| Should the US Federal Government Recognize Same-Sex Marriages? |
| Yes |
|
84% |
[ 58 ] |
| No |
|
7% |
[ 5 ] |
| Just display the results |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 69 |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| AstroGeek wrote: | Personally I like the proposal of the Green Party of England and Whales: to extend the right to a marriage to same sex couples and to extend the right to a civil union to opposite sex couples. That way if people don't like the religious connotations of marriage they can opt for the civil union. I don't know if it's really all that necessary a thing to do, but I can't imagine it would cost too much, so why not. I know that John Barrowman refuses to refer to his civil union as a marriage because of the religious background, so obviously some people would still have a preference.
For myself, I'm somewhat of a romantic, so if I'm ever lucky enough to find a boyfriend (some days I wonder) I'd like to get married some day. Although I'm an atheist, so if I'd prefer that no priest was involved. |
That would work too. But in many cases, the "different names for the same thing" approach is used to keep marriage exlusive to opposite-sex couples and restrict the rights of same-sex couples. Such as in Germany, where gays and lesbians can only join in so-called registered partnerships that don't have the same legal benefits as traditional marriage (such as tax benefits and joint adoption rights). That's why I'm opposed to calling marriage anything but marriage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CrazyCatLord wrote: | | AstroGeek wrote: | Personally I like the proposal of the Green Party of England and Whales: to extend the right to a marriage to same sex couples and to extend the right to a civil union to opposite sex couples. That way if people don't like the religious connotations of marriage they can opt for the civil union. I don't know if it's really all that necessary a thing to do, but I can't imagine it would cost too much, so why not. I know that John Barrowman refuses to refer to his civil union as a marriage because of the religious background, so obviously some people would still have a preference.
For myself, I'm somewhat of a romantic, so if I'm ever lucky enough to find a boyfriend (some days I wonder) I'd like to get married some day. Although I'm an atheist, so if I'd prefer that no priest was involved. |
That would work too. But in many cases, the "different names for the same thing" approach is used to keep marriage exlusive to opposite-sex couples and restrict the rights of same-sex couples. Such as in Germany, where gays and lesbians can only join in so-called registered partnerships that don't have the same legal benefits as traditional marriage (such as tax benefits and joint adoption rights). That's why I'm opposed to calling marriage anything but marriage. |
I agree with you in that I think same sex couples should absolutely be allowed to marry and that the government should call it a marriage. I just think that some people, regardless of sexual orientation, would prefer to have a civil union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
YippySkippy
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 27, 2011
Posts: 1516
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In America we have an ideal called "separation of Church and State". It means that the government (State) shall not involve itself in religious matters. The word "Church" in this usage does not refer specifically to Christian churches, but to ANY religious organization. Synagogues, temples, even an individual's personal spiritual beliefs would fall under the category of "Church".
So, when I refer to the separation of Church and State, I am NOT talking about Christianity. I am NOT saying Christians hold a monopoly on the concept of marriage. That would be an absurd thing to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:20 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. |
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 never 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?
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| @visagrunt: I think that YippySkippy was referring to civil unions such as those offered to same-sex couples in the UK. From my understanding those do involve government paperwork and a license. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kein_Mitleid
Raven
Joined: Sep 25, 2011
Age: 20
Posts: 102
Location: West Virginia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is the dumbest question I've ever heard.
Of course same-sex couples should be able to marry.
Whether or not married couples should be allowed to receive what many on here call unfair benefits is another question though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
YippySkippy
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 27, 2011
Posts: 1516
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 never 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). |
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). |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| 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?
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
CSBurks
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 30, 2012
Posts: 652
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| 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.
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
CSBurks
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 30, 2012
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I should note that I don't believe in government either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| 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?
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
YippySkippy
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 27, 2011
Posts: 1516
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
starkid
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 10, 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 721
Location: California Bay Area
|
| 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.
_________________
Assume nothing, question everything.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| 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.
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
