Gay Marriage

Spread of Venereal disease .............

Think maybe they should have an office in every high school?

Well, I'm really just wondering:
(source: Capital News 9)

In most Europian countries, only courts can change any decisions made by registration offices.

But, who can fire the registrars?

What is the state of same sex marriage in Europe Walter?

Are these rumblings of an oppressive state going to settle down or should they aspire to 2084 as the true date of Orwell's story?

Registrars are civil servants here - never heard of one being fired.


In Germany, since 2001 homosexual couples can seal their partnership at local government offices. They can require a court decision for divorce, and they also got rights given to heterosexual spouses in areas such as inheritance and health insurance.

In the Netherlands, legislation grants homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couple, including the right to adopt children.
(Very similar law in Belgium.)

Besides in Germany, limited civil union rights exist in France and the [not sure, if in all!] Scandinavian countries.

Last year, the European Parliament has called for member states to recognize gay families (more than an "advice": EU member states are now required to adapt to the stance of the European Parliament. It is expected to be a lengthy process, beginning with member states harmonizing existing laws.), since Italy, Spain, Greece, Ireland Luxemburg and Austria do not recognize any form of gay civil union. (If one partner in a Dutch gay couple who were legally married, were transferred by his employer to Italy, for example, the marriage would not be recognized by the Italian government.)

It surprised me to learn that the new civil union available to all persons in France allows gays to marry, but that they cannot adopt, and are restricted in some other ways straight citizens are not.

Well, even the Belgium law, where homosexuals can get married, doesn't allow adoption. (And in the Netherlands, foreign children can't be adopted by homosexual couples.)

Besides, France has a "registered partnership" and not a "civil union".

Thanks Walter, very interesting....

Bernie wrote:


I must say Bernie, that you get points for discretion. "[Not] hating" represents an authentic respect for truth.....so pleased to see that you didn't chose to claim "love."

LOL

No, I think a LOT of otherwise intelligent folks have just decided NOT to. If your coworkers or social group or church or neighbors seem more politically involved than you, it's easier just to accept what they tell you than spend the time trying to figure it out yourself. And then, so many decent people have been alienated by politicians and government that they have decided not to participate in a process they no longer trust. It's very sad.

Bill Maher quote of the week.

Every marriage is a same sex marriage. Once you get married, every night it's the same sex.

That one was kind of old.

The Nader b'day burining Pinto cake was a riot!

That's an old joke? I guess I have to catch up on my gay marriage jokes. Yeah, I loved the cake thing too.

Thanks for clarifying on the specific name they've given this. (I couldn't remember.) I was simply terming it a civil union as that is the generic term we're using in this discussion.

I agree with Bi-Polar.

This actually isn't mine, but it's pretty funny, and I thought I'd stick it here.

Top 12 reasons why gay marriage should be illegal:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

oh how tongue 'in' cheeky!

Bush orders Social Security to not take S.F. licenses
Social Security won't take S.F. licenses
White House's first bureaucratic obstacle to same-sex marriages
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, February 28, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle
URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/28/MNG1Q5ALUN1.DTL

The Bush administration has taken its first bureaucratic poke at same-sex marriages in San Francisco, ordering administrators nationwide to reject requests for name changes on Social Security accounts based on any marriage licenses -- same-sex or opposite-sex -- recently issued by the city.

The order from the Social Security Administration, disclosed Friday, was mainly about record keeping and did not address larger questions of eligibility for a spouse's Social Security benefits or other federal marriage rights. But it was a message of presidential disapproval for the weddings that have vaulted San Francisco into the national spotlight.

The action brought an indignant response from Mayor Gavin Newsom, who moved the city into a confrontation with the federal and state governments by authorizing same-sex marriages Feb. 12.

'Political and retaliatory'

"What the president did today is both political and retaliatory,'' Newsom said. "He is now discriminating against San Franciscans gay and straight. We are consulting with the city attorney and will take immediate steps to get this directive overturned.''

President Bush, who last week called the city's same-sex marriages "troubling,'' on Friday defended his support of a constitutional amendment that would invalidate all such marriages.

"I believed it was important to act because the institution of marriage was being changed by the courts,'' Bush told reporters in the Oval Office. He described marriage between a man and a woman as "the ideal,'' and said, "The job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal.''

Bush has also made it clear that the federal government, relying on a law called the Defense of Marriage Act that was signed by President Bill Clinton, will refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in any state that legalizes them. Federal recognition is necessary for joint tax filing, as well as many other financial benefits that are available only to couples.

The new Social Security order involves applications to change the name on one's Social Security account, common after a marriage or divorce, so that earnings under a new name are properly credited.

National directive

Leslie Walker, spokeswoman for the regional Social Security office in Richmond, said a directive from national headquarters Thursday prohibited all offices from accepting a San Francisco marriage license, issued on or after Feb. 12, as proof of a name change.

Walker said Social Security is guided by state law in such matters and noted that state officials have questioned the validity of any marriage license that has been altered. Licenses issued to same-sex couples in San Francisco since Feb. 12 substituted the words "first applicant'' and "second applicant'' for "husband'' and "wife.''

"We've asked the state for guidance on what is acceptable legal proof,'' Walker said. "In the meantime, we're not going to accept any of these.''

She said applicants could use other documents, like a driver's license, to record a name change. The Department of Motor Vehicles accepts a variety of documents for a license under a new name, including county marriage documents, but it isn't clear yet whether a San Francisco marriage license will qualify, said DMV spokesman William Gutierrez.

Walker said the name-change issue is unrelated to Social Security spousal benefits, which require at least a year of marriage before eligibility.

A bit earlier, BillW said...

Now, that IS an interesting statement. I suggested it earlier, but I don't think anyone has said it outright. Thanks Bill.

The rationale, or at least the for-public-consumption key talking point (this one is a two-headed beast) of those voices pushing the constitutional ammendment, is:
1) a few activist judges
2) are REDEFINING marriage

It's an interesting ploy. The first part is pretty simple; use of the helpfully pre-demonized 'activist judges' notion, along with (additional bonus points here) the suggestion there are only a few of these weirdos, making them even weirder.

The second part, "they are 'redefining' marriage", is the really interesting element. First of all, let's be clear that this phrase didn't simply fall from the sky, it is ubiquitous in the statements of supporters. Several nights past, Larry King interviewed several guests on the gay marriage issue, including the mayor of SF and Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (she introduced the ammendment). In the (approximately) two minutes where Musgrave was talking, she used 'activist judges' three times and she used the phrase 'redefining marriage' thirteen times (transcript available on line). If you listen carefully to the folks backing this ammendment, you'll find that phrasing typical...it's a strategy of constant repetition of a talking point, as both Gingrich and marketing theory advise. People begin to assume it must mean something, or that it's true, and then they repeat it, as Brand did earlier.

But just what might 'redefining marriage' actually mean? It would make more sense and be more accurate to say 'rethinking marriage', as that is effectively what happens in the process of cultural change. In the case of racial integration, people slowly began to question their assumptions, to question the ideas and values they had simply absorbed growing up in an segregrated society which held blacks to be inferior, animalistic, uncivilized, etc....not quite human. Would we find it useful to describe that process of cultural change as 'redefining humanness'? In the case of sufferage, would it be appropriate to refer to it as 'redefining citizen'?

So, what's the advantage gained by using 'redefining' rather than 'rethinking'? Well, if we can 'rethink' something, that suggests that the choices up for consideration are relatively equal - eg., we might check a weather forecast and rethink which ski hill to go to on a Saturday. But 'redefine' suggests change away from something basic or fundamental, certainly change leading away from something traditional. So, it's likely more dangerous, more liable to be false. At least, that is an implication, particularly if one tends to conservativism.

More to the point however, the phrase 'redefining marriage' suggests that opponents to same-sex marriage are making a legal objection, rather than a moral objection. It's really a rather sneaky attempt to smuggle in the falsehood that 'marriage' is, and always has been, defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. Of course, that isn't true (but we'll note that these same opponents are busy as beavers trying to make it retroactively true, by pushing for such a definition of marriage at all levels). Another false claim piggy-backing on the 'logic' of the redefining phrase is that marriage is and always has been a 'sacred' institution, as if marriages in America had always taken place under the auspices, codes and values of religious institutions - but not just any old religious institution, only the fundamentalist-leaning christian churches such as the protestors belong to presently. There's a link earlier which I posted, and historical information which Setanta posted, showing how false such a suggestion really is.

The political representatives pushing the ammendment are limited, for public relations reasons, in how they present their argument. They can't (publicly or prudently) say homosexuality is evil, nasty and perverse, a base degradation of God's plan (though surrogate voices can and are saying this) as evidenced by (highly selective) biblical passages, because such statements are so patently violations of the existing constitution.

As the Mass. SC found, liberty means freedom from any imposed moral code, whatever its historical or religious pedigree.