Gay marriage - what's it all about then?

[Fat Bob]

There's a lot of noise in the UK press (OK, maybe just the Torygraph) about how the current political leadership are planning to allow same-sex marriage. I'm trying to understand what all the issues are. And I'm not sure if this is something the politicians are pushing on the public, some gay activists are just being very loud about, or if it's something that is impinging human rights and needs to be rectified immediately.

Can someone explain why it's such a big issue one way or another?

[Kooky]

Only with a personal opinion - is that what you want?

It shouldn't be a big issue, it should be a non-issue. Everybody should be able to get married if they want to, or not marry if they don't want to. Sexual preference should be irrelevant, and marriage is a legal agreement and religion does not come into it. My opinion in a nutshell

[Lili Von Shtupp]

In the US, I was under the impression that the major opponents were insurance companies, employers, and institutions that would be required to extend coverage or rights to a new population that previously didn't exist as a result of a legislative change.

[baloo]

Not really that simple.

Marriage is a product of religion that has been adopted by governments. Religions for the most part see marriage as the sacred union between man and woman with the intent to make babies. They would see gay marriage as contrary to what marriage stands for.

What needs to happen is for the concept of marriage to be dropped by governments. They don't need it as common law relationships have as much rights as marriages. As long as governments treat hetro or homo sexual relationships equally in the eyes of the law and government benefits, I don't see the issue.

People can choose to officiate and celebrate their union how ever they please, where ever they please. As long as the government stops needing to use the term "marriage" then the problem is solved.

[Kooky]

I don't have anything on hand to back this up but I'm sure I've read that marriage as a contract was around long before religion was attached to it.

I'm also unsure on the rights of a "common law spouse" - seem to recall reading that it's a dangerous assumption, certainly in some countries. Regardless, does that cover same-sex partnerships anyway?

(I'll have a google and edit if I find anything.)

It's the legalities that concern me - why should somebody who has been with their partner for many years have no rights over their treatment when they're gravely ill, for instance? Or that of their child?

As far as I'm concerned you can call it whatever you want, so long as it's the same for all.

edit: Wiki has a page on what "common law" means (and is called) in various countries. As I thought, in the UK it means very little, from a legal perspective.

[baloo]

In Australia a common law partner has the same rights, at least in a hetro sense. I think same sex unions, while also afforded the same rights federally, there are some differences on a state by state basis.

That needs to change. Civil/common law unions should afford the same rights whether a couple is of the same sex or not.

Marriage is pretty much a religious thing. Whether they co-opted it 400 years ago or not doesn't really matter today. The government needs to drop the marriage word which is the contentious term here. Let the religion's keep it and their church ceremonies for those that want to do that. It's just symbolism.

As long as the law ensures the same rights for all couples then that should be all that matters.

[Kooky]

Sorry baloo, if I'd seen your reply I'd have replied instead of edited mine.

[baloo]

edit: Wiki has a page on what "common law" means (and is called) in various countries. As I thought, in the UK it means very little, from a legal perspective.

That's an issue then and needs to change.

I think centering the debate on "marriage" is going to make it harder to get equality. It is an emotive term and you'll find many people who wouldn't really have an opinion vote against gay marriage.

If instead the question was phrased as should same sex couple have the same rights as married/hetro couples then the same people would probably say "Yes".

The law needs to change.

[slinky]

I'm also unsure on the rights of a "common law spouse" - seem to recall reading that it's a dangerous assumption, certainly in some countries. Regardless, does that cover same-sex partnerships anyway?

This is a good point. I'm not sure the rights of the common law spouse are quite as easy to come by in the US as they are in other countries. As I recall, it required a set number of years (something like 6 or more?) before any common law rights kick in and that probably varies from state to state anyway. And, no, I don't think those rules carry over to same-sex partnerships in the US and that is certainly one major aspect of the fight in the US.

To me, the whole thing falls under that good old 'live and let live' category. Who am I to tell someone else they can or cannot get married if that is what they want to do? I honestly can't see why so many (in the US) are fighting so hard against this.

[baloo]

To me, the whole thing falls under that good old 'live and let live' category. Who am I to tell someone else they can or cannot get married if that is what they want to do? I honestly can't see why so many (in the US) are fighting so hard against this.

Probably the same reason we're seeing a dramatic rise in religion. Rightly or wrongly there is a growing groundswell against what people see as moral decay in society. Gay marriage is unfortunately becoming a bit of of a line in the sand regarding society in general. That's why I think they need to remove the concept of marriage out of the debate and focus it on law, rights and equality.

I was dumbfounded when during an American Idol audition, a girl feinted and was taken to hospital. A group of kids all got together to hold hands and prey for her. Does that really happen in the US these days ?

[slinky]

I was dumbfounded when during an American Idol audition, a girl feinted and was taken to hospital. A group of kids all got together to hold hands and prey for her. Does that really happen in the US these days ?

Freudian slip with that spelling there, baloo?

There is no doubt it happens in some places and with some kids/adults in the US. I honestly have no real gauge on just how common it is though. I don't think my nieces and nephews in the US do that kind of thing (but then half of them don't go to any church at all), but when I taught in Catholic school there were plenty of overt references to prayer and praying for people, etc. I certainly see a lot of reference to prayer and praying for each other specifically from my US friends on Facebook though - at times to the point of not knowing so many of my friends and acquaintances were so outwardly religious. Sometimes I don't know what to make of all that - I guess I might be a bit in the minority with my opinion on religion being that it is (and probably should be) a more private thing and not something that needs to be brought up in regular, daily conversation.


Edit: Are we really seeing a 'dramatic' rise in religion?? I thought most churches - or at least the Catholic church - were lamenting big losses in numbers?

[baloo]

Edit: Are we really seeing a 'dramatic' rise in religion?? I thought most churches - or at least the Catholic church - were lamenting big losses in numbers?

Prey / Pray - I went to a Catholic Boys School, I struggle to see a difference ....

Maybe a rise in Religious fundamentalism. As much as people may like to disagree, the larger and older Christian based religions (RC, Proddies, Lutheran, the various Orthodoxies) and I have no knowledge but I would say it's similar with Islam, would be considered progressive and liberal compared to what we are seeing today from the very vocal fundamental sects.

Dunno, it just seems like everyone is going loopy these days.

[slinky]

Dunno, it just seems like everyone is going loopy these days.

No doubt there. And on so many levels.....

[Tas]

Not the moment to go searching for them, but I looked this up a couple months ago. In Australian terms I found following, Australia has no official religion, in addition the marriage act makes no mention of any religious terms. Thus the association between marriage and a religious connotation or meaning in Australia as far as I can see is a social construct rather than legal application.

[Tas]

the points of interest to me were as follows

1) "Australia has no official state religion and people are free to practise any religion they choose, as long as they obey the law. Australians are also free not to have a religion." http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/people_culture.html

2) "marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."

MarriageAct1961_WD02[1].pdf

(247.24 KiB) Downloaded 135 times

also http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/ ... 85/s5.html

so from my perspective, whilst a recognized person of religion may perform the marriage act, so may a stack of other recognized official persons. In Australia from my interpretation marriage does not have aa specific religious application, and the term marriage is constantly hijacked by people of a religious view without any actual legal applicationthat supports it belonging only to religious groups in my modern history.

The argument here is to change the definition of marriage in the legal act, at least from the Austalian perspective, I have not looked up what the marriage act and official state religion is for the UK FB, but I think is an interesting starting point, then to break down the other arguments from legal, ethical, personal religious, regional society/social etc...

[Tas]

And while I'm at it, I just reread FB post where the commentary was a debate about human rights I was scanning the people culture section for Australia - again suggest lookign at the UK position, but reviewing these points

Shared values

The defining feature of today’s Australia is not only the cultural diversity of its people, but the extent to which they are united by an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia.

Within the framework of Australia’s laws, all Australians have the right to express their culture and beliefs and to participate freely in Australia’s national life.

At the same time, everyone is expected to uphold the principles and shared values that support Australia’s way of life. These include:

respect for equal worth, dignity and freedom of the individual
-freedom of speech and association
-freedom of religion and a secular government
-support for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law
-equality under the law
-equality of men and women
-equality of opportunity
-peacefulness
-a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces tolerance, mutual respect, and compassion for those in need. Australia also holds firmly to the belief that no one should be disadvantaged on the basis of their country of birth, cultural heritage, language, gender or religious belief.

So I presume the case is being made about equality under the law, spirit of egalitariansim, and no disadvantage.

If I were you I'd also start with a scan of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) and form an opinion from your own perspective. Scanning it the reference to marriage is:

Article 16.
•(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
•(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
•(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

So you might argue that artical 16 makes no distinction that it is specifically between men and woman, and that they have right to marry and found a family.

Anyway worth having a scan of easily found information on the web and arm yourself with a few of the known facts and then start digging a bit further.

[baloo]

Howard added man and woman into Australia's marriage laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Gov ... ationships

[Spike]

Only with a personal opinion - is that what you want?

It shouldn't be a big issue, it should be a non-issue. Everybody should be able to get married if they want to, or not marry if they don't want to. Sexual preference should be irrelevant, and marriage is a legal agreement and religion does not come into it. My opinion in a nutshell

I agree with your nutshell. There is no such thing in English Law as a common law spouse.

[T2K]

"People can choose to officiate and celebrate their union how ever they please, where ever they please. As long as the government stops needing to use the term "marriage" then the problem is solved." This, from Baloo.

Marriage is clearly defined as the union of one man and one woman, it can't become one man and one man in any serious contect. It's like saying that elections now include direct appointments to office, but it's still called elections.

Just have governments and insurance companies and all other legal mechanisms recognize "unions" between whoever, and leave the concept of marriage out of it.
That would help to negate the religious nutjobs.

[Lili Von Shtupp]

But that doesn't address the human rights issue, though. By definition, marriage can really be a union of anything.

[BoD]

Prey / Pray - I went to a Catholic Boys School, I struggle to see a difference ....

.. and if that doesn't knock religion out of you, nothing will. Even now my parents won't forget that I apparently used to cross myself before a race on sports day, and they aren't Catholics

So as far as I can see there are no specific religious connotations to Marriage, but since Marriage can be, and historically has been,carried out in a religious context, there is an implication that allowing gay marriage would somehow imply a religious connection/acceptance

[baloo]

Pretty much. It was an interesting debate in Australia where the politicians said quite clearly that if a Gay Marriage law were passed, there would not be any knock on effect to the churches. i.e. they would not be forced to wed same sex couples in their churches.

There is two ways of gaining equality as I see it. Fight tooth and nail for Gay Marriage to be adopted. It will be a long hard fight that may not succeed because the religous groups have a lot of influence.

The other is to divorce the concept of legal union from the emotive term "marriage" and leave that term to slowly whittle away amongst the religious types. The term marriage won't be replaced as the de-facto name for a union immediately. But give it a few years when a younger generation come through and find that they need to certify their union with the government, it will eventually become the defacto term.

[Fat Bob]

Glad I asked this question then, especially in relationship to the UK. In the UK, civil partnerships between two same-sex people are part of the legal establishment, whilst marriages are part of the legal establishment between heterosexual couples.

Therefore, it seems to be terminology. What is all the fuss about in UK if homosexuals and heterosexuals can enjoy the same legal status?

So it's got me wondering: is the new law being planned going to force those who currently only, for whatever reasons, perform marriage (i.e. heterosexual unions) now also perform civil partnerships (i.e. homosexual unions)? If so, isn't this the other side of human rights? Why should someone who disagrees with one type of partnership be forced to perform the ceremony?

[Fat Bob]

The other is to divorce the concept of legal union from the emotive term "marriage" and leave that term to slowly whittle away amongst the religious types. The term marriage won't be replaced as the de-facto name for a union immediately. But give it a few years when a younger generation come through and find that they need to certify their union with the government, it will eventually become the defacto term.

Yeah, cos I can see you and Crackers being in a legal union......

[daffodil]

Topical....!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... ds-newsxml