we will use our form of marriage for same sex couples in spring this year. As yet I am not sure the wording and administration has been finalised.
This will not be a blessing of a civil partnership, it will be a marriage according to the usage of Friends, as our heterosexual mnarriages are. Whether the government will give it the same legal status is a different question.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I haven't been following the ins and outs of the Equality Bill debate (or the Bill itself) so I only have QLib's initial post to go off, but I think the Bishop of Leicester raises a reasonable point.
If you ask 'what is the legal definition of marriage?' I think it can be said that one is entitled to a reasonably concise and understandable definition. To define marriage as 'the union of one man and one woman, except if you are a liberal Jew, or if you happen to be a Quaker', etc. seems to be a recipe for confusion in public administration, never mind society's understanding of the concept of marriage. (In writing this, I presume that the amendment would allow these institutions to marry gay couples in law, rather than marry them in name only, which is the case with Quakers and others at the moment).
[ 28. February 2010, 19:35: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Part of the problem is the distinction between the state's need to regulate tax/benefit and inheritence law vs the idea that marriage is a religious sacrament.
Churches who marry gay couples are claiming to have discerned God's will - which you are entirely free to disagree with - what the State is claiming to discern is not entirely clear.
If the state is saying we are defining marriage as whatever the Church of England decides it is - because we are not a secular state and that is the established church. Then they should just say that, with the proviso that if the CofE changes it's mind they will change the law.
If it is a decision made on secular priniples, that's what it says in such and such and edition of the dictionary, is not a viable argument - unless you are happy for the editors of the OED to make this particular social decision.
If you want a third definition - you to define what it's based on - and that is really unclear at the moment.
[ 28. February 2010, 19:49: Message edited by: Think² ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
the state is claiming to discern is not entirely clear.
Although marriage has its roots in religion couldn't one say that marriage is a social institution in its own right? For example, in a CofE wedding, the social, secular, side to the institution co-incides entirely with the religious side, but the religious side is entirely absent in a Registry Office wedding.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Yeah but if you so a sociological analysis of the social institution of marriage, it will tend to show it is about the regulation of property and the rearing of children. Giving the existence of civil partnerships and gay adoption it is a clear our society now accepts gay couples are responsible enough to do these things. Therefore, the major objection to legalising gay marriage is moral - and is broadly speaking that morality is tied to the teachings of various institutions.
You can therefore either say we could look at social attitude surveys and see what most people say about it nowadays and base your decision on that - or tie it to the decision of a specific religious institution.
But I do think you should be explicit about the reason for refusing to permit gay marriage. If you can't say publically that you - for example - think homosexual marriage would be to raise the status of an inferior relationship, then you should be thinking seriously about why. If it is because you might jepardise your seat, because alot of people disagree with you, then that is democracy in action. If it is because you will imediately violate various laws and treaties we are signed up to - then perhaps you should think about whether you are violating the promises you made. If it is becuase you think 'the public won't wear it' then perhaps you should have the courage of your convictions and argue the case you actually believe in.
Prinicpled refusal for a denied reason I can live with - though I may disagree. "It might be a bit confusing" is intellectual dishonesty and does us all a disservice.
(You in this sense being generic or political you - rather than necessarily you personally.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Although marriage has its roots in religion couldn't one say that marriage is a social institution in its own right?
I'm not sure it was that way round. I get the impression that there were all sorts of handfastings that the church didn't have a say in until they started to come down hard after the Council of Trent. And even then. Gretna, after all, just seemed to involve a passing blacksmith.
My own opinion is that the prevailing religion may be invoked to add gravitas to an ongoing set of practices to do with all sorts of things such as property, inheritance, alliance, social control etc.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you ask 'what is the legal definition of marriage?' I think it can be said that one is entitled to a reasonably concise and understandable definition.To define marriage as 'the union of one man and one woman, except if you are a liberal Jew, or if you happen to be a Quaker', etc. seems to be a recipe for confusion in public administration, never mind society's understanding of the concept of marriage.
As opposed to er.. the simple definition that a UK marriage is a union of one man with one woman who must be both aged 16 or over, not already married, not each others Mother (also step-mother, former step-mother, mother-in-law, former mother-in-law, adoptive mother or former adoptive mother)Daughter (also step-daughter, former step-daughter, daughter-in-law, former daughter-in-law, adoptive daughter or former adoptive daughter)Sister (also half-sister),Father's mother (grandmother),Mother's mother (grandmother), Father's father's former wife (step-grandmother)Mother's father's former wife (step-grandmother) Son's daughter (granddaughter),Daughter's daughter (granddaughter), Wife's son's daughter (step-granddaughter),Wife's daughter's daughter (step-granddaughter), Son's son's wife (grandson's wife)
Daughter's son's wife (grandson's wife),Father's sister (aunt),Mother's sister (aunt),Brother's daughter (niece),Sister's daughter (niece),Father (also step-father, former step-father, father-in-law, former father-in-law, adoptive father orformer adoptive father), Son (also step-son, former step-son, son-in-law, former son-in-law, adoptive son or former adoptive son). Brother (also half-brother or step-brother), Father's father (grandfather),Mother's father (grandfather)
Mother's mother's former husband (step grandfather),Father's mother's former husband (step-grandfather),Son's son (grandson),Daughter's son (grandson),Husband's daughter's son (step grandson), Husband's son's son (step grandson)
Son's daughter's husband (granddaughter's husband)
Daughter's daughter's husband (granddaughter's husband),Father's brother (uncle),Mother's brother (uncle), Brother's son (nephew), Sister's son (nephew), remembering also that in Scotland a man may not marry his great-grandmother or great-granddaughter and a woman may not marry her great-grandfather or great-grandson and bearing in mind that in England, Scotland and Wales (not Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey) the Marriage Act, 1986, allows for certain step-relatives and relatives-in-law to marry and further who must if under 18, gain their parent's or guardian's written consent, otherwise it is a criminal offence, although the marriage would still be valid, and also who must make sure that they have at least two witnesses to sign register on the day and that the marriage must be conducted by a person or in the presence of a person authorised to register marriages in the district and that the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage is either reformed by a Registrar, taking place in a Registry Office or any other premises approved for marriage by a local authority (a stately home, theatre, zoo etc) except in Scotland where the law is different - to name but some of the legislation that springs to mind.
Was that the 'reasonably concise and understandable definition' you had in mind? Because if so, no it probably doesn't matter a monkeys if you also add, 'and same-sex marriages, adhering to the non gender specific parts of the marriage law, conducted by liberal Jews, Quakers etc.'
We can all spot the anti-gay special pleading by now. A few weeks ago, it was all about 'religious freedom' and now people who are not anti-gay have said 'Oi, what about our religious freedoms?' a new excuse is needed. The Bishop can pull the other one and see if it rings Plain Bob Major.
L.
[ 28. February 2010, 20:13: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
An interesting post and people in favour of gay marriage who I've spoken to have put forward similar points of view.
My own, personal, view (for what it's worth) is that marriage, as it has been commonly understood in the West for at least the last couple of millennia, is a union of one man and one woman. My innate conservatism doesn't want to change that definition and if gay pairings become socially acceptable (as they have, and rightly in my view) then Civil Partnership offers them a chance to be separate, but equal (if I can write that without sounding like a 1940s Afrikaner).
How do you square this malleable definition of marriage with polygamy? Polygamy, or at least having multple, concurrent, sexual partners, is rare in Western society but not unheard of. We have more Moslems living in Western society nowadays and although not all would want to practise polygamy, some might (indeed, as I understand it, the UK benefits system already discreetly provides for second and third wives).
If you think that the definition of marriage can change from 'one man and one woman' to 'one man and one man', is there anything to stop it from becoming 'one man and two women' and if so, what?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
As far as love and legality go I would ask for 'one man and one woman' to be completely on a par with 'one man and one man' or 'one woman and one woman'
I see no reason whatever for it to be otherwise.
Marriage love is, ideally, a special and deep union between two people. imo
I would see polygamy as set up for convenience - not love.
Mind you - there are supposedly three persons in the trinity ....
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My own, personal, view (for what it's worth) is that marriage, as it has been commonly understood in the West for at least the last couple of millennia, is a union of one man and one woman. My innate conservatism doesn't want to change that definition and if gay pairings become socially acceptable (as they have, and rightly in my view) then Civil Partnership offers them a chance to be separate, but equal (if I can write that without sounding like a 1940s Afrikaner).
I think your last sentence is most revealing. The problem is that you can't say that without sounding like a 1940s Afrikaner. Which is why the definition of marriage needs to expand to cater for a new understanding of same-gender unions.
That for centuries people had certain views this does not mean that this is a reason for maintaining those views. After all, discrimination with regards to race or gender existed for centuries as well; this doesn't mean that we shouldn't have embraced change as far as the rights of women or non-white people were concerned. The situation with homosexuals is similar. Prejudice and discrimination needs to go away and we need to expand our worldview to accommodate for the acceptance of homosexuality.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My innate conservatism doesn't want to change that definition and if gay pairings become socially acceptable (as they have, and rightly in my view) then Civil Partnership offers them a chance to be separate, but equal (if I can write that without sounding like a 1940s Afrikaner).
The problem is you can't. And this is essentially what is so offensive about it.
quote:
How do you square this malleable definition of marriage with polygamy? Polygamy, or at least having multple, concurrent, sexual partners, is rare in Western society but not unheard of.
Bigamy is illegal for a) religious reasons and b) because it has usually been - in our culture - a con trick in that the second partner didn't know about the first with many undesirable consequences c) because of that there have been vanishing few happily polyamours people lobbying for change. To be completely frank, I would not have an objection to freely consented polygamy. I think you would need somekind of safegaurd like all partners in the marriage must be present and sign the register on the addition of a new partner to the relationship.
Essentially you are changing the functional definition of a marriage to - one adult freely making a committment to a long term intimate relationship to another adult(s), and that such a committment is intended to be permenant, will confer parental rights for any children of the union, and obligations ad responsibilities in the situation of a a breakdown of the relationship.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you think that the definition of marriage can change from 'one man and one woman' to 'one man and one man', is there anything to stop it from becoming 'one man and two women' and if so, what?
Well, in some societies, it is one man and two women (though not usually married at the same time), isn't it? It's still marriage, it's just not Christian marriage as most people understand the term and it's not legal in our society to enter into such a marriage, but it would be legal if we changed the law.
You used to have to have a licence to keep a dog - is there anything to stop us saying you have to have a licence to keep goldfish? Apparently not, and yet it never happened. Then again - we abolished dog licences, so is there anything to stop us abolishing car licences or gun licences? No, yet we still have them.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
[qb]My innate conservatism doesn't want to change that definition and if gay pairings become socially acceptable (as they have, and rightly in my view) then Civil Partnership offers them a chance to be separate, but equal (if I can write that without sounding like a 1940s Afrikaner).
The problem is you can't. And this is essentially what is so offensive about it.
And yet some gay people seem to manage it.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And Lenny Henry spent some time in the Black and White minstrel show - that he now regrets.
Also in lobbying for rights people have had to pick their battles, seperate and equal is one up from separate and illegal.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
"The boundary"
One heterosexual to another: quote:
"Hey, they won't let gay people get married. Now I understand the value of a faithful, lifetime, monogamous heterosexual marriage!
When they were talking about letting gay people get married, it appeared to me that heterosexual polyandry, promiscuity and unfaithfulness was the way to go. But now I understand the value of Holy Matrimony so clearly!"
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Also in lobbying for rights people have had to pick their battles, seperate and equal is one up from separate and illegal.
If we ever do have gay marriage in this country, I wonder whether - perversely - it will be the Daily Mail wot won it. Every time they report on the goings on of Elton John or Stephen Gately, they talk about their 'marriage' and their 'husbands'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You may well be right, and that people have read this stuff and realised that the sky didn't fall in as a result.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
It seems the Bishop of Leicester is not a lawyer, for he has the law completely backwards. There is a better way.
In Canada marriage is regulated by the Federal government and we have the Civil Marriage Act, 2005. Marriage in this country is defined as the union two spouses, who may may not be of the same gender. There is no such thing as "Civil Partnership" in Canadian law. And a good thing too. I took training in life insurance, and what this law did was say that in same-sex marriages the same old law that the civil professions have followed for a thousand years still applies. So we don't have to reinvent the wheel. That makes things really easy down on the retail level.
As respecting churches, individual churches may opt in our out without fear of a penalty. The Roman Catholic Church will not of course do same-sex marriage, the United Church of Canada usually will, depending on the views of the local Session. The municipal office is open to everybody.
Did I mention that this legal ball got rolling in 2003 with a marriage by banns at the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto?
Or that the Law Lords/Supreme Court of the UK often find Canadian law persuasive as it is enacted in a similar legal and political structure to that of the UK?
The Bishop of Leicester would be far better to carve out a "conscience clause" for the CoE than trying to manhandle the definition of marriage directly.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Also in lobbying for rights people have had to pick their battles, seperate and equal is one up from separate and illegal.
If we ever do have gay marriage in this country, I wonder whether - perversely - it will be the Daily Mail wot won it. Every time they report on the goings on of Elton John or Stephen Gately, they talk about their 'marriage' and their 'husbands'.
My understanding is that general language in the UK and some other countries with 'civil union' schemes had indeed tended towards 'marriage' and 'husbands'.
Which is a way of saying that this 'separate but (supposedly) equal' business is a lot more fiddly than the average man/woman in the street can be bothered with. It's a legal distinction set up as an unsatisfactory compromise.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
In Canada marriage is regulated by the Federal government and we have the Civil Marriage Act, 2005. Marriage in this country is defined as the union two spouses, who may may not be of the same gender.
Er, I think you mean "now", not "not".
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It seems the Bishop of Leicester is not a lawyer, for he has the law completely backwards. There is a better way.
In Canada marriage is regulated by the Federal government and we have the Civil Marriage Act, 2005. Marriage in this country is defined as the union two spouses, who may may not be of the same gender. There is no such thing as "Civil Partnership" in Canadian law. And a good thing too. I took training in life insurance, and what this law did was say that in same-sex marriages the same old law that the civil professions have followed for a thousand years still applies. So we don't have to reinvent the wheel. That makes things really easy down on the retail level.
As far as I can see, the introduction of Civil Partnerships has been legally straight-forward. Welfare documents that used to refer to 'spouse' now say 'spouse or civil partner' and those words 'or civil partner' have been inserted into all necessary legislation, including obscure stuff like the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
As far as I can see, the introduction of Civil Partnerships has been legally straight-forward. Welfare documents that used to refer to 'spouse' now say 'spouse or civil partner' and those words 'or civil partner' have been inserted into all necessary legislation, including obscure stuff like the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947.
Okay, I have to say: as a person who (1) was involved in the process of dealing with all the references to 'spouse' in Australian legislation in order to make it apply to de facto same-sex couples and (2) now works as a legislative drafter, I can tell you that if you THINK this is legally straight-forward, you really have no idea what is involved!
You just see the end result of a few words added to every reference in legislation. You don't see the massive amount of work that goes into finding all those references. Or to getting everyone to agree on the policy. Or to considering whether there's a particular reason why the general policy won't work in a particular context.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
There are two basic legal approaches to providing a legal framework for same sex marriage. The Canadian model which opens up pre-existing family law to same couples, and the British model which creates an entire separate legal framework. As orfeo points out there is a lot of fidgety editing in the Canadian-style approach, but it does spare you the difficulty of having to re-invent the wheel.
The main purpose of a British-style system with separate tracks for couples depending on whether they've got matching or complimentary genitals is that the different tracks are inherently unequal. That's only reason to maintain the separation that I've ever been able to figure out.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The main purpose of a British-style system with separate tracks for couples ... is that the different tracks are inherently unequal. That's only reason to maintain the separation that I've ever been able to figure out.
How are they 'inherently unequal' if the substantive rights are the same?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I always figured it was so that the bigots could pretend to themselves that those "dirty filthy gays" don't really have marital rights, not like ours by God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The main purpose of a British-style system with separate tracks for couples ... is that the different tracks are inherently unequal. That's only reason to maintain the separation that I've ever been able to figure out.
How are they 'inherently unequal' if the substantive rights are the same?
Civil union statutes typically include some but not all of the same rights as marriage, so they're unequal in that regard.
As for your 'what if' hypothetical, the only reason to segregate couples along those lines is, as mousethief indicates, to make sure the legal demarkation around a despised group remains in place while reassuring oneself of one's own magnanimity for even going that far.
[ 01. March 2010, 18:54: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I was about to say "spot on" but I think on reflection its more of a splodge - hiding difficult bits round the edges. I know of at least one RC lady in a civil partnership who would never get "married" to her spouse because she thinks the prime reason for marriage is the production of children. Now that belief may have been inculcated by bigots but I think her reservations are genuine, if misguided. She aint no bigot.
[ETA that was in response to MT]
[ 01. March 2010, 19:00: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Civil union statutes typically include some but not all of the same rights as marriage, so they're unequal in that regard.
I'm willing to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any differences in terms of rights (and certainly no major differences) between marriage in the UK and a Civil Partnership in the UK.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are two basic legal approaches to providing a legal framework for same sex marriage. The Canadian model which opens up pre-existing family law to same couples, and the British model which creates an entire separate legal framework. As orfeo points out there is a lot of fidgety editing in the Canadian-style approach, but it does spare you the difficulty of having to re-invent the wheel.
Actually my point was that the Canadian system DOESN'T have a whole lot of fidgety editing. In Canada you edit in one place - the marriage legislation - and you say "they're all marriages". End of discussion.
In the UK and Australia, on the other hand, you have an enormous amount of fiddling in order to say "yes, we'll let this separate group of people have this right in this particular spot".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Civil union statutes typically include some but not all of the same rights as marriage, so they're unequal in that regard.
I'm willing to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any differences in terms of rights (and certainly no major differences) between marriage in the UK and a Civil Partnership in the UK.
You'll have to search through every single piece of UK legislation to ascertain whether there are differences or not. Or find someone else's research on the subject.
There may well be no difference in legal rights. However, in order to KEEP it that way, your poor drafters and policy people in government will have to remember EVERY single time a new law is being written to refer to both marriages and civil unions.
One has to ask what the point is of having two distinct legal categories if they're treated exactly the same on every occasion. To which the answer has to be, so that some people can walk around mentally thinking "they're not REALLY like us".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There may well be no difference in legal rights. However, in order to KEEP it that way, your poor drafters and policy people in government will have to remember EVERY single time a new law is being written to refer to both marriages and civil unions.
That's a considerably easier task though, isn't it? I appreciate that some intense legislative drafting may have been required to integrate Civil Partnerships into UK law but, going forward (to use that ghastly phrase), the task becomes easier, does it not? If a new statute is being drafted, the words 'and civil partner' can be added to 'spouse'. I appreciate that it might not be quite that simple, but it is certainly not a task beyond the wit of the Parliamentary Counsel's Office.
quote:
One has to ask what the point is of having two distinct legal categories if they're treated exactly the same on every occasion. To which the answer has to be, so that some people can walk around mentally thinking "they're not REALLY like us".
As I said before, I think it can be said that there is a long-standing understanding of what marriage is (and what it is not). I don't think that necessarily means condemnation of any other group.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One has to ask what the point is of having two distinct legal categories if they're treated exactly the same on every occasion. To which the answer has to be, so that some people can walk around mentally thinking "they're not REALLY like us".
What was important to my gay friends in the UK who had Civil Partnerships was that the law recognized them as a couple and as having the associated legal rights of a couple. As far as they are concerned, they are "married" and my lesbian friends introduce their partner to other people as "my wife".
I don't personally think that there is any practical difference between marriage and civil partnerships other than satisfying the segment of the population that thinks that gay people need to be kept outside of some kind of social boundary. Although making that argument makes me worry that someone will start campaigning to get rid of Civil Partnerships.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Although making that argument makes me worry that someone will start campaigning to get rid of Civil Partnerships.
Unlikely - no leading UK political party supports their abolition.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Although making that argument makes me worry that someone will start campaigning to get rid of Civil Partnerships.
Unlikely - no leading UK political party supports their abolition.
Seven months in the US and already I'm losing my perspective! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't personally think that there is any practical difference between marriage and civil partnerships other than satisfying the segment of the population that thinks that gay people need to be kept outside of some kind of social boundary. Although making that argument makes me worry that someone will start campaigning to get rid of Civil Partnerships.
Which begs the question of why it is important (or appropriate) to use the law to enforce the social boundary around gay people? Why is it so critically important to the Crown that gay people not be legally allowed to describe themselves as "married" if, as Anglican't indicates, there is no difference between a civilly partnered same sex couple and a married opposite sex couple?
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
As I said before, I think it can be said that there is a long-standing understanding of what marriage is (and what it is not). I don't think that necessarily means condemnation of any other group.
How can an official government position stating that a couple's relationship is so inherently alien that it will never qualify as "marriage" not a condemnation? And just how "long-standing" does an "understanding" have to be before it's completely immunized against all change?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There may well be no difference in legal rights. However, in order to KEEP it that way, your poor drafters and policy people in government will have to remember EVERY single time a new law is being written to refer to both marriages and civil unions.
That's a considerably easier task though, isn't it? I appreciate that some intense legislative drafting may have been required to integrate Civil Partnerships into UK law but, going forward (to use that ghastly phrase), the task becomes easier, does it not? If a new statute is being drafted, the words 'and civil partner' can be added to 'spouse'. I appreciate that it might not be quite that simple, but it is certainly not a task beyond the wit of the Parliamentary Counsel's Office.
It's not beyond the wit, no. But the point is that the conscious decision has to be made every time. As a matter of both policy and drafting, someone has to say "yes, TODAY I will treat these two groups as equal".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm willing to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any differences in terms of rights (and certainly no major differences) between marriage in the UK and a Civil Partnership in the UK.
Apart, of course, from the right to make your vows to each other using religious language - which is where we came in.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Hostly Hat ON
This thread appears to be devolving into a DH. If it continues to develop as a screed on gay marriage, I will move it where it belongs.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
As I said before, I think it can be said that there is a long-standing understanding of what marriage is (and what it is not). I don't think that necessarily means condemnation of any other group.
Your current understanding of marriage is a few hundred years old. Before that, only the nobility bothered with the whole formal marriage business, because it was useful when it came to property transfer.
As Croesos has pointed out with his link, up until the 19th century part of the property that was transferred was the wife herself!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Hostly Hat ON
This thread appears to be devolving into a DH. If it continues to develop as a screed on gay marriage, I will move it where it belongs.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF
"Devolving into"? The OP was about gay marriage!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Hostly Hat ON
This thread appears to be devolving into a DH. If it continues to develop as a screed on gay marriage, I will move it where it belongs.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF
"Devolving into"? The OP was about gay marriage!
I can never quite work out the Dead Horses distinction, but it seems to be that it's only DH territory if you talk about the morality and religious aspects of gay marriage, not about the law of the land.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can never quite work out the Dead Horses distinction, but it seems to be that it's only DH territory if you talk about the morality and religious aspects of gay marriage, not about the law of the land.
That question was kicked around a Styx thread for a while. The general consensus seemed to be that anything/everything gay belonged in Dead Horses.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I think Croesos is right, The thread belongs in DH. Down you go.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
