Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 80 Posts

·
Heresy Online's Pet Furby
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So, the French have signed an authorising law :)
Story here.

Thoughts from all you Heretics?


I think it's about time :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
I'll come right out and say I really don't understand why it is so important to gay folk.

In Australia the various states have recognised Gay couples as having the same status at law as married or de-facto for quite some time now, so I don't know how this changes things?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
528 Posts
I'll come right out and say I really don't understand why it is so important to gay folk.

In Australia the various states have recognised Gay couples as having the same status at law as married or de-facto for quite some time now, so I don't know how this changes things?
Language shapes perception. Even if in practice they have the same rights, by refusing to recognize gay couples as "married" you're drawing a distinct line between their relationship and a heterosexual relationship. I must admit I am not sure about the situation in France or Australia but here we have had our experience with the "separate but equal" mentality and it didn't go over well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
I'll come right out and say I really don't understand why it is so important to gay folk.
You have rushed to the hospital to see your partner of 15 years who has been in a terrible accident. It is clear that they do not have long. The doctor looks at you and says "We're so sorry, you can't be allowed to see them. The state doesn't recognize your civil union."

The problem isn't the fact that gays and lesbians can't have WEDDINGS. Weddings are sweet but ultimately secondary. It's that countries won't recognize MARRIAGES because of religious nonsense centered around a fundamental lack of understanding between the definition of marriage and the church's view of marriage. Government should recognize all marriages for tax and visitation and will privileges. Churches can be discriminatory on the basis of weddings, fine, don't need those. But the right to be married in the eyes of the law is important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
Gay Marriage was passed last month in New Zealand as well. It's like a big gay juggernaut, and the hits keep on coming.

I have to point out this speech from a New Zealand MP about their Gay Marriage bill, as it's pretty cool:

I'll come right out and say I really don't understand why it is so important to gay folk.

In Australia the various states have recognised Gay couples as having the same status at law as married or de-facto for quite some time now, so I don't know how this changes things?
No, no they have not. While there has been a push to standardize most of the day-to-day stuff, there are still important legal differences, both at home and when looking internationally at married gay couples coming to Australia or defacto gay couples going overseas, and how defacto or even "civil union" are not internationally recognized things in the same way that marriage is.

Plus, the term shapes perceptions, as mentioned, and having a government sanctioned institutional bias only encourages further bias, and helps marginalize gay couples.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
You have rushed to the hospital to see your partner of 15 years who has been in a terrible accident. It is clear that they do not have long. The doctor looks at you and says "We're so sorry, you can't be allowed to see them. The state doesn't recognize your civil union."

The problem isn't the fact that gays and lesbians can't have WEDDINGS. Weddings are sweet but ultimately secondary. It's that countries won't recognize MARRIAGES because of religious nonsense centered around a fundamental lack of understanding between the definition of marriage and the church's view of marriage. Government should recognize all marriages for tax and visitation and will privileges. Churches can be discriminatory on the basis of weddings, fine, don't need those. But the right to be married in the eyes of the law is important.
But that's my point, in Australia Civil Unions and De-factos are recognised as next of kin etc.

I get the marriage v wedding thing.

In Oz we have recognised same sex marriages since Federation (1901) , it was only about 10 years ago I think when a change was made to the legislation in marriages to make it read "between a man and a woman", I don't know why they did that or indeed why they don't take the 5 minutes to change it back and be done with it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,195 Posts
Oz is better at the whole rights thing than most other countries, that is why it is a big deal elsewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
Oz is better at the whole rights thing than most other countries, that is why it is a big deal elsewhere.
I'd like to believe we are, but we're actually not that great about it. It's quite likely that more than half of America's population will be living in places that recognize and allow same-sex marriages before we allow it anywhere in our nation. Sure, we'll almost certainly have it done long before Mississippi or Alabama, but that's not exactly something to shout about.

Our little cousin New Zealand has always had us beaten in spades in the recognizing human rights department. Damn sheep shaggers, showing us up :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Here in Spain we have had gay marriage for some time now. As I recall, the main issue has always been things like inheritance rights, shared property, the issue of important decisions that require "next of kin" and the previously mentioned visit-to-a-hospital scenario....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
You have rushed to the hospital to see your partner of 15 years who has been in a terrible accident. It is clear that they do not have long. The doctor looks at you and says "We're so sorry, you can't be allowed to see them. The state doesn't recognize your civil union."

The problem isn't the fact that gays and lesbians can't have WEDDINGS. Weddings are sweet but ultimately secondary. It's that countries won't recognize MARRIAGES because of religious nonsense centered around a fundamental lack of understanding between the definition of marriage and the church's view of marriage. Government should recognize all marriages for tax and visitation and will privileges. Churches can be discriminatory on the basis of weddings, fine, don't need those. But the right to be married in the eyes of the law is important.
It's pretty much this. It's not the big church weddings that they REALLY want (though some still want those), it's the ability to be legally the same as any other union. Wills, insurance, visitations rights at the hospital, ect. They don't get that right now and that's the problem.

At least that's been my understanding of the issue for a while now, as when the US Military repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" I had to go through some training regarding the fact that someone's same sex partner that they've become married to via civil union doesn't count as their spouse (legally at least). It's all a big fuster cluck really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,999 Posts
The only real problem I have with gay people is the strangely high percentage that have appallingly bad taste in music, I don't really see that as grounds for them not being allowed to suffer marriage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
You have rushed to the hospital to see your partner of 15 years who has been in a terrible accident. It is clear that they do not have long. The doctor looks at you and says "We're so sorry, you can't be allowed to see them. The state doesn't recognize your civil union."

The problem isn't the fact that gays and lesbians can't have WEDDINGS. Weddings are sweet but ultimately secondary. It's that countries won't recognize MARRIAGES because of religious nonsense centered around a fundamental lack of understanding between the definition of marriage and the church's view of marriage. Government should recognize all marriages for tax and visitation and will privileges. Churches can be discriminatory on the basis of weddings, fine, don't need those. But the right to be married in the eyes of the law is important.
It's a good point but really a non issue. A long time ago I asked one of my very bestest friends in the world about this. I had just found out he was opposed to gay marriage and kinda assumed that being gay himself he would just blindly support gay marriage. He laughed at me and said that argument is a sham. The issue of gay marriage is about dividing people for political purposes. The rights that so many people complain about are easily obtained through a living will. Does that grant them the same social security rights? No, but that can be addressed as a different issue.

In the past people have made the case for civil unions to compensate for the differences in the dependent/independent relationship as it pertains to taxes and other government benefits, but the gay activists countered with the separate but equal argument which essentially boils down to nothing but words which is curious considering that the activists are supposedly fighting for equal rights. Explanations arose later when certain states trying to legalize gay marriage included discrimination clauses which would result in the ability of gay couples to sue religious institutions for refusing to marry...

I am absolutely not opposed to equal rights. If tax cuts are good for married people (who have children otherwise their taxes are greater), which is considered a boon for the economy, then tax breaks for all people results in an even bigger boon for the economy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
No, no they have not. While there has been a push to standardize most of the day-to-day stuff, there are still important legal differences, both at home and when looking internationally at married gay couples coming to Australia or defacto gay couples going overseas, and how defacto or even "civil union" are not internationally recognized things in the same way that marriage is.
"Every state and territory legally recognises both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships as de facto couples and also legally recognises lesbian co-mothers as birth parents of children conceived through in vitro fertilisation or artificial insemination.

In the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria there are domestic partnership registries, while the other states and territories recognise de facto same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are allowed to jointly adopt children in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Western Australia, and may adopt their partner's stepchild in Tasmania. In all other states except South Australia, LGBT people are allowed to adopt individually.

At the federal or Commonwealth level, marriage has been explicitly defined as a union between a man and a woman since 2004, when the Marriage Amendment Act was passed. However, since 1 July 2009, same-sex couples receive the same level of recognition as de facto opposite-sex couples in federal legislation including tax, health, superannuation, and aged care."

There are a few differences here and there between the states but that is the case for all legislation in Oz, not just LGBT.

Seems to pretty much cover the Oz side of things. International recognition isn't going to be changed by anything we change in our laws. If de-facto and civil union aren't recognised by other countries then Same sex marriage isn't likely to be either.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
It's a good point but really a non issue. A long time ago I asked one of my very bestest friends in the world about this. I had just found out he was opposed to gay marriage and kinda assumed that being gay himself he would just blindly support gay marriage. He laughed at me and said that argument is a sham. The issue of gay marriage is about dividing people for political purposes. The rights that so many people complain about are easily obtained through a living will. Does that grant them the same social security rights? No, but that can be addressed as a different issue.

In the past people have made the case for civil unions to compensate for the differences in the dependent/independent relationship as it pertains to taxes and other government benefits, but the gay activists countered with the separate but equal argument which essentially boils down to nothing but words which is curious considering that the activists are supposedly fighting for equal rights. Explanations arose later when certain states trying to legalize gay marriage included discrimination clauses which would result in the ability of gay couples to sue religious institutions for refusing to marry...

I am absolutely not opposed to equal rights. If tax cuts are good for married people (who have children otherwise their taxes are greater), which is considered a boon for the economy, then tax breaks for all people results in an even bigger boon for the economy.
Living wills don't give you visitation rights at the hospital, don't cover you as a spouse under insurance and for those who want to adopt, they're not always treated the same as hetero-couples.

And just because your "bestest" friend wasn't for it doesn't mean it's a good idea. There is a lot of things that same-sex couples are being discriminated against through the fact that legally they don't count as "married". A civil union is not the same as a marriage, doesn't afford the same rights and is only recognized in a few of the states in the US.

The current system allows discrimination through the loophole of a civil union not being the same as a marriage, and these couples being denied the same rights as hetero-couples. And because of that, just like every other legally permitted chance to discriminate against people, it has to, and eventually will change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
The issue of gay marriage is about dividing people for political purposes. The rights that so many people complain about are easily obtained through a living will. Does that grant them the same social security rights? No, but that can be addressed as a different issue.
So... why the hesitation for marriage to just be defined legally as a contract between two consenting adults and leave it at that? Why deal with it 'as a separate issue'? Because I don't particularly care what churches think about gay weddings, I'm only interested in government respecting marriage as it pertains to government. There's no 'sanctity of marriage' in government circles except for the aforementioned religious groups crying bloody murder about how they'll be forced to cater to teh ghey when they simply -won't-. If push comes to shove no one is going to stand on principle and cry over a big church service. If I get married by a federal judge, I shouldn't have to be standing next to a man 'just because'.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,993 Posts
Living wills don't give you visitation rights at the hospital, don't cover you as a spouse under insurance and for those who want to adopt, they're not always treated the same as hetero-couples.
To further this, marriage grants over one thousand additional rights to the given couple (this, to me, makes civil unions a joke.)

Heres a link to just some of those, gods help you if you can find them all.


Also I call a bullshit on cheeto having a 'bestest' friend who is not only gay but thinks they should not have the right to legally marry whoever they want. Your honestly going to try and convince us that:

A. you have not ostracized someone close to you that is gay
B. your friend really wants to go about life knowing that they are denying themselves certain 'rights.'
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
To further this, marriage grants over one thousand additional rights to the given couple (this, to me, makes civil unions a joke.)

Heres a link to just some of those, gods help you if you can find them all.
That makes an interesting read, that is some very poorly framed legislation.

I can't say 100% but any Oz law I have read, granted that has been manly to do with property and contracts, uses the term "spouse". Spouse being a term that is neutral in sex and "status of union".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
"Every state and territory legally recognises both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships as de facto couples and also legally recognises lesbian co-mothers as birth parents of children conceived through in vitro fertilisation or artificial insemination.

In the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria there are domestic partnership registries, while the other states and territories recognise de facto same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are allowed to jointly adopt children in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Western Australia, and may adopt their partner's stepchild in Tasmania. In all other states except South Australia, LGBT people are allowed to adopt individually.

At the federal or Commonwealth level, marriage has been explicitly defined as a union between a man and a woman since 2004, when the Marriage Amendment Act was passed. However, since 1 July 2009, same-sex couples receive the same level of recognition as de facto opposite-sex couples in federal legislation including tax, health, superannuation, and aged care."

There are a few differences here and there between the states but that is the case for all legislation in Oz, not just LGBT.

Seems to pretty much cover the Oz side of things. International recognition isn't going to be changed by anything we change in our laws. If de-facto and civil union aren't recognised by other countries then Same sex marriage isn't likely to be either.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/banning-gay-marriage-impacts-on-skilled-migration-20130518-2jt27.html

It very much matters internationally. I can tell you, when my sister was trying to get her partner into the country, there were a lot more hoops to jump through than if they had been allowed to just get married and having it legally recognized. Plus, if someone registered their relationship in a state here in Australia, it's not recognized overseas, and not even necessarily in all other Australian states.

More to the point, if you're going to give everyone the exact same rights in every way, why not just call it what it is: A Marriage? It's like you give someone a bun, a pattie, lettuce, tomato, onion and sauce, but say they can't call it a burger, because they're not allowed burgers. It's ridiculous in the extreme, except to deliberately discriminate against the person by implying they're not good enough to have the ACTUAL thing.

Lastly, imagine, just for a moment, that Interracial couples could get a "registered relationship" but that interracial marriage was banned, because they simply weren't good enough to qualify. Would that stand do you think? No, it'd be denounced as racist policy, even though they got the same rights as married couples. The ban on same-sex marriage is similarly Homophobic, something that I think we should not accept as an official national position. And 65% of Australians agree with me, which makes it a national tragedy that our politicians won't get it done.
 
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
Top