But they're not the same because their ingredients are different.
I have maintained that if California's Domestic Partnerships are Constitutional, so is the California Marriage Amendment, Proposition 8. DPs are only available to same-sex couples or to couples including someone over a certain age (in the 60s, if I recall correctly). While California law mandates that DP participants be treated as spouses, DPs are not the same thing as marriage and aren't supposed to be the same thing as marriage. While there may be some man-woman couples who want a DP rather than a marriage, it is okay for the state to tell them "no" – just as it is okay for the state to tell a brideless or groomless couple, or three or more people, that they can't get a state marriage license. This is because a bride+groom pairing is objectively different from the pairing of two women or two men.
Associated Press writer Jill Lawless reports that a British man+woman couple, Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, is seeking a civil partnership, or perhaps more precisely, they are seeking a courtroom battle. (From what I understand, coffee caught on in America due to protest against tea's British connection.)
I'm not too familiar with British law, and so I wonder if it would be likely for a court to "engender" civil partnerships without neutering marriage.The 26-year-old Londoners think they should be allowed to have a civil partnership, a form of legal union available in Britain only to same-sex couples.
On Tuesday, after having their application to form a civil partnership rejected by officials at their local town hall in Islington, north London, they said they will go to court to win the right. They are being backed by gay rights activists, who hope a ruling that allows straight couples the right to a civil partnership would mean, in turn, that gay couples have the right to wed.
[Much more after the jump.]
"The titles of husband and wife and all the things that pop into people's heads when you say you're getting married don't appeal to us," said Doyle, a student. "In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners — we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that."This is understandable. I think fornication and unmarried cohabitation based on fornication are morally wrong, but shouldn't be illegal, and I can understand this being a possible position for a couple in today's culture.
Marriage and civil partnership are virtually identical in law, and activists argue both should be open to all couples.No, we should have a different word for something that unites a bride and groom, because marriage should hold a special place in the law and the state is most concerned about the kind of pairing that may produce new citizens.
Some legal experts think there is a strong case, because discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation infringes Britain's human rights law.It isn't on the basis of sexual orientation. It is on the basis of behavior and sex. Men and women are not identical, nor are heterosexual or homosexual behaviors indentical. If they were, the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" and "transgender" would be meaningless nonsense.
Britain introduced civil partnerships in 2005, giving [same-sex] couples the same legal protection, adoption and inheritance rights as heterosexual married partners - but not the label of marriage.It only took five years for the Trojan Horse to serve its real purpose.
The Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Portugal and Spain have [neutered] marriage, while Germany, France, Austria and Switzerland have laws similar to Britain's.And many, many other countries don't.
"We really appreciate the civil partnerships," said Sharon Ferguson, a pastor in the Metropolitan Community Church who hopes to wed partner Franka Strietzel but has been turned down for a marriage license. "But particularly because of my Christian faith, it's marriage that I want."
Which Christian faith is that? In both the Bible and the history of Christianity, marriage has always been presented as something uniting a bride and a groom.
As I've said before, I lean towards support for domestic partnerships or civil unions, though their use as a Trojan Horse means I can’t advocate them, because I care about marriage more than making things more convenient for adults who choose to share their life with someone of the same sex. I also can see why some marriage defenders think that they devalue marriage aside from the Trojan Horse thing, but if they encourage stability in same-sex relationships, that might be enough of a positive to outweigh the negative.
In conclusion, I want to see the British courts recognize that a pairing inclusive of the diversity of both sexes is different than a pairing that excludes one of the sexes, and thus laws making a distinction are just.
That's nice.
ReplyDeleteBut government isn't interested in feelings though, it is interested in obligations. If their relationship isn't platonic, but rather sexual, we assume sex may occur and the possibility of a dependent third party, what is called a child.
Children have rights also, and they would be happy if their mother and father would parent as one unit. Children don't care what you 'feel like', but they do demand that mom and dad wouldn't be so self-absorbed about themselves.
"Children have rights also, and they would be happy if their mother and father would parent as one unit."
ReplyDeleteSince singles and same-sex couples are free to be parents in all 50 states legally, how are observations about parenting relevant to same-sex marriage? We know that same-sex couples are going to raise children. Wouldn't those children be better off with married parents?
So, Royal Oaker, would you support bans on same-sex couples having custody? Would such bans make bride+groom requirements in marriage licensing okay?
ReplyDeleteThe state is under no obligation to encourage unmarried people or same-sex couples to raise children; it could be argues that that state has an interest in encouraging only raising children under a bride+groom coupling.
Royal Oaker, Do you realize you make absolutely no sense. Actually I know you realize that, you're nothing more then a broken record at this point.
ReplyDeleteThe law recognizes parents, the law didn't create the legal concept of parents. The idea of parents is based on science, not man's law. If you don't have sex with the OPPOSITE SEX to become pregnant or impregnate, then you don't become a parent. The idea is to promote the stabilization and unification of families, is what we use to call marriage. I think we should return to this anthropological kinship model.
Why is this a threat to homosexual couples?
Royal Oaker, We have a term I think may help you.
ReplyDeleteThat already exists.
Guardian: A legal term for a non-parent raising a minor child.
For example if I die, the legal guardians of my children will be two cousins, who aren't married, but instead full biological brother and sister. As legal guardians of my children, can they marry? Or should they be barred from being legal guardians because they can't marry each other?
ReplyDelete“So, Royal Oaker, would you support bans on same-sex couples having custody?”
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Every human being has the right to reproduce and to form a romantic relationship with another consenting adult. Combine those two things and you have same-sex parents.
“Would such bans make bride+groom requirements in marriage licensing okay?”
Probably not. Many couples can’t reproduce or don’t want children and they can marry. Prohibiting same-sex marriage still violates the constitutional rights of gay people.
“The state is under no obligation to encourage unmarried people or same-sex couples to raise children”
The state is under no obligation to encourage married straight people to have children, and does little to nothing to encourage such behavior. The state does have an interest in treating all its citizens equally, because the nation’s constitution requires doing so. The state also has an interest in seeing raised in the best possible environment, and that is with married parents. Since both opposite-sex and same-sex couples can marry, all children should have a chance to be raised by married parents.
“Royal Oaker, Do you realize you make absolutely no sense.”
ReplyDeleteNo I don’t realize that. I make a lot of sense. You? Maybe not so much.
“If you don't have sex with the OPPOSITE SEX to become pregnant or impregnate, then you don't become a parent.”
Well what do you call the lesbian woman who obtained some sperm and got pregnant? What is her relationship to the child she birthed? What about the straight woman who bought some sperm because her husband is sterile, but they want to be parents anyway?
“The idea is to promote the stabilization and unification of families”
This worthy goal is just as useful to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples!
Why is same-sex marriage such a threat to some straight people?
"Guardian: A legal term for a non-parent raising a minor child."
ReplyDeleteI don't think a woman who gives birth to a child considers herself merely a guardian. See lesbian example above.
If you are going to have "civil partnerships" they should be open to anyone cohabiting. It need not have anything to do with sex. If society wishes to give the privileges and benefits of marriage to anyone cohabiting it is free to do so. A grandmother caring for her granddaughter, etc. should then have those benefits.
ReplyDeleteMany mono-sexual relationships would like the special privileges of marriage but they are primarily interested in the social affirmation of their relationship and imagine usurping the term marriage will accomplish this. This was implicit in the Iowa judges emphasizing that homosexuals are an "historically disfavored class," something that is irrelevant to the issue of marriage.
A man may pretend to be a woman and a woman may pretend to be a man but no matter how hard they try or mutilate themselves they can never really be. It's certainly a sad condition but that's reality. After intensely playing the role of the opposite sex they may convince themselves that they have succeeded in that transmutation. They then go on to the next stage, which is to try and convince everyone else that they have. It's the same with pretend marriages.
I certainly would not try to facilitate homosexual relationships at all, much less encourage that such behaviors become "committed" or permanent. Using the term "civil" or "domestic partnership," that is open to anyone, does not involve me in encouraging immoral and unhealthy practices.
Peace.
“If you are going to have "civil partnerships" they should be open to anyone cohabiting. It need not have anything to do with sex.”
ReplyDeleteI think they are, although civil partnerships are only a short-term stopgap until full marriage equality can be arranged.
“Many mono-sexual relationships would like the special privileges of marriage but they are primarily interested in the social affirmation of their relationship and imagine usurping the term marriage will accomplish this.”
Well, yeah. Lots of couples get married, in part, because they like the social status of being married.
“This was implicit in the Iowa judges emphasizing that homosexuals are an "historically disfavored class," something that is irrelevant to the issue of marriage.”
I also wondered why they referred to gays and lesbians as an historically disfavored class since, though true, it wouldn’t matter if they weren’t, in terms of granting marriage equality rights. But I think the point was, by excluding gays and lesbians from marriage, the state’s DOMA statute was designed specifically to reinforce the second-class citizenship of Iowa’s gays and lesbians, rather than do something positive for straight marriage.
“I certainly would not try to facilitate homosexual relationships at all, much less encourage that such behaviors become "committed" or permanent. Using the term "civil" or "domestic partnership," that is open to anyone, does not involve me in encouraging immoral and unhealthy practices.”
If you grant gays and lesbians civil unions with equal rights as marriage, aren’t you encouraging “immoral and unhealthy practices”?
"If you grant gays and lesbians civil unions with equal rights as marriage, aren’t you encouraging “immoral and unhealthy practices”?"
ReplyDeleteThat is correct.
Then how are civil unions an appropriate solution, in your mind? If marriage encourages "immoral and unhealthy practices," in your mind, how are civil unions any better?
ReplyDeleteMarriage does not encourage immoral and unhealthy practices. The condoning of homosexual relationships under any circumstances encourages immoral and unhealthy practices.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm saying is that whether you call it a "civil union," "civil partnership," whatever, it should be open to anyone so that we are not offering any special privileges or benefits for homosexuals. We are not inquiring into whether the relationship engages in sexual activity or not. If two or three brothers or friends are cohabiting, or an aunt and niece, etc., are living together, they would be eligible for those benefits. So, we do not inquire as to whether or not the two friends living together are engaging in sex with each other. The application would not ask if they are having sex or worse still, be exclusively for those engaging in homosexual activity, as most of this licenses are now created.
Now, I am in no way even suggesting that I would vote for any such licenses. I think it would be a costly and confusing arrangement. This is simply something that would be much better than anything that condones and affirms homosexual relationships.
Since homosexuality is perfectly normal, creating a separate institution for them makes no sense. I could see creating a separate institution for people who have been married and divorced several times, because they aren't very good at it and harm the reputation of marriage. I think if someone has two failed marriages, it's fair to say, "no more marriages but you can have a civil union."
ReplyDeleteSomeone like Rush Limbaugh, with three divorces, would be prohibited from marrying anymore, like someone who fails a driving test or something only gets so many chances to get it right. That would really preserve the sanctity of marriage, and say that society takes marriage seriously. It would stop careless straight people like a drunken Britney Spears from getting married for 55 hours, or that lady in Indiana who's been married 24 times and is trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Record for most marriages.
Since homosexuality is perfectly normal, creating a separate institution for them makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteI's not even about whether it's normal, it's about whether it has the same needs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1
I could see creating a separate institution for people who have been married and divorced several times, because they aren't very good at it and harm the reputation of marriage. I think if someone has two failed marriages, it's fair to say, "no more marriages but you can have a civil union."
ReplyDeleteNow on this you actually may be on to something.
Hey, what do you guys think about gay divorce? Are gay people allowed to get divorced, now that they are allowed to get married? Or is divorce off limits, too?
ReplyDelete"Gay divorce" is an impossibility since it's impossible for them to form a marriage.
ReplyDelete