Community Discussion Forum
Chat
Info and Media
Articles
Autism Talk TV
Books
Wiki
Contact Alex
Shop
Log in
|
Register
WP Members: > 70,000
New Today:
31
New Yesterday:
28
Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index
->
LGBT Discussion
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
View more Emoticons
[quote="visagrunt"][quote="YippySkippy"]Civil Unions. Not just for gay people, for everyone. If some couples also choose to get married, then that will be nobody's business but their own. No license, no paperwork, no government record-keeping involved.[/quote] Do you seriously expect government to extend benefits like preferential tax treatment, immunity from subpoena, and authority to grant or withhold consent for medical treatment in the absence of paperwork? Putting on my doctor hat, I would [i]never[/i] agree to withhold treatment from a terminal patient on the instruction of a person who claims to be a common-law partner of the patient. At a minimum I would want to see evidence of that partnership. (Similarly, I would insist on seeing a marriage certificate or other evidence of marriage from a person claiming to be a spouse). You may have a romantic notion about keeping the government out of your personal life, and that is all well and good. But when it comes to matters like real property, mortgages, retirement savings, custody and guardianship of children, and the like, government is there, whether you like it or not. It also bears noting that it is long established in Canada that marriages are not legally equivalent to common-law marriages--this one one of the significant bases on which the courts determined that marriage must be extended to same sex couples. There is currently ongoing litigation in Québec between two former common-law partners where one is suing the other for the benefits that she would have been entitled to had they been married. Now that's not to say that an entirely civil law remedy is the appropriate vehicle--but it will involve amendments to hundreds of statutes in 13 jurisdictions in Canada (and even greater legislative change in the United States). Or we could simply redefine marriage. Which do you think is more likely?[/quote]
Options
HTML is
OFF
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Topic review
Author
Message
visagrunt
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:22 pm
Post subject:
YippySkippy wrote:
1 Every mention of "marriage" in law should be changed to "civil union".
2 The federal government should pass/maintain laws concerning civil unions, not states. That way there is only one "law of the land" for all.
I think these steps would solve most domestic logistical problems. I agree that it might complicate inter-national partnerships and immigration, but I think with a little brainstorming those issues could also be resolved.
Oh, if only it were that simple.
What about Common Law and equity? The rules of inherentence favouring spouses are not generally found in statute, they are found in court cases. Not only that, a great number of them are found in the law of England and Wales to which US common law jurisdictions have fallen heir.
What about the law of Louisiana? Since it is not a common law jurisdiction, there is an entirely different legal scheme.
What about mentions of "spouse?" What word would you substitute for that?
And, of course, where is the federal governments constitutional authority to legislate in the area of family relations? You're going to need a constitutional amendment for that one.
...or you could just open the existing definition of marriage to include couples of the same sex.
YippySkippy
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 4:18 pm
Post subject:
1 Every mention of "marriage" in law should be changed to "civil union".
2 The federal government should pass/maintain laws concerning civil unions, not states. That way there is only one "law of the land" for all.
I think these steps would solve most domestic logistical problems. I agree that it might complicate inter-national partnerships and immigration, but I think with a little brainstorming those issues could also be resolved.
CSBurks
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:06 pm
Post subject:
visagrunt wrote:
Well at least you are merely a romantic, rather than delusional.
Probably delusional too.
visagrunt
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 12:50 pm
Post subject:
Well at least you are merely a romantic, rather than delusional.
CSBurks
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 1:16 am
Post subject:
visagrunt wrote:
CSBurks wrote:
I should note that I don't believe in government either.
Like you don't believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy; or like you don't believe that it's a good idea to leap off tall buildings without a parachute?
The latter.
hyperlexian
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:38 pm
Post subject:
it's politics
about
people of the applicable status. by moving the thread here, it invites more people of the applicable discussion to join in.
starkid
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:27 pm
Post subject:
Hmm, on second thought, I like the no tax breaks at all idea some people have mentioned.
hyperlexian wrote:
moved from Politics, Philosophy, and Religion to LGBT Discussion
Why? I see a whole lot of politics being discussed, and very little LGBT stuff being discussed.
visagrunt
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:03 pm
Post subject:
So, Yippy, when you fill out those papers at the government office, what happens if one of you lives in another state/province/country? Do you still get those benefits? What happens if you move to the state/province/country where the other one lives?
Those questions are straightforward if the paperwork you filled in was a marriage certificate. Those questions are unresolved if it's a civil union.
I suggest the French route:
Marriage:
Go to church--no legal benefit.
Go to the registry office--full legal benefit. And called a marriage, so that its recognition under conflicts of laws doctrines are established.
starkid
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:02 pm
Post subject:
The federal government should not recognize
any
marriages. Except in the case of people with foreign partners who wish to become citizens, I can't think of a single reason why the government should be involved in romantic/sexual relationships. For things like child-rearing, taxes, hospital visitation, etc., everyone should be able to enter into a legal contract with whomever they want to, whether or not they are in a romantic/sexual relationship. The rights given to married people are discriminatory to non-married couples, friends/roommates who are living together and sharing expenses, and people with multiple romantic/sexual partners.
YippySkippy
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 4:15 pm
Post subject:
Civil Unions - Go to a government office. Fill out papers. Receive legal benefits.
Marriage - Go to church/temple/where-you-will. Say whatever words work for you. Celebrate.
visagrunt
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 3:32 pm
Post subject:
CSBurks wrote:
I should note that I don't believe in government either.
Like you don't believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy; or like you don't believe that it's a good idea to leap off tall buildings without a parachute?
CSBurks
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 11:57 am
Post subject:
I should note that I don't believe in government either.
visagrunt
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 11:21 am
Post subject:
CSBurks wrote:
The government should not be involved in marriage at all. This is an issue for churches/religious organisations and/or the individuals in question.
See above.
So long as tax, property ownership, estates, custody and guardianship, capacity to consent to another person's medical care, evidence law and a host of other areas of law give preferences to a person's spouse, the government
is
involved in marriage.
CSBurks
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 4:02 am
Post subject:
The government should not be involved in marriage at all. This is an issue for churches/religious organisations and/or the individuals in question.
visagrunt
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:00 pm
Post subject:
YippySkippy wrote:
Civil Unions. Not just for gay people, for everyone.
If some couples also choose to get married, then that will be nobody's business but their own. No license, no paperwork, no government record-keeping involved.
YippySkippy wrote:
Civil Unions involve paperwork. All of the legal benefits that are offered to married couples could be offered to those joined by a Civil Union (and in some cases already are).
So which is it: no paperwork or paperwork?
And I'll offer up this little problem for your consumption. Under the
Constitution Act, 1867
, "marriage and divorce," is a matter within the federal jurisdiction in Canada. However, "solemnization of marriage," and, "property and civil rights," are matters within provincial jurisdiction. So while the federal government can enact legislation to say that a same sex couple can marry, the federal government cannot say that a same sex couple can enter a civil union. Furthermore, there is nothing to require ten different provincial schemes for civil union to correspond with each other. As we have already seen, such relationships in Québec provide no interest in community property or obligation for spousal maintenance upon dissolution.
So how are federal laws that impact spouses to be reconciled with 10 different provincial approaches to civil union? How are international legal matters (like cross-border child custody and guardianship, and passport and immigration matters) to be addressed?
Marriage is a known quantity, and there are centuries of jurisprudence to guide us as to how differences in marriage law are to be accommodated. All of that gets tossed out the window if you unceremoniously tear up the law of marriage and put a new construction in its place. Even countries that have disposed of legal recognition of religious marriage have retained the civil law concept of marriage in order to avoid precisely this fiasco.
Public policy should favour the simplest solution, rather than the most complex. If the price of religious adherents' peace of mind is the amendment of thousands of statutes, then I say it is not worth the price. Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden have all demonstrated that it is a simple legislative solution. Why sit on the beach and try to hold back the tide?
Forums ©
Read more Articles on Wrong Planet
Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2013,
Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank
. Alex does
public speaking for Autism.
Advertise on Wrong Planet
Terms of Service - You must read this as a user of Wrong Planet
|
Privacy Policy
Subscribe:
Wrong Planet News
Wrong Planet Forums