In his column on gay marriage http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000128.html , Cecil mentioned two court decisions holding that certain marital rights should be given to same sex couples, one by Canada’s Supreme Court and one by Vermont’s Supreme Court. Also, various aspects of same-sex marriage have been discussed in numerous threads all across the SDMB.
The Canadian decision held that it was discriminatory for a law providing that long-time cohabitating couples could get support and other rights on break-up to apply to mixed sex couples but not same sex couples.
The Vermont decision held that there were serious problems with Vermont’s denying marital rights same sex couples, but left it to the legislature to propose a solution. Well, Vermont’s legislature now appears to be on the verge of passing a law that would allow gay couples to enter into a “civil union” that would give them many of the rights of marriage. See http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/marriage000316b.html .
Anyway, my question is are there any other jurisdictions or cultures out there in the World that allow same sex couples to have significant marital rights?
As mentioned, plus there are individual locales and entities that offer domestic partnerships to greater or lesser extents, such as cities, townships, companies, etc. None of these come close to complete marital equality, but do usually offer some major parts of it (health insurance, medical decisions, etc.).
This is the status of SSM in Europe as of December 98:
Late last year, France adopted what are called Pacts of Civil Solidarity, or PACS, which provide for some of the same benefits as marriage and which are open both to mixed-sex and same-sex couples. Following a bomb attack on a gay bar in London, Britain decided that payments made by the government to surviving in compensation for lost spouses and partners would include same-sex couple survivors (although the policy change came after the incident and the surviving half of the gay couple was not compensated).
Oh, sorry, ny source for the above information is a series of AP articles. I don’t know if the articles are available online anywhere but if it’s a real problem for anyone to take my word for it I can do some surfing.
Over here there was a recent decision in regards to gay couples. Friends of mine went all the way to the Supreme Court in Canberra (Australia) in order that one could get residency because his partner was working over here full time. That was the first time that this has happened with a homosexual couple but it has set a precedent for future gays wishing to move to Australia. A gay couple can register as a de-facto relationship in the same way as the breeders. In fact, if you live with anybody that you’re seeing for over two years you are automatically in a de-facto relationship, gay or straight.
The Norwegian government has broken new ground in its acceptance of homosexuality by appointing a gay couple to senior political posts. Labor Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who came to power last week, named Vidar Ovesen deputy finance minister. Stoltenberg earlier chose Ovesen’s domestic partner, Anders Hornslien, to be his successor in parliament. A spokeswoman for the Finance Ministry said Ovesen and Hornslien had signed a partnership pact, under which gay couples have almost the same legal rights as married couples.
Otto & Esprix may be surprised to see ME say this, but I take the new policy in Australia as good news.
Of course, I favor recognizing de facto relationships much more than is now done in the US–which is to say I actually believe that de facto relationships deserve recognition. Do people realize how much contempt present US law has for what used to be called common-law marriage? The lawmakers seem to think, if they didn’t authorize it, it isn’t real.
For that matter, apparently so do many of the citizens.
[Hits self in forehead with heel of palm] Oh! That’s why the gays are so up in arms about gay marriage rights! I see. You resent not being legally recognized and are trying to be so recognized the only way you think you can be. Sorry, guys. I get it now. Personally, the Aussie solution sounds like it suits my views on law–I think the US view of hetero marriage emphasizes the legal ritual too much–but I do see where you’re coming from.
[Thinks to self:] Should I even post this? Otto’s just going to take offense again, and I got really sick of that Pit thread…
Party per bend sinister wavy bendy sinister wavy vert & or, & sable, in fess point a demi-pellet en soleil issuant from the partition, in sinister base a roundel bendy sinister wavy vert & or. Or something like that.
I dunno about how contemptuous the various legislatures are, but as a matter of law in those jurisdictions which recognize common-law marriages, all the rights and privileges of marriage accrue. They must go through a legal divorce to dissolve the marriage. If they move away from a common-law jurisdiction the new state must still recognize the marriage.
I love watching that light bulb go on…
I seem to remember reading something on this case although I can’t find anything on it at my usual sources. Does the case extend any “marital rights” beyond recognition for immigration purposes? I don’t think it does. I’m also not aware of any country-wide partner registry in Australia and if registering extends any benefits or responsibilities.
Naw, I’m not gonna take offense. I mean, I think you’re wrong but I’m not gonna get offended about it. I’m also not going to settle for anything less than full equality.
I really do not get the point of Gay Marriage
except maybe to get legal status , as divorce
rights , property after death , etc . Maybe
even adoption . My way of thinking goes that
it could lead to a better society , but I dou
ght it , a fam. is a man and a woman , both
sexes are better for growing in our current
society , so it goes . In nature there are only a very few beings that are both male and
female , but they can do reproduce . Gays is natures way to curb too many people on Earth
too many sick people that abuse children , so
let it be . Thakx for space . Pkx 2ooo
pekaxmon (and others), there have been some very extensive and enlightened discussions of gay marriages in the Great Debates message board section of straightdope.com. You might want to check out these:
Why are Vikings so darn enlightened? Is it because they have fewer Christians (who seem to be the main opponents of homosexuality in general (you know, all that “Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” nonsense))?
Jmonster, most of the Vikings (outside of Minnesota) are several hundred years old and are undoubtedly too tired to make much of a fuss.
One issue I noticed was that several of the “civil unions” mentioned prohibited adoption. What exactly does that mean? Are they specifically giving up all potential adoption rights or could one member of a civil union couple adopt a child as a single parent? What if one member of the couple is the natural parent of a child, can the other adopt it?
Children are “the final frontier” of gay and lesbian equality in Europe. For whatever reason, registered partnerships in Europe are less controversial than gay people raising children. In those instances where adoption is barred, second-parent adoption of the one partner’s child by the other partner is also prohibited. Interestingly, gay adoption is seemingly less controversial in the US than SSM is. Only two states currently explicitly bar such adoptions by law (Florida and Utah, which bans adoptions by unmarried people having sex which is illegal whether gay or dtr8). Mississippi is considering a ban but the measure includes language which would nullify any previous adoptions in the state by gay people and any adoptions by gay people done in another state. Second-parent adoptions are legal in some states (CA and VT off the top of my head) and not recognized in others (WI and PA off the top of my head). Wisconsin’s supreme court issued a heart-wrenching decision a few years ago in which it affirmed that allowing second-parent adoptions was in the best interest of the children involved but that state law did not allow it. Pennsylvania courts have issued decisions barring second-parent adoptions because state law doesn’t recognize SSM (a tortured decision which is under appeal). The issue in second-parent adoptions is whether one person can assume parental rights without the other person of the same sex severing their parental rights (can the child have two legal mothers or fathers).
Personally, Otto, I’d guess that the reason that gay adoption is not a major issue in the US is because gay marriage is still being fought. When and if gay marriage starts to become an accepted fact in this country, I’m sure that adoption rights will be the next battlefield.
No, I think the kid issue has been around longer than marriages - 10 years ago we would never even dream of the day when we could get equal civil unions, but gay guys and lesbian women have been boinking, having kids, and having their spouses try and take 'em away from them for as long as humans have been procreating. It’s easier to make a baby than to get married, for gays and straights.
