LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:20 am

Fridmarr wrote:Granted my ultimately desired solution is to not have a legal concept of marriage anyhow (civil unions for all, imo), but that's simply not going to happen.  So the pragmatist in me sees this as the best alternative.


Well, depending on the viewpoint we are fast approaching that in Denmark. Marriage (and registered partnership for same-sex unions previously carries certain rights and duties. One of the most principal duties (and rights) in a marriage, that is not extended to people living together (we have a term for people that live in a marriage-like relationship for 2 years or more) is interdependency / mutual provider duty. This is now, in the social security areas, being extended to unmarried couples that are living together, so the rights and duties associated with the legal union conferred by marriage is now almost fully transferred to unmarried couples as well (granted, the reform hasn't been ironed out or even reached a majority settlement, its just the governments suggestion to parliament so far) - the only thingsunmarried couples are restricted in if this goes through (apart from some arcane priveleges) is joint tax filing (which is as much a benefit as it is a problem) and inheriting eachother outside of massive fees (since unmarried couples are, by definition not related).

So come another 5 or 10 years, marriage as an institution will probably be purely symbolic and religious.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:35 pm

Nooska wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Granted my ultimately desired solution is to not have a legal concept of marriage anyhow (civil unions for all, imo), but that's simply not going to happen.  So the pragmatist in me sees this as the best alternative.


Well, depending on the viewpoint we are fast approaching that in Denmark. Marriage (and registered partnership for same-sex unions previously carries certain rights and duties. One of the most principal duties (and rights) in a marriage, that is not extended to people living together (we have a term for people that live in a marriage-like relationship for 2 years or more) is interdependency / mutual provider duty. This is now, in the social security areas, being extended to unmarried couples that are living together, so the rights and duties associated with the legal union conferred by marriage is now almost fully transferred to unmarried couples as well (granted, the reform hasn't been ironed out or even reached a majority settlement, its just the governments suggestion to parliament so far) - the only thingsunmarried couples are restricted in if this goes through (apart from some arcane priveleges) is joint tax filing (which is as much a benefit as it is a problem) and inheriting eachother outside of massive fees (since unmarried couples are, by definition not related).

So come another 5 or 10 years, marriage as an institution will probably be purely symbolic and religious.


The issue with both Fridmarr's desired solution, and apparently Denmark's, is that it is not recognised as a marriage abroad. If you have a couple travelling to a place where same-sex marriage is permissible, they would not be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of that state. That could mean they have no rights to hospital visitation in the event of a medical emergency.

The institution of marriage is recognised world-wide, although same-sex marriages are not always recognised. Civil unions are recognised in fewer countries, and de-facto relationships are recognised in even fewer. So while the designation may be fine within the country, it is different and therefore not equal to an actual marriage.

The US tried that back in the mid-1900s with segregated schools. "Separate But Equal" was the motto. In principal it worked - what is the harm if both whites and blacks get the same education, and only the buildings are different? In reality it wasn't equal, and fostered the perception that there needed to be a distinction between whites and blacks.

Similarly, there needs to be no distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage. It needs to just be "marriage". Not something similar, or something equal, but actually the same thing. It's nice that people propose methods to recognise same-sex couples and give them some legal standing, but as long as it is not actual marriage there is more work to do.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2007
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:17 pm


Similarly, there needs to be no distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage. It needs to just be "marriage". Not something similar, or something equal, but actually the same thing. It's nice that people propose methods to recognise same-sex couples and give them some legal standing, but as long as it is not actual marriage there is more work to do.


Sorry, there's no "like" button on the board. I agree 100%
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6379
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:22 pm

Koatanga wrote:The issue with both Fridmarr's desired solution, and apparently Denmark's, is that it is not recognised as a marriage abroad. If you have a couple travelling to a place where same-sex marriage is permissible, they would not be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of that state. That could mean they have no rights to hospital visitation in the event of a medical emergency.

That's pretty trivial to solve through the diplomatic process.

I don't agree with separate but equal either, so that's not at all what my desired solution entails.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:46 pm

Koatanga wrote:The issue with both Fridmarr's desired solution, and apparently Denmark's, is that it is not recognised as a marriage abroad. If you have a couple travelling to a place where same-sex marriage is permissible, they would not be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of that state. That could mean they have no rights to hospital visitation in the event of a medical emergency.

I don't wish to put words in Fridmarr's mouth, but I think the idea is to get away from the term "marriage" and let that be a religious term. You can get "married" through your church or whatever, but if you want any sort of recognition outside of your religious institution, then you need to enter into a civil union* in the presence of a justice of the peace (or whatever the current process is minus the big wedding/reception part which is basically just "fluff.")

That I'd be okay with, but it would require making the distinction that a "marriage" doesn't provide any sort of benefits (hospital visitation, joint taxes, survivor benefits) and civil unions* do.

*Or whatever terminology is decided. I couldn't give two shits what they want to call it, so long as it's the same for everyone.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3955
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:27 am

Skye1013 wrote:
Koatanga wrote:The issue with both Fridmarr's desired solution, and apparently Denmark's, is that it is not recognised as a marriage abroad. If you have a couple travelling to a place where same-sex marriage is permissible, they would not be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of that state. That could mean they have no rights to hospital visitation in the event of a medical emergency.

I don't wish to put words in Fridmarr's mouth, but I think the idea is to get away from the term "marriage" and let that be a religious term. You can get "married" through your church or whatever, but if you want any sort of recognition outside of your religious institution, then you need to enter into a civil union* in the presence of a justice of the peace (or whatever the current process is minus the big wedding/reception part which is basically just "fluff.")

That I'd be okay with, but it would require making the distinction that a "marriage" doesn't provide any sort of benefits (hospital visitation, joint taxes, survivor benefits) and civil unions* do.

*Or whatever terminology is decided. I couldn't give two shits what they want to call it, so long as it's the same for everyone.

That's completely unrealistic. Once an idea exists and spreads, you can't kill it. The idea of marriage not only exists, but has been THE traditional grouping for thousands of years.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2007
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:54 am

As for the danish solution, that wouldn't be a problem, as the laws are being changed to inflict the duties of being married on unmarried couples, so over a 5-10 year period of changing laws, being legally "married" is just something that happens automatically - as is the only reason another (national) state allows married couples specific rights in case of emergencies ( to stay with that example) is because a legal union is claimed - I've yet to hear of any place requiring proof of said union from either part.
As for the rights to make decisions - if my gay neighbors (diclaimer, I hae no knowledge of my neighbors' sexuality) are legally joined here, they have the powers to make decisions in medical emergencies in any country regardless of whether that country (or state for the US) recognizes the union, as the legal powers stem from the legal union, and the powers remain, even though the union itself would not be recognized - a gay and joined couple does not need to carry seperate and notarized forms detailing power of attourney or proxies when traveling, to retain said powers.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Lieris » Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:54 am

Koatanga wrote:The issue with both Fridmarr's desired solution, and apparently Denmark's, is that it is not recognised as a marriage abroad. If you have a couple travelling to a place where same-sex marriage is permissible, they would not be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of that state. That could mean they have no rights to hospital visitation in the event of a medical emergency.

The institution of marriage is recognised world-wide, although same-sex marriages are not always recognised. Civil unions are recognised in fewer countries, and de-facto relationships are recognised in even fewer. So while the designation may be fine within the country, it is different and therefore not equal to an actual marriage.

The US tried that back in the mid-1900s with segregated schools. "Separate But Equal" was the motto. In principal it worked - what is the harm if both whites and blacks get the same education, and only the buildings are different? In reality it wasn't equal, and fostered the perception that there needed to be a distinction between whites and blacks.

Similarly, there needs to be no distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage. It needs to just be "marriage". Not something similar, or something equal, but actually the same thing. It's nice that people propose methods to recognise same-sex couples and give them some legal standing, but as long as it is not actual marriage there is more work to do.


Spot on.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel; have marriage for everyone then draw the line under this. One law for all. All this talk of getting rid of marriages (an internationally recognised concept) or allowing the religious to have a monopoly over it is a load of rubbish that needlessly complicates an issue that is really very simple: equality.
Lieris
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:49 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:34 pm

No one's talking about getting rid of the concept, or anything other than equality.

It's been the current integration with religion that's left a sort of tight coupling that has caused much angst and confusion throughout history. I totally get how and why it occurred, but it's hard to argue with the results.

I agree that it's unrealistic at this point, it was a bit of an aside comment, but things would have been much cleaner had we started from a point with a proper separation of concerns.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:16 am

What Fridmarr seems to be proposing (as far as I understand it) is something akin to... (Oh I'm in so much trouble here) the Netherlands, where the legal union is one entered into purely with the state, and any religious ceremony is something you do afterwards if thats your thing (I remember the marriage of - some royal - in the netherlands having to go through it twice because the big church thing was a given - after they went to city hall)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fivelives » Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:14 am

I'm pretty sure that's the way it works here, too. Even if you're getting married in a religious ceremony, don't you still have to apply for and get a marriage license?
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:26 am

Isn't a marriage license just a checkup of whether you qualify for marriage? I know in theory you have to do that here too (in practise you just go down and they run a computer search) - a holdout from the days before central registration and computers, where the priest in teh church you were getting married in had to clear the request at least 3 times on different weeks during church services. (Doing genealogy, looking through church records teaches you a lot)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:16 am

The license is issued after a records search to determine that both parties are eligible to marry - are of legal age, are not currently married to anyone else, etc. In NZ there is also a blood test. I know they check for HIV, but I don't know what other things they check for.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2007
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:37 am

Blood test for eligibility for marriage, wow.

But yeah, exactly the reaosn that the priest on olden days cleared it by announcing it in the parish where the marriage was to take place, and usually in neighbouring parishes as well.
In denmark we have the Central Person Register, which contains all that information including where you live and have lived and such - so its just a lookup these days.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fivelives » Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:04 pm

Koatanga wrote:The license is issued after a records search to determine that both parties are eligible to marry - are of legal age, are not currently married to anyone else, etc. In NZ there is also a blood test. I know they check for HIV, but I don't know what other things they check for.


It could be to check degree of relation? According to wiki, incest is illegal in NZ.

Wikipedia wrote:Some forms of incest are illegal in New Zealand. Incest is illegal between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and between siblings and half-siblings. It is a defence if the person was unaware of the relationship at the time of the act, and only those 16 and over can be convicted of incest. A conviction for incest attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest