Same Sex Marraige and Civil Unions

[Pilmour Boy]

Massachusetts seems like it's going to be allowing same sex marriage soon.
Link: http://us.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/gay.ma ... index.html

The UK has a new civil partnerships scheme about to happen, and Canada (I believe) already allows them.

What are people views on this?

Finally getting rid of a sign of intolerance?

Or a violation of a sacred institution?

I know where I stand, and St Andrews has a reputation as a fairly liberal institution, so let's see what everybody here thinks.

edits: It's early in the morning and I can't spell.

[Pilmour Boy]

I forgot to say that I'm sure we'd also be interested to know why you think these things. As this is such a contentious issue, I'm sure some people would prefer to remain anonymous- and if so do and post as an unregistered user, but please do contribute.

[Plette]

[s]Pilmour Boy wrote on 00:51, 19th Nov 2003:

The UK has a new civil partnerships scheme about to happen, and Canada (I believe) already allows them.


Same-sex marriage is now legal in Canada, yes. A few months back the courts decided that the traditional definition of marriage was a violation of human rights, and made it legal. Our crazy right wing party fought it tooth and nail, and churches objected, but it went through anyway. The way is stands now is that same sex marriages are fully legal and completely equal with heterosexual marriage (not some half-assed "civil union"), but churches are not obligated to marry anyone contrary to their own beliefs. Thus if you're Anglican, you're free to get married in Canada but the Anglican Church is not forced to recognise it or perform the ceremony if they don't want to. I am very, very proud of our government for taking this step, and I think it is long overdue. Of course I think the churches are ridiculous for taking this stance, but I also think it's a good thing that their own religious freedoms aren't being violated.

Who is the goverment to say who can and can't get married? I mean, if reinforcing the "traditional, moral" definition of marriage was their scope, shouldn't adultery be illegal? But it's not, and most people would consider that a gross overstepping of bounds these days, I think. I'm all for complete equality for homosexual couples.

[hr]
Sola lingua bona est lingua morta.

[Bryn]

The civil union legislation should be extended to include unmarried heterosexual couples, because at the moment they are the group being left out.

[hr]http://bryn.ipfox.com

[tintin]

I fail to see how exactly a homosexual "marriage" can be anything but a meaningless travesty which wholly undermines the original concept of marriage in the first place. It is an absolute disgrace that people can get away with the mere proposition, let alone allowing Christian "blessing" ceremonies for same-sex unions.

I understand that some people may have alternative sexualities, and have no problem with this whatsoever. What I have a problem with is the adaptation of Chrisitan ceremonies to suit the demands of those who are quite unwilling to bend to the requirements of the Christian faith.

[Fenella Ice]

[s]tintin wrote on 09:03, 19th Nov 2003:
It is an absolute disgrace that people can get away with the mere proposition, let alone allowing Christian "blessing" ceremonies for same-sex unions.

I understand that some people may have alternative sexualities, and have no problem with this whatsoever. What I have a problem with is the adaptation of Chrisitan ceremonies to suit the demands of those who are quite unwilling to bend to the requirements of the Christian faith.


the concept of marriage isnt only found in the christian religion, its found in just about every religion around the world in one form or another. the main reason for this ruling is so that the couple can get the same rights and benefits given to married couples under government laws that heterosexual couples recieve.

[hr]
Duct tape is the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

http://www.fenella.diary-x.com

[Al]

[s]Bryn wrote on 08:40, 19th Nov 2003:
The civil union legislation should be extended to include unmarried heterosexual couples, because at the moment they are the group being left out.


Yes - they should be allowed to marry as well. Erm....hang on..........

[hr]
Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

If we look at dictionary.com's definition...

1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.

Legal union! Not religious. Burn your high-horses now.

[Buzzboy]

Yeah,

Marriage was instituted to ensure the safe passage of property amongst the ruling classes. Let's not forget that until the victorian era marriage was only for the wealthy and most people in the UK were not legally married - however the church seems to have had no problem with this.

Personally I feel that Christian churches are so hypocritical and confused over so many issues in modern society that I often wonder how they can dare raise their heads above the parapit, but still they do...

[hr]On the Seventh Day God said to Adam:

"Can I leave it with you?"

[Cain]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 09:19, 19th Nov 2003:
If we look at dictionary.com's definition...


my 2nd most visited web site, after this one.

[hr]
I hold an element of surprise

[Miss Maryland]

Eric Idle said 'I think gay marriages should be legalized- it's only fair that they suffer as much as we do!'

[hr]...and there was much rejoicing.

[Bryn]

There certainly should be some sort of legal recognition of unmarried and gay couples. An example where it might be needed is hospital. Homosexual/unmarried partners can have no legal standing to see their ill partner if the family objects.

[hr]http://bryn.ipfox.com

[LeopardSkinQueen]

This 'civil partnerships' scheme is still a two-tier system, however. Make it a real gay marriage, not some wishy-washy halfway house concept. The Canadian system Plette describes sounds good.

[hr][s]"Surely a young man like you has needs, Mister Kenobi. American Express can pay for them."

"Will it pay for dancing boys?"
http://www.siubhan.com/sithacademy/frame.html
[/s]

[EviLTwiN]

yup.

and marriage, even if it was a christian thing, which it wasn't, certainly isn't regarded as a religious thing by a lot of people now. Even if you're not religious you still get married. It just so happens that if you want to be traditional and get married in a church it has to be a religious service... the religious aspect nowadays isn't for most people part of the marriage.

Religions should stop trying to make people believe they are at the centre of society.
Given how believing in a god is irrational anyway I can see how people could extend that to making the comments regarding marriage.

[hr]IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif
[s]http://www.fotolog.net/flash_scotland[rar!]......[/s]

[Pilmour Boy]

I would disagree with dictionary.com's definition of marriage, as it contains two contradictory definitions.

In the western world, didn't marriage in the eyes of the church come before marriage in the eyes of the state?

I personally wouldn't have marriage being a legal thing at all, but rather civil partnerships for everybody, irrespective of sexuality.

[hr]Nothing in life is free.
The only things that change are who pays for it, and when they pay.

[Kibet]

even if you are married in a church, you are not legally married until you sign the documents and so really the marraige ceremony in the church is actually just a blessing.

i think the main benefit that same sex marraiges allow is for the partner to be next of kin.

i saw an ER episode once that addressed this. the woman was too sick to write a DNR form and because her partner was of the same sex, she had no legal right to sign the DNR. i think she was also estranged from her family and so the family would not give the DNR order.

also there is the other aspect of death, in which if the house is in the dead partners name, then they could find themselves out on the street.


DNR = do not resusitate

[Tweedledum]

I find absolutely no objections to a union, as long as it is not actually marriage in the church sense. You could give it another name and no religious significance and then nobody should really bother, but when it's marriage it's for purposes such as inheritance and having children that aren't bastards. Gay couples surprisingly have trouble with the whole children thing, and ofcourse marriage is (or should be) a church thing. As long as it is not forced upon or thought to be a sanctity of the church then it should be allowed


[hr]
"No man is an Island"
John Donne
"I'm an island, I'm bloody Ibiza"
Will Freeman (a la Nick Hornby/Hugh Grant)

[Al]

"even if you are married in a church, you are not legally married until you sign the documents and so really the marraige ceremony in the church is actually just a blessing."

It depends on what church you are talking about. Clergy in the Established church have the legal authority to perform marriages. Once the officant reaches the bit in the service where he/she says "you are married" (or whatever) then you are married. Clergy in any other church have no legal authority to conduct weddings and that is why they do not.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[Kibet]

[s]Al wrote on 12:28, 19th Nov 2003:
[i]"even if you are married in a church, you are not legally married until you sign the documents and so really the marraige ceremony in the church is actually just a blessing."

It depends on what church you are talking about. Clergy in the Established church have the legal authority to perform marriages. Once the officant reaches the bit in the service where he/she says "you are married" (or whatever) then you are married. Clergy in any other church have no legal authority to conduct weddings and that is why they do not.

[/i]

but the ceremony itself does not officially marry them, its the signing of the bit of paper. the whole ceremony is just a show of public affection.
if a couple in a church run out after saying i do and them pronouncing them husband and wife then they will not be legally married. unless the signing takes place before the aforementioned husband and wife'.

[naughty boys and girls don't go to heaven]

As someone who isn't comfortable with those sorts of people, I don't think it should be allowed. Am I in a minority or are they?