|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay weddings - what happens next?
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I respond in this way because I see sociological differences between countries. Attitudes towards marriage do differ between countries. That's obvious.
I do agree that in the West (very broadly defined), where marriage is entirely optional and doesn't carry the same religious and dynastic importance as in the past, SSM makes sense as a symbol of equality. (The legal implications vary from country to country, so they can't be seen as the primary global issue.)
[ 22. June 2013, 13:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
So what's the essential difference in attitudes between the UK and Canada with regard to marriage where Britons can't learn and follow what Canada did?
Be specific. Show your work. Use concrete examples.
[ 22. June 2013, 14:33: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I respond in this way because I see sociological differences between countries. Attitudes towards marriage do differ between countries. That's obvious. ...
So what?
The overall average "attitude" of a country may be one thing or another. However, the attitude of the individuals choosing to get married is pretty much the same no matter who they are or where they are. It's reasonable to assume that people who want to get married have an overall positive view of marriage. Thus, Americans who want to get married feel the same way about marriage as Britons who want to get married, regardless of orientation. If keeping up some sort of "attitude" towards marriage is so damn important to a country, why deny marriage to those who clearly value it?
There is no evidence anywhere that a single straight couple has decided NOT to get married because teh gayz have ruined marriage. None. Zero. Nada. Niente. Nichts. Bu. Ie.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The overall average "attitude" of a country may be one thing or another. However, the attitude of the individuals choosing to get married is pretty much the same no matter who they are or where they are. It's reasonable to assume that people who want to get married have an overall positive view of marriage.
Depending on culture and circumstances, some marry principally for love, for social status, for wealth, for legitimate heirs, to avoid loneliness, etc. etc.
quote:
Thus, Americans who want to get married feel the same way about marriage as Britons who want to get married, regardless of orientation.
If so, it's because the cultures have a lot in common. But the fact that the marriage rates are at different levels in those two countries suggests a certain difference, however subtle, in attitude and context.
quote:
There is no evidence anywhere that a single straight couple has decided NOT to get married because teh gayz have ruined marriage. None. Zero. Nada. Niente. Nichts. Bu. Ie.
Not sure how this is relevant to what I've said. Especially since I've said several times that it isn't. I have said that I understand the desire for marriage equality in cultures such as ours. In the UK we're going to get SSM soon, so in a sense the discussion on this thread (which was started by a British person) is academic.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So what's the essential difference in attitudes between the UK and Canada with regard to marriage where Britons can't learn and follow what Canada did?
Be specific. Show your work. Use concrete examples.
This is a good question. Many websites seem to say that the Canadian experience might have lessons to teach the USA about SSM, but comparisons with the UK are fewer. I'll have to look for some interesting links.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Do that thing. And do consider that English exceptionalism is just as pernicious as alleged US exceptionalism.
I spent four years living in the UK (admittedly many years ago) and still visit, and have many friends. I follow the UK press as well. And on this issue, what has not surprised me but has distressed me, is that the English penchant for thinking that they are the only ones who count has been marked. That is, only what happens in England counts, and only when it has happened in England. Nothing that happens anywhere else can possibly be a guide or advice to what "we're doing here in Engalnd".
It's rather like the English reluctance to learn a second language, as if the only one that really matters is English.
What the w*** (epithet used historically, but not currently polite) do across the Channel (or the Atlantic Ocean), that is, just isn't really part of the world that we live in.
Please note that I am explicitly not accusing the Scots or the Welsh of this, and I'm not commenting at all on the Irish (of the groups that currently comprise the UK). And of course, there are individual exceptions (some of them on this Ship).
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Do that thing. And do consider that English exceptionalism is just as pernicious as alleged US exceptionalism.
I spent four years living in the UK (admittedly many years ago) and still visit, and have many friends. I follow the UK press as well. And on this issue, what has not surprised me but has distressed me, is that the English penchant for thinking that they are the only ones who count has been marked. That is, only what happens in England counts, and only when it has happened in England. Nothing that happens anywhere else can possibly be a guide or advice to what "we're doing here in Engalnd".
I didn't think I was promoting English exceptionalism at all. My point was that ALL countries have distinct cultural factors that impact on the decisions they take, and that influence the outcome of those decisions.
As I implied above, I don't think SSM would have a drastic effect on marriage in England. The English are already fairly tolerant when it comes to family arrangements. Almost half of all British children are born out of wedlock.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I believe that SSM will prove more popular amongst gay and lesbian couples in the US than in the UK, at least in part because of the higher religiosity in the US. Many in the gay "community" want church weddings, have fought for full inclusion of LGBT persons in their various Christian and Jewish denominations, and see marriage as very much part of a social narrative that includes organised religion -- this despite the bigotry and rejection that LGBT persons have experienced from large sections of the organised Church and parts of Judaism and their hierarchies.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
John H: quote:
And on this issue, what has not surprised me but has distressed me, is that the English penchant for thinking that they are the only ones who count has been marked. That is, only what happens in England counts, and only when it has happened in England. Nothing that happens anywhere else can possibly be a guide or advice to what "we're doing here in Engalnd".
To those of us who actually live here it's even worse than that; what counts (and what usually gets adopted as government policy) is What's Good For London. Even the rest of England comes a long way behind that.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevenS
Apprentice
# 17738
|
Posted
[suspicious-looking website removed by host - as per C9. Don't advertise or spam - Don't use these boards to advertise your site or product, or to lift email addresses to spam our members - L]
[and on googling it turns out the text of the post was spammed all over other forums too, so not a genuine contribution to the thread - text has been removed and saved for admins. - L]
[ 27. June 2013, 23:49: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posts: 1 | From: LA,California | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
And in news across the Pond, the Supremes have spoken: 1) They upheld the appellate court's strike-down of Prop. 5, the Calif. anti-GM resolution, and 2) and say that the Federal government cannot discriminate against gay married couples in all federal matters such as Social Security benefits, tax law, and the benefits of Fed employees.
The wedding industry is revving up in California! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Read it here!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
One complication with the Supremes' decision: In states with domestic-partnership laws (ie, their legislatures were too squeamish to tackle SSM per se but settled for some neither-fish-nor-fowl attempt at parity), gay couples will not be eligible for many federal benefits that couples in "gay marriage" states will enjoy. And couples who married in SSM states but who live in anti-SSM states will be eligible for still fewer protections. I'm not quite sure what will happen to couples who married out-of-country...I think, because the US military considers Canadian marriages (among others) as valid, they will extend benefits to military spouses who married in Canada, but I'm just not sure what other states will do for these couples. It's not fair, so expect lots more feuding in the courts in the months and years to come.
[ 28. June 2013, 13:08: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
LutheranChik, the marriage of Ms Windsor and her late partner - the former being the plaintiff in the DOMA suit, Windsor v United States - were married in Ontario, and this was noted in the SCOTUS ruling in the case. SCOTUS noted that the marriage was recognised by the State of New York. Likewise, in Delaware where my partner and I live, our marriage in Canada is explicitly recognised here, as I believe marriages contracted abroad typically are. Based on the SCOTUS ruling, it doesn't look as though it should be a problem.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
LutheranChik, the marriage of Ms Windsor and her late partner - the former being the plaintiff in the DOMA suit, Windsor v United States - were married in Ontario, and this was noted in the SCOTUS ruling in the case. SCOTUS noted that the marriage was recognised by the State of New York. Likewise, in Delaware where my partner and I live, our marriage in Canada is explicitly recognised here, as I believe marriages contracted abroad typically are. Based on the SCOTUS ruling, it doesn't look as though it should be a problem.
I suspect a problem would be with immigration as a spouse of a US citizen or permanent resident or getting a visa as a student or temporary worker's spouse. In such cases the federal government has sole responsible for determining the legality of the marriage under US law since the people (or at least the incoming person) are not residents yet of US states. Note the US does not recognize all opposite sex marriages (notably ones where a man has married a second concurrent wife).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I don't think that's correct, at least as long as the US citizen is domiciled in a State that has marriage equality. It shouldn't matter where the couple contracted the marriage, so long as it was in a legally mandated form that can be recognised by the United States, e.g., marriages licensed by the authorised public authority in almost any country with a functioning government whose legitimacy is internationally recognised; and the marital partners are not in violation of any general criteria that the particular US State in question sets for valid marriage, e.g., age of consent.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't think that's correct, at least as long as the US citizen is domiciled in a State that has marriage equality.
That's the rub, isn't it? The immediate question is whether federal benefits accrue according to state of residence or state of celebration. The U.S. military, which moves its personnel around a lot, has always used a "state of celebration" standard to avoid complications. Some gay rights activists are urging Obama to issue an executive order explicitly stating that things like military pensions and veterans' benefits will be handled in that manner. That's fairly straightforward since that's completely within the federal sphere. Where it gets more complicated is federal programs administered by the states, like Medicaid. It's fairly easy to foresee a situation where the federal government considers a couple married but their current state of residence does not. Since section 2 of DOMA is still in effect, that could get complicated.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Apparently the Social Security Administration recognises common law marriages even in states where they are not recognised. I expect they have some criteria for proving-up such a marriage. Common law marriage law is all over the map in the US. Delaware, where I now live, does not recognise such marriages, while Texas - where I once lived - doesn't even have a duration requirement for such relationships: there, if two people present themselves as married and live as such, with no fraudulent intention, their relationship is legally recognised as a common law marriage. Other states, I believe, have typically imposed a certain number of years that the relationship must have endured before it can be recognised as a common law marriage.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
I wonder if some polyamorous group with the proper residence might hack the states systems by using the other section of DOMA to construct a sitation where Bob and Ted are married in state A, as are Carol and Alice, while in state B, which does not take notice, Bob and Carol can marry, as can Ted and Alice.
Or does the presence of "not recognizing SSM" not go that far?
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I have seen some argument that the fact that federal benefits due not apply to civil unions actually makes it easier to prove that civil unions are now provably not separate but equal.
It's going to be messy for a long time. The Democrats are likely not to be forceful about applying the ruling with full faith and credit as a federal status. The current New Yorker has a an interesting article about the bipartisan effort to make an immigration bill. The Republican Senators in the group objected to Senator Leahey's amendment to allow immigration of the same sex partners of citizens. The Democrats pressure Leahey to withhold the amendment.
And so it goes...
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
HenryT: quote:
I wonder if some polyamorous group with the proper residence might hack the states systems by using the other section of DOMA to construct a sitation where Bob and Ted are married in state A, as are Carol and Alice, while in state B, which does not take notice, Bob and Carol can marry, as can Ted and Alice.
State B may permit it, but State A will see this as bigamy. Or polyandry. Or something. Anyway, whatever State B may allow it will become a problem anytime you decide to move to a state that recognises SSM (State C? State D?)
[ 01. July 2013, 16:55: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
HenryT: quote:
I wonder if some polyamorous group with the proper residence might hack the states systems by using the other section of DOMA to construct a sitation where Bob and Ted are married in state A, as are Carol and Alice, while in state B, which does not take notice, Bob and Carol can marry, as can Ted and Alice.
State B may permit it, but State A will see this as bigamy. Or polyandry. Or something. Anyway, whatever State B may allow it will become a problem anytime you decide to move to a state that recognises SSM (State C? State D?)
Usually these sorts of disputes are resolved in favor of whichever state has the greater claim on the person in question, typically the state of residence.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
There you go, then. As long as you plan your lives so that when the music stops you are in a state that doesn't allow SSM, and never move to one that does, you should be fine.
I don't understand why the question of marriage isn't regulated at the federal level anyway - it must cause a lot of problems for straights who marry their cousins.
[ 02. July 2013, 08:40: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
There you go, then. As long as you plan your lives so that when the music stops you are in a state that doesn't allow SSM, and never move to one that does, you should be fine.
I don't understand why the question of marriage isn't regulated at the federal level anyway - it must cause a lot of problems for straights who marry their cousins.
Certain things are regulated at a federal level. For instance, due to Loving v. Virginia no state can ban inter-racial marriage. There are other restrictions on what states can and can't do based on the federal Constitution, mostly flowing from the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There may eventually be a same-sex marriage ruling along those lines.
At any rate, marrying your second cousin is legal in all U.S. states, and there aren't that many straights marrying their first cousins for it to cause "a lot of problems".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Jane R, domestic relations law - at least at the basic level - isn't regulated by the federal government precisely because that is not an enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution of the United States, and because under the 10th Amendment, powers not specifically delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the exercise of the several State governments or to the people in general. This really leaves a limited - though important - range in which federal law and regulations can exercise authority in respect to marital status. The problem in the case of SSM arises now because the Supremes struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which was to do with an unconstitutional federal definition of marriage, whilst Section 2 of DOMA was left unaffected by the SCOTUS ruling; Section 2 - to my mind an unconstitutional violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, by which the several States are to recognise each others' public acts and contracts - allows States to not extend recognition to SSMs contracted in other States. The recent suit, Windsor v United States, really only had to do with discrimination under Section 3 of DOMA, and did not invoke any arguments regarding Section 2 (which wasn't relevant to the issue at hand).
There seems little doubt that Section 2 will eventually be struck down outright as well, or - very likely - become a dead letter as a result of other legal developments.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
Article in the Atlantic that's quite interesting, and I think is relevant to this thread. It looks at how marriages of man/woman, man/man, woman/woman compare in terms of things like job division, child-rearing, all sorts of bits & pieces really. It's worth reading.
Thought this was an interesting quote, from a cathedral dean
quote:
“When [conservatives] say that gay marriage threatens my marriage, I used to say, ‘That’s ridiculous.’ Now I say, ‘Yeah, it does. It’s asking you a crucial question about your marriage that you may not want to answer: If I’m a man, am I actually sharing the duties and responsibilities of married life equally with my wife?’ Same-sex marriage gives us another image of what marriage can be.”
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
That was quite good, thank you for the link.
--------------------
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 is, of course, another way in which same-sex marriage threatens a certain specific subset of opposite-sex marriages. If someone is married to a deeply closeted homosexual of the opposite sex who will file for divorce once a certain level of social acceptance is reached, then legalized same-sex marriage is a threat to that marriage.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Toujours Dan
quote:
So what's the essential difference in attitudes between the UK and Canada with regard to marriage where Britons can't learn and follow what Canada did?
Be specific. Show your work. Use concrete examples.
Well, I ended up writing what became quite a long piece on this, but I'll try to provide only a summary here. I used lots of links, and I can post some of them if anyone is interested in any of the points made.
Canada and England have many relevant cultural similarities, especially a high level of secularisation. The transition to SSM has been fairly smooth in Canada, but there have been some issues. Some religious people and groups have been penalised or prosecuted for expressing views against SSM; religious groups in England would have to be prepared for this. The CofE is an established church, and has been excluded from the upcoming legislation, but both anti- and pro-SSM commentators foresee legal problems over this exclusion.
Various polygamists and polyamorists in Canada have seen SSM as a potential opening for them; their legal endeavours have come to naught, but it's possible that similar groups will trouble the courts in England. Muslims are increasingly visible and influential here, and Muslim polygamy is becoming more common. It's recognised in both countries for state benefits, though not as a legal reality. (I see that Brazil and the Netherlands have begun to recognise multiple-person civil partnerships, and it'll be interesting to see how that pans out.)
I haven't considered the legal and financial implications of SSM in Canada and England, but in the UK in general straight marriage is becoming more and more of a middle class practice. Culturally and financially it has less to offer poorer families. SSM hasn't reinvigorated straight marriage in Canada, and I think this is unlikely to happen in England either.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some religious people and groups have been penalised or prosecuted for expressing views against SSM; . . .
Isn't that more of a function of Canada's half-assed stance regarding free speech and not something specific to same-sex marriage? At any rate, it doesn't seem like that will be a problem for much longer. Does the U.K. have something equivalent to Canada's Human Rights Commission? If not, I'd say this is a misplaced worry.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I was going to let it pass, but it's important to realize that SvitlanaV2's post grossly overstates the importance or the profile of any problems related to SSM in Canada. Each of her examples may be true, but they are of no importance because they have had no effect, no impact on what's happening in Canada.
If "Offended" of Tumbridge Wells writes to the Times objecting to marriage for same-sex couples, but no one else does and no one else objects publicly, why then no one is going to pay attention to "Offended"'s concerns. And SvitlanaV2's examples are roughly on a par with a lone "Offended" who has no support, no followers and no imitators.
Moreover, her examples do not address -- indeed, nothing her post addresses -- the question of why Canada's experience is inapplicable to the UK, and why some people in England feel they have to re-invent the wheel, rather than taking notice of other people's experiences.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some religious people and groups have been penalised or prosecuted for expressing views against SSM;
Expressing an opinion that SSM is wrong is not the reason anyone has been penalized. People (one or two) have been penalized for publicly campaigning to incite hatred and persecution of gays.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Moreover, her examples do not address -- indeed, nothing her post addresses -- the question of why Canada's experience is inapplicable to the UK, and why some people in England feel they have to re-invent the wheel, rather than taking notice of other people's experiences.
John
I'm sure that politicians, religious groups, pro- and anti-SSM activists and commentators of all stripes are all 'taking notice of other people's experiences'.
In some respects the wheel will have to be reinvented - especially regarding the CofE's position - but as I said quite openly in my post, the two countries have a number of similarities. That implies that one might fruitfully refer to the experiences of the other. Nowhere have I said that the UK has nothing to learn from other countries. What I've said is that each country has its own particularities.
It seems only wise that those groups and individuals who have issues with SSM reflect on what the consequences might mean for their behaviour or speech after the law changes. 'Offended' of Tunbridge Wells might want to consider breaking his addiction to letter-writing, at the very least! Bigger groups should be careful to study what is legal and what isn't. I would certainly hope that such individuals and groups try to learn from the Canadian experience.
[ 10. July 2013, 20:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
One difference between Canada and the UK is that Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which specifically deals, among other things, with equality:
quote:
Equality rights: (section 15): equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
from Wikipedia
It was not possible to write a law preventing SSM without transgressing those equality rights. This is distressing for people who need to discriminate against "others", but they should be reassured that they also cannot be discriminated against unless they set out to actively harm someone.
UK law seems to allow for all sorts of discriminations that would not be allowed under the Canadian Charter: CofE priests, for instance, are not "employees" for the purpose of some laws. The fact that there is an established church would probably fall in the same territory.
Formal discrimination against GLBTs (or other groups) as a national sport may be occurring, but would not under a properly-written constitution.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog's topic title: Gay weddings - what happens next?
They go home and have steamy sex?
But that's just the problem, typical of well-meaning straights who think they understand queer. Many gay couples/people simply do not do the kind of things popularly thought of as going on.
I come to this rather late, but anything in Purgatory on SSM is likely to get booted down here anyway. Both religious and civil understandings of marriage require definition which SSM simply eludes. The nearest you can get is a kind of covenanted/sanctified exclusive friendship, however such a relationship has no precedent in Christianity. In Christianity, you're either an integrated part of the chaste family/community or you're shagging an unique individual. Often one is up to both, but these are the only two human relationships found in the Christian tradition.
Now, yes there are exceptional hetero couples marrying & unlikely to have sex (through age or disability) but the intention needs to be present. Even then, no-sex is always grounds for nullification - civil or religious.
I don't in fact care one way or the other about SSM, but I reckon definition is impossible, which calls into question whether it can exist at all. Marriage is not at heart about partnership and romance - it's fundamentally about sex & procreation, even if these are only present in will. You have to call SSM something else or it sadly isn't anything.
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
I don't in fact care one way or the other about SSM, but I reckon definition is impossible, which calls into question whether it can exist at all. Marriage is not at heart about partnership and romance - it's fundamentally about sex & procreation, even if these are only present in will. You have to call SSM something else or it sadly isn't anything.
Except, as has been pointed out too many times for you to have missed it, childless couples can still be considered "married". Being infertile or simply intentionally not procreating does not constitute grounds for annulling a civil marriage, at least in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with.
For that matter, not everyone who has sex or procreates is considered married.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Sorry, I don't follow how SSM doesn't fit into 'shagging a unique individual'?
Also, same-gender couples have sex and procreate. I don't see the problem here?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, same-gender couples...procreate.
How?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, same-gender couples...procreate.
How?
Many have children from previous relationships, have children of their own via surrogacy or adopt, just like different-gender couples. Unless those children are not 'really' their children...?
Marriage is for the *raising* of children. The children do not have to be biologically related to the parents to be their children. My dad is not my biological dad, but he is still my dad.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, same-gender couples...procreate.
How?
Many have children from previous relationships, have children of their own via surrogacy or adopt, just like different-gender couples. Unless those children are not 'really' their children...?
But in the examples you've given, the couple haven't procreated, have they?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, same-gender couples...procreate.
How?
Many have children from previous relationships, have children of their own via surrogacy or adopt, just like different-gender couples. Unless those children are not 'really' their children...?
But in the examples you've given, the couple haven't procreated, have they?
In the first two, they have, just not with each other. In all of them, they have brought a new child into their family.
Are children born to both parents in the standard way more their children than those children who are born via surrogacy or adoption? In the strict biological sense, it is not procreation, but if that is broadened to bringing new children into the family then it works fine. Plenty of heterosexual couples don't procreate in the strict sense, but do in a broader sense.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Mudfrog's topic title: Gay weddings - what happens next?
They go home and have steamy sex?
But that's just the problem, typical of well-meaning straights who think they understand queer. Many gay couples/people simply do not do the kind of things popularly thought of as going on.
Was this a reaction to my post? If so, I don't see the link.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Are children born to both parents in the standard way more their children than those children who are born via surrogacy or adoption?
More to the point, are couples with adopted children or children conceived through medical intervention less married than couples who have procreate their own genetic offspring? Or not married at all? If a couple uses a surrogate and a donor egg to have a child, does that mean the man's real wife is the egg donor?
More critically, I'm concerned about a highly reductive definition of "marriage" that does not consider spousal abuse to be fundamentally contrary to what marriage is. According to Vaticanchic, marriage boils down to two things:
- Screwing
- Having your own genetically-related offspring
So as long as the beatings don't interfere with the sex or ability to procreate (or the abuse is confined to emotional abuse), there's nothing particularly contrary to the fundamental structure of marriage about it. As long as the sex and babies happen, any kind of treatment is okay (or at least not contrary to what being married means).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
When straight people are required to be screened for fertility prior and have cameras mounted in their bedrooms after, perhaps we can continue the bullshit about procreation mattering to marriage.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is he also going to allow us the freedom of conscience to refuse to accept people as 'married'? Because if we accept them then it rather makes the 'opt-out' rather pointless.
What's to stop you from viewing gay married couples as cheese sandwiches?
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When straight people are required to be screened for fertility prior and have cameras mounted in their bedrooms after, perhaps we can continue the bullshit about procreation mattering to marriage.
It's the sheer inconsistency that gets me riled up. No one bats an eyelid at clearly non procreative couples until they are 2 people of the same gender. Then all of a sudden there's a crash course in Biology 101 and cries of "you can't make babies by putting your naughty bits together!"
[ 18. July 2013, 06:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I have struggled to follow the natural law arguments - that marital sex is procreative and unitive.
Vaticanchic provided a sort of paraphrase of this:
'Marriage is not at heart about partnership and romance - it's fundamentally about sex & procreation, even if these are only present in will. You have to call SSM something else or it sadly isn't anything.'
I suppose the word 'fundamentally' here is the crucial one. What does this mean? I suppose in natural law, that God has ordained marriage to be thus, and humans cannot tamper with it.
I guess Catholics are consistent in a way, as they also condemn contraception in the same vein, as defying the 'fundamental' essence of marriage - to have babies.
Yet haven't Christians continuously redefined stuff, as society changes? For example, we no longer condemn usury; we no longer say that God made Africans to be our servants, and so on.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet haven't Christians continuously redefined stuff, as society changes? For example, we no longer condemn usury;
A great shame because it should.
quote:
we no longer say that God made Africans to be our servants, and so on.
This was always somewhat of a relatively late novelty.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, maybe Christians should condemn usury, but quite often they don't. In fact, some of them get into celebrating capitalism and leveraged buyouts as God-given and approved of by Christ. Well, OK, but this seems to undermine the whole position that some things are 'fundamentally' just so. No, they're not; they are redefined as and when it suits people.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
we no longer say that God made Africans to be our servants, and so on.
This was always somewhat of a relatively late novelty.
Not at all. The idea that God has marked out certain ethnic groups as slaves is a particularly ancient one. The particular group to be enslaved changes with convenience, but I don't think anything found in the Old Testament can reasonably be called "a relatively late novelty".
It should also be noted that this relatively late novelty is still older than the idea that Christianity considers slavery to be morally wrong.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
