In response to the fact that Germany has now legalized same-sex marriages and a comment that was made on another board about “special” rights and the damage that homosexual marriage will cause to “the family” I’ve a few questions regarding marriage in general:
What benefits does one gain from a civil marriage contract that differ from those of a single citizen?
What malefits are also an accepted part of the civil marriage contract that differ from those of a single citizen?
How, exactly, would a same-sex couple having the option to have these exact same benefits and malefits (sorry, can’t remember the word I want) as a heterosexual couple harm anyone else’s family? Like, say, Opal’s?
WRT #3, I don’t want to hear “because it’s a sin.” It’s accepted that, for the most part, those who are opposed to the idea also consider homosexual relationships to be a sin.
Also, the first person to say “a homosexual has the same right to marry a person of the opposite gender as I do” will have leeks thrown at them. I consider that an unworthy arguement, one that manages to make it sound like those homosexuals who want to marry are asking for special rights, when all they’re really asking for is the right to marry the person they want to spend their life with, accepting the bene/malefits that go along with it.
It differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I don’t know jack about German law, but generally: inheritance rights, taxation benefits, the right to act for you spouse(particularly when your spouse cannot act for him/herself, e.g. medical decisions), tenancy by the entirities (special rights of land ownership), etc.
Assumption of responsibility for debts, loss of right to independent action regarding finances, etc.
Caveat: I don’t buy the following myself.
I think that this flows back from the popular conception (though only partially true in law) that marriage is about children. A lot of the benefits of marriage relate to allowing two people to arrange their finances and life circumstances to maximize the resources they have available to raise children. Gay couples will (to generalize) will gain the advantages of marriage without the concomitant (financial) burden of children.
Second, marriage, despite the divorce rate, is still conceived of as somewhat permanent. Part of the perception of permanency is the potential of children. It isn’t fair that these flighty homosexuals, who obviously can’t maintain a long-term relationship, should get the benefits of marriage when their relationship isn’t going to last. (infer a huge rolleyes for the last sentence.)
[sarcasm]Well, if marriage is all about making sure that two people can best support children, and homosexual couples will get those benefits without having children…hey, aren’t there lots of “unplaceable” children in foster homes and orphanages? Maybe we should make a requirement for homosexual marriage be clearance for adoption and the required same of one or more of these children.[/sarcasm]
Sua, I should have been clear that I was talking about marriage in the abstract, not in the specific. I don’t know jack about German law, either, being in the States myself.
Actually, eliminate the mandatory part of that, and you have the thesis of an article I wrote a few years back in favor of gay marriages - as homosexuals now have the legal right (in many states) to adopt, and as the child gains large financial, legal and psychological benefits by being raised by a married couple, it is in the best interests of the (actual or potential) children of gay couples that their parents be allowed to marry.
A real big issue these days that overlaps your questions (because of the Internet and more travel) is Right of Residence. Example:
I have two woman friends who married legally in San Francisco but one still has no right of residence in the US – they married in the French Consulate (under French Law) which allows the American woman to live in France but not vice versa.
Which part of this are you disagreeing with? Are you saying that permanence is not a part of a marriage, or that homosexual unions are as permanent as heterosexual ones, or both? (This is a question, BTW, and no further inferences should be drawn).
I would imagine that it might be difficult to get an accurate picture of the permanence of homosexual relationships, as the lack of a mariage bond might itself be a contributing factor. But I wonder what you are basing your position on.
Another part of this has always seemed to me to be the idea that people see gay relationships as something they don’t want their children to grow thinking is acceptable. Not so much that “their gay marriage will break up mine” but “their gay marriage says that gay marriages are okay, and that’s not okay for my kids.”
Not saying that’s my personal opinion, or a rational one, but I’ve always seen that as the subtext: homosexuality in any form threatens what the entrenched white people in power see as a threat to The Way They’ve Always Done Things. Actually getting married or otherwise being public about it is right out.
Interestingly, I never figured race entered into it.
Izzy, I think what Sua was objecting to was the idea that homosexuals cannot and do not form lifelong partnerships. However, not being Sua I can’t say for sure.
Good questions. I was talking in terms more of perceptions. IMO, there is still a perception of homosexuality (at least, male homosexuality), that is stuck in the vision of Castro Street in the 70’s - that is, a lifestyle of hedonism and extreme promiscuity. If nothing else, AIDS changed that. Again, IMO, these days (male) homosexuals are, as a group, still more promiscuous than straights, but not amazingly so. So, contrary to the perceptions of many, LTRs among gay couples are not only possible, but common.
I certainly agree that the lack of a marriage bond is harmful to the chances of a successful LTR among gay couples, not only due to the lack of the formal bond and whatever psychological impetus that gives, but also the lack of legal obstacles (i.e. divorce) to getting out of the relationship, which can serve to motivate a couple to work through a problem rather than giving up.
As for the permanence of marriage, boy I hope so. In reality, it very often doesn’t work out that way, and a disturbing trend I see now is that of “starter” marriages.