Why do gays insist on marriage?

[Dr. Drake]

Originally Posted by Shodan

If civil union is really a second-class version of marriage, then I for one would like to know "in what way is it second-class?"

See my post just above. As far as I am aware, no monogamous* state-recognized married couple is ever considered anything but a married couple. A British Civil Parternship is exactly equivalent to a marriage within the UK (leaving aside religious issues), but not outside of it. Ergo, second class. It's like having a US passport that allows you to travel to all 50 states but not to leave the country.

*It is my understanding that in the US, only the first marriage is recognized from those places that allow multiple spouses.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

It's very sad. A man's partner was killed in a tragic accident. (He was working on a photo shoot and stepped off a roof.) Because they weren't married he had no say in what happened afterwards. His partner's family (who had never approved of them as a couple) swooped in, buried the dead man in their home state, and barred him from the funeral. Imagine having to deal with that after having your spouse killed.

They didn't just "not approve" -- when Tom came out, his father attacked him physically and threatened him with a gun, and his mother tossed him out of the house.


(Fortunately, Shane's family did the opposite -- they not only completely accepted it, Tom was totally welcomed into their family. Shane's nieces even called him "Uncle Tom".)

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Horseshit. It's adopted from the Latin maritare, which predates Christ by at least several hundred years, let alone the Church.

So.... there was no religion before Christ? LOL too funny

[Annie-Xmas]

Why did blacks and whites want to get married? Their children would have such a hard time. Everyone should stick to their own kind.

[Dr. Drake]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

So.... there was no religion before Christ? LOL too funny

Church ≠ religion. "The Church" refers to the insitution of a specific religion. Pre-Christian Roman religion did not have a Church, and did not in fact have churches. There were certainly priests and temples, and there was certainly marriage, and there was certainly a sacred element to marriage, just as there was to any other Roman contact. But no, marriage was not specifically a religious thing, and that was also the case for the early centuries of Christianity.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

See my post just above. As far as I am aware, no monogamous* state-recognized married couple is ever considered anything but a married couple. A British Civil Parternship is exactly equivalent to a marriage within the UK (leaving aside religious issues), but not outside of it. Ergo, second class.

Is this something that would have been avoided if the UK called it "gay marriage" instead of a civil union?

If the dispute is over whether or not Canada has to recognize civil acts from the UK, I don't know that calling it one thing or another would avoid the issue. It would just switch to "is a gay marriage in the UK the same as a gay marriage in Canada?"

Same thing if it is just people getting divorced who want to make trouble for each other, or avoid alimony or division of property. That's always going to happen no matter what you call it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Dr. Drake]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Is this something that would have been avoided if the UK called it "gay marriage" instead of a civil union?

If the UK had called it "marriage" instead of a civil partnership, then yes, it would have been avoided, because the history of Canadian recognition of British marriages is as old as Canada itself, and on Canada's end, there is no distinction. Britain has decided that Canadian same-sex marriages are not marriages, but Civil Partnerships. I suspect that Canada has decided that Civil Partnerships are not marriages, but common-law marriages. As I am not a lawyer, I can't tell you how this affects proceedings, but if two countries who have hose legal systems as close as Canada and the UK can't work this out easily, it's a pretty good indication that there is indeed a problem.

[etv78]

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

Why did blacks and whites want to get married? Their children would have such a hard time. Everyone should stick to their own kind.

I saw what you did there!

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Is this something that would have been avoided if the UK called it "gay marriage" instead of a civil union?

If the dispute is over whether or not Canada has to recognize civil acts from the UK, I don't know that calling it one thing or another would avoid the issue. It would just switch to "is a gay marriage in the UK the same as a gay marriage in Canada?"

But why is it a Canadian court's responsibility to parse the British legal definition of "civil union?" What if the British change their CU definition, as they can do at any time? I know they say "civil union" and "marriage" are equivalent for all legal purposes, but that can change, can't it? If more countries make this half-assed civil union compromise, are Canadian courts obliged to keep international law books on hand and go on a case-by-case basis? I'm just waiting for the country that defines "civil union" but has the guts to admit that it's not going to treated the same as a marriage.

An easier approach is "Canada will recognize marriages from other states that conform to Canadian law (i.e. no marriages to 12 year-olds, no polygamous marriages, etc.), and any and all marriage-like unions, regardless of definition, will be treated as common-law marriages." I know it sucks and all, but during this time of transition while the rest of world grudgingly catches up, your best bet if you want your foreign not-quite-marriage to be recognized in Canada is to get married in Canada.

Same thing if it is just people getting divorced who want to make trouble for each other, or avoid alimony or division of property. That's always going to happen no matter what you call it.

I'd like to reiterate that I'm only speculating on the circumstances of Hincks v. Gallardo. It just struck me as a likely response to the question of, if they wanted to part company, why they didn't just part company. I gather at least one of them wanted a formal decree of divorce, and since there are no child-custody issues I'm aware of, I speculate that property division is involved.

[Bryan Ekers]

As an afterthought, it occurs to me that maybe Hincks and/or Gallardo might want a divorce decree if one or the other were thinking about moving back to the U.K., with the possibility of meeting a new person and seeking a new civil union with them. I'm not sure what documentation the U.K. requires to demonstrate that an earlier civil union has been formally dissolved (I assume they don't want people to have multiple civil unions in force at the same time). Would a Canadian divorce decree satisfy? I assume the decree wouldn't refer to the dissolution of a "civil union", since civil unions don't exist in Canada, but to the dissolution of a "marriage". Would the U.K. accept a "dissolution of marriage" document as equivalent to a "dissolution of civil union" document? Now they have to make a special case for our laws.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

Britain has decided that Canadian same-sex marriages are not marriages, but Civil Partnerships. I suspect that Canada has decided that Civil Partnerships are not marriages, but common-law marriages.

Isn't that an indication that, no matter what you call it, some other country might not think it was the same thing? Britain calls it a civil partnership even though Canada calls it same-sex marriage. So even if the US calls it same-sex marriage, that isn't going to stop the Brits from calling it something else, and treating it differently.

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

But why is it a Canadian court's responsibility to parse the British legal definition of "civil union?"

Presumably because that's where the suit was filed. But my point is that questions about international divorce law are going to arise whether you call it civil union, gay marriage, or something else. Therefore, it does not seem that calling it something other than "marriage" is going to automatically cause, or prevent it from being, second-class - Britain (for instance) will treat it as a civil partnership even if it's called marriage, as Canada seems to do.

Put it this way - the US passes a federal law tomorrow saying that gays can marry, that it is called "civil union", and that it is subject to all the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriage. How does that stop Canada (or the UK, or France, or whoever) from considering it different from whatever they call the same thing?

Regards,
Shodan

[Dr. Drake]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Isn't that an indication that, no matter what you call it, some other country might not think it was the same thing? Britain calls it a civil partnership even though Canada calls it same-sex marriage. So even if the US calls it same-sex marriage, that isn't going to stop the Brits from calling it something else, and treating it differently.

The error you are making is to assume same-sex marriage in Canada is different in any legal way from opposite-sex marriage. It is not. Marriage is marriage. Canada has no such thing as "same-sex marriage"—some of its marriages are same-sex, is all. The only irregular marriage recognized is common-law, which has its own rules by province but in all cases allows M-M, M-F, or F-F. The sex of the marrying parties is legally irrelevant.

Britain is the one that has innovated a new category which is equivalent to nothing in Canadian law. Britain decides that Canadian marriages meeting condition X are marriages, and those that do not are civil partnerships. In return, Canada decides that marriages meeting condition X are marriages (no polygamous 12-year-olds, as stated above). Civil Partnership, on the other hand, is explicitly not marriage and not quite the same as common-law, either.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and not super familiar with either system (having grown up in the US) so someone with more knowledge might need to correct.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Put it this way - the US passes a federal law tomorrow saying that gays can marry, that it is called "civil union"

Well, here's a problem, right off the bat. If gays can marry, why not call it a "marriage"?

, and that it is subject to all the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriage. How does that stop Canada (or the UK, or France, or whoever) from considering it different from whatever they call the same thing?

I don't know, but I'm assuming if it is advantageous for one of the spouses to later claim "oh, it's not a real marriage", then they will certainly do so (if there's enough of an advantage, and the breakup was sufficiently acrimonious, I can even picture hetero me doing so), forcing Canadian courts to make a decision to extend or not extend more rights than the couple could get in the U.S.

I'd like to point out that the issue at hand wasn't just about recognition of a foreign civil union, but how to handle its dissolution. We have a well-established legal framework for handling divorces. The framework for handling the dissolution of what other countries vapidly insist on calling "civil unions" is not yet in place. They might say "yeah, sure, go ahead and treat it like you would a marriage, even though we don't quite do so. I mean, our laws say we do, but we don't."

[kingdavid2012]

Many same-sex couples feel a desire to have society recognize their lifetime commitment to each other -- just as many opposite-sex couples do.They have a desire to enjoy the security, protections, and cost savings which would flow from marriage, and the 400 or so state benefits automatically to married couples.Laws criminalizing same-sex behavior are falling. Human rights laws granting protection in accommodation and employment are being created. But barriers in all but one state prevent same-sex couples from marrying or entering into a civil union. The bar to marriage is the last major obstacle to fall before the concept of equal "liberty and justice for all" can be applied to persons of all sexual orientations.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by kingdavid2012

But barriers in all but one state prevent same-sex couples from marrying or entering into a civil union.

There are currently six states and one district that have marriage equality: Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticutt and Washington, DC. And Maryland passed it but it has to survive a veto referendum before it takes effect.

In addition, Washington, Illinois and New Jersey all have civil union/domestic partnership laws.

[Dr. Drake]

His post was so disconnected from the thread that I assume he cut and pasted it from another place, presumably quite an old one.

[Northern Piper]

This is the first I've heard of the Hincks and Gallardo case, so the following is pure speculation:

1. The Principle of Comity: generally, countries accept the status that other countries have created. For whatever reason, the UK has explicitly chosen not to say that civil unions between same-sex couples are marriages. They are something different in UK law, even if they carry all the same rights. In Canadian law, there is a similar distinction; both Quebec and Nova Scotia have created civil unions. The argument from the federal government is presumably that it would not be appropriate for Canadian law to convert what is a civil union in the country where it was created into a marriage here in Canada, since that would be changing the legal status in a way that is not recognised by either British or Canadian law.

2. There is a federalism issue. The federal government has exclusive power over the substantive law of marriage; that's why same-sex marriages in Canada are based on the federal Civil Marriage Act. However, only the provinces can create civil unions; the federal Parliament cannot. (For the purposes of this discussion, please just accept my word on this point; the reason for this result is a bit convoluted, but if someone is really interested in division of powers minutia, I will deal with it.) Since only the provinces can create civil unions, there would be a real issue about converting a civil union (governed by provincial law) into a marriage (governed by federal law). This ties into the comity principle mentioned above - while Canada recognises legal relationships created under foreign law, it tries to fit them into the appropriate setting under our constitutional framework, and the term "civil unions" points towards provincial jurisdiction, not federal.

3. In response to Shodan's question: Yes, Canada has laws governing the break-up of couples that are not legally married - but they are provincial laws, not the federal Divorce Act. There can be differences between the two regimes. The federal Divorce Act is uniform across Canada, but each province can create its own regime for dealing with break-ups of non-married couples. Child support and spousal support are pretty uniform under provincial laws, but the big difference is in claims to property separation. Some provinces (like Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia) will allow non-married couples to make claims for division of property accumulated during the relationship,* but other provinces, like Ontario, do not allow non-married couples to have property claims. So depending on where this couple lives, one of them may want to claim for a division of property accumulated during the relationship, but not be able to. I couldn't tell from the linked article where they are?

4. Even if there isn't a property issue, there is the civil union itself. It's easy for couples who have been living together to walk away from each other - there was no legal status between them, so there's nothing that legally needs to be undone by the courts. However, the British civil union clearly has legal status in the UK; does it also have some legal status in Canada? Not clear, but given the principle of comity mentioned above, it may be that it does. If so, can they just pretend that it doesn't exist? what if one of them wants to get married in the future? does a British civil union bar a marriage in Canada? what about end of life issues - if one of them dies, does the other have any inheritance rights? if one is sick, does the other have any powers or obligations to look after the sick member of the civil union? Lots of questions; I don't know the answers, and it may be that they are wanting clarity that their legal relationship is over, on a going-forward basis, so none of these issues will arise in the future.

5. Cost of going to Britain - given these concerns, one option might be to go back to Britain to have the civil union dissolved under British law - but that's pretty expensive. It is an option, I would think.

As I mentioned at the outset, all of this is pretty speculative on my part, and not intended as legal advice to anyone. British-Civil-unioners-living-in-Canada-who-want-out should consult a British solicitor, and a Canadian solicitor, rather than random keystrokes on an internet message board.


*Again, there are some differences even between these four provinces; if someone wants more detail I will provide.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

His post was so disconnected from the thread that I assume he cut and pasted it from another place, presumably quite an old one.

Plus, he just signed up and has made precisely one post; drive-by posting, I would think.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

The error you are making is to assume same-sex marriage in Canada is different in any legal way from opposite-sex marriage. It is not. Marriage is marriage. Canada has no such thing as "same-sex marriage"—some of its marriages are same-sex, is all. The only irregular marriage recognized is common-law, which has its own rules by province but in all cases allows M-M, M-F, or F-F. The sex of the marrying parties is legally irrelevant.

Britain is the one that has innovated a new category which is equivalent to nothing in Canadian law. Britain decides that Canadian marriages meeting condition X are marriages, and those that do not are civil partnerships. In return, Canada decides that marriages meeting condition X are marriages (no polygamous 12-year-olds, as stated above). Civil Partnership, on the other hand, is explicitly not marriage and not quite the same as common-law, either.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and not super familiar with either system (having grown up in the US) so someone with more knowledge might need to correct.

This is a good summary; I would just clarify one point, and that is that in Quebec and Nova Scotia, there are civil unions under provincial law, which may be the Canadian equivalent of the British civil partnership. However, since the other provinces do not have civil unions, the status of those civil unions outside of those two provinces is not clear. I've not done any research to see if there are any court cases that deal with this issue in Canada; since the Quebec and Nova Scotia laws have been around for about 10 years, I would think there may be some rulings by now.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

The error you are making is to assume same-sex marriage in Canada is different in any legal way from opposite-sex marriage. It is not.

It is according to the UK, since, as you mention,

Britain has decided that Canadian same-sex marriages are not marriages, but Civil Partnerships.

IOW even though Canada calls it "marriage", that doesn't help.

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, here's a problem, right off the bat. If gays can marry, why not call it a "marriage"?

[quote]

That's what I am trying to find out - why is it a problem?

I don't know, but I'm assuming if it is advantageous for one of the spouses to later claim "oh, it's not a real marriage", then they will certainly do so (if there's enough of an advantage, and the breakup was sufficiently acrimonious, I can even picture hetero me doing so), forcing Canadian courts to make a decision to extend or not extend more rights than the couple could get in the U.S.

The wording of my proposed statute is that civil unions have exactly the same rights as marriages. On what basis could somebody claim that they don't have the same rights? And how does calling it marriage make any difference? We have already seen that the UK considers Canadian same-sex marriage to be a civil partnership even though Canadian law makes no such distinction. So the Canadians calling it marriage didn't help.

How is the US calling it marriage instead of civil union, all the time making it screamingly clear that civil union has the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, going to stop any foreign country from deciding to treat it under their own laws?

AFAICT we can't. We don't have sovereignty over other countries, any more than Canada has sovereignty over the UK, or vice versa. We can only control what happens here.

So partners A and B show up in court (in the US).

Partner A: "I want a divorce".

Partner B: "We were never married."

The Court: "Were you in a civil union?"

Partner B: "That's different from being married."

The Court: "No, it isn't. Find for the plaintiff."

Regards,
Shodan

[crowmanyclouds]

Has everyone forgotten about the six recently amended state constitutions and nineteen recently added state laws that make it pretty damn clear it don't matter what ya call 'em, they're against it?

For example,

ALABAMA CODE - Title 30. Marital and domestic relations - Chapter 1. Marriage. § 30-1-19. Marriage, recognition thereof, between persons of the same sex prohibited.
...
Ref.1 (g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.

CITE

CMC fnord!

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds

Has everyone forgotten about the six recently amended state constitutions and nineteen recently added state laws that make it pretty damn clear it don't matter what ya call 'em, they're against it?

For example,CMC fnord!

I mentioned that the same people who are deadset against marriage equality have also proven that they don't want civil unions available either. It's not about the word, obviously, no matter how much they try to appear "civil" about it.

[GreenHell]

Just wanted to poke my head in to say this:

I'm proud of my Acadian heritage and have lived in SW Louisiana for my entire life, except for one term of enlistment. I believe strongly in Civil and Human rights and was a founding member and senator for McNeese State University's first LGBT student organization. I'm also as active as I can be with Lake Charles Pride, a local organization that puts on an annual festival promoting equal rights for all. I don't care whether civil unions or marriages are offered as valid by the state, but where one or both are available, they should be available to all couples.

Don't take offense, Dopers. I don't think many of you would make sweeping generalizations about Acadians being bigots. But, just in case . . .

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Originally Posted by NOLA Cajun

Why do gays insist on marriage?

Why shouldn't they?

I've yet to read/hear one logical (i.e. one not stymied by religious bigotry) argument in defence of gay folks not being able to marry.

There appears to be far too much [unseemly] attention paid to which orifices are frequented in the bedroom whenever this question arises, and not enough on the stuff that matters.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

A British Civil Parternship is exactly equivalent to a marriage within the UK (leaving aside religious issues), but not outside of it.

It's considered a marriage in Spain, but then, we're weird that way.