h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Gee, I wonder who that 'awaiting moderation' posting belongs to . . .



az

To misquote Bill Hicks, anyone dumb enough to want to get married should be allowed to.

Thanks, Parathanatos.

Personally, I don't care whether a civil union is called a 'marriage' or not. What I'm after is official recognition of a fact, and the consequent removal of certain legal impediments.

As things stand, homosexual partners are discriminated against for no good reason. Here's a couple of examples.

1. Healthcare. At present, my (hypothetical) partner does not have the right to visit me in hospital. My legal next-of-kin can have my partner barred from the hospital. My partner also has no right to be involved in any treatment or care that I might be receiving. Were a civil union to be recognised, my partner would then be my legal next-of-kin and these problems would cease to exist.

2. Inheritance. As things stand, I can bequeath something, or everything, to my partner - but my relatives are able to challenge my will. Fortunately my family is nice and sane and they'd never do this, but other people aren't so lucky. It's also fortunate that Australian courts are also sane institutions, uninfected with religious zealotry, and very few wills are overturned. But that's not the point. Recognition of a civil union would give me the rights of any other adult citizen on the point of death, with regard to the validity and enforceability of my will.

3. Superannuation. As things stand, a straight person has a reversionary interest in his/her partner's superannuation. (In the case of my mother, this means she receives two-thirds of my late father's superannuation pension for the rest of her life, regardless of any other income she may have.) In my case, I can assign any death benefits associated with my superannuation to the person of my choice (but this can be overturned if my will is challenged) - but my partner will not have any reversionary interest. There is no good reason why this piece of discriminatory legislation should remain in place. (The cynic in me can see a reason for the current legislative disempowerment; if I die without leaving a partner of the opposite sex, my accumulated superannuation entitlements apart from the death benefit revert to the government...)

I can't see why the validity of my will, the fate of my superannuation, or the right of my partner to visit me in hospital should be linked to my partner's gender.

Ivan.

I agree entirely. My personal view on the naming issue is that if two things bestow the same rights, with the same preconditions, there is no reason to distinguish between them. And since there's no reason why a homosexual "civil union" should be any different to a heterosexual "non-religious marriage", why should we use different terminology?

If Christians would prefer that "marriage" referred only to Church-blessed weddings, they should move to suppress its usage for "registry office marriages" - otherwise, they should accept that the legal and religious meanings are completely seperate.

If Christians would prefer that "marriage" referred only to Church-blessed weddings, they should use the word that way themselves. As for trying to suppress its use by non-Christians for referring to other types of union, I say let them try - I'd much rather they did that than, say, shooting doctors. It's a nice, futile, pointless waste of their time, and I'm all for Christians wasting their precious time on this earth with utterly stupid activities with no possible rational basis and no particular chance of affecting anyone else.

I believe the Christian term is 'holy matrimony'. Weddings and marriages are not, and have never been, strictly religious events.

az

"Oregon county bans all marriages"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3564893.stm

"Confused by the twists and turns of the US gay marriage issue, Oregon's Benton County has decided to err on the side of caution and ban all weddings."

"It may seem odd, but we need to treat everyone in our county equally," county commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters."


az

Excellent way of dealing with it!

It makes perfect sense to me.

Aren't there countries where the actual marriage is always done as a simple civil thing and if you want the big church ceremony you can do that as your wedding once you've been married by the government? That way individual churches could decide whether or not they want to extend their sacrament to homosexuals, and not have to worry about religion getting in the way of civil marriage.

And I wouldn't be so opposed to people wanting to protect the traditional Christian marriage if they came right out and stated explicitly that that was the tradtion they considered. There are a lot of traditional marriages that I wouldn't want to be a part of that no one's ever mentioned in the protecting the traditional. I wouldn't want to be considered my husband's property. I don't want my family to have to pay a dowry to get rid of me. I don't want my husband to be alloewd multiple wives while I only get one husband. I don't want to have to prove that I'm a virgin on my wedding day.

There are way more marriage traditions than just western Christian ones.

<>

Not according to GWB. When are Americans going to realize that he is attempting to turn the US into a fundamentalist Christian state?


az

<<"Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal," Mr Bush has said. "And the job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal.">>

Oh really, Mr Bush? Well, shock! horror! Your ideal is not necessarily everyone elses! And were you really elected so that you could tell people how to live their lives? Well, actually, now I come to think of it, were you really elected at all?

hi Lizzbet,

The job of the US president is to serve his people. Something Bush has never done and apparently has never even remotely considered doing. Instead he is insidiously chipping away at people's basic civil rights and I thought the Oregon decision was a wonderful 'f**k you!' to that. Showing this decision up for how ridiculous and unfair it truly is.

I truly hope that more states will follow suit.

az

Hello again!

Just found this article and thought belonged on this thread:

"Simpsons to reveal gay character"

"In the episode, set to be broadcast in the US in January, Homer's hometown Springfield licenses gay marriage - a particularly hot topic in the US at the moment during election campaigning."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3932369.stm


az

Hi folks - have been away for a while due to work pressures and PC problems at home.

As an out gay man in a long term relationship I was intrigued enough by this thread to spend the last 20 minutes reading through the postings so far.

In response to Agapanthus in Post 8 - my partner and I most absolutely do not want to get married, have a wedding or anything else that apes heterosexual rituals! What we want is the state to recognise our relationship and to afford us a set of rights commensurate with that relationship, in return we are more than happy to accept the duties and responsibilities that go with htose rights.

Regarding Blatherskites comments in post 17 - these have been dealt with much more ably than I could by other researchers. I mean who enters into a "marriage" for a laugh?

With regard to what we want I can do no better than refer you back to to various posts by Whisky and post 43 from Ivan - these sum up what we are looking for from a civil partnership and also what bothers us at the moment with the social/partnership apartheid system operated against same sex partnerships by the vast majority of countries in the world.

As for the post from Julian/Researcher 195767 - what can I say but bu**er off back under your rock!

Finally, heterosexual couples can enter into a relationship that is recognised by the civil authorities, it takes about 10 minutes and costs the price of the licence - it is a registry office wedding! All same sex couples want is something akin to this i.e. a quick civil ceremony whereby the state recognises the relationship.

I'd like to pose a couple of questions here. The laws on pensions in this country are ludicrous and should be changed - if you have paid in your partner should be allowed to take out.
As far as I can see the only reason gay couples should want to marry is if they want to adopt children. Kids should be brought up in an environment of love and stability and a couple who are prepared to 'tie the knot' have gone some way to demonstrating that is where they want to be.
Secondly, I hope this site isn't getting too PC, we need discussion - and occasionally, a bloody good row here.

Hi third man - not sure that you actually asked any questions

What I want is the following :

The state to recognise my partner as my next of kin.

This means that he will not be screwed royally for inheritance tax, he can get my pension, he will be consulted by doctors if I am ill, he will have the right to visit me in hospital etc. etc.

I frankly don't give a rats ass about any tax breaks - my own view is simplify the tax system by getting rid of all this old anachronistic stuff about couples allowances , transferrable allowances etc. and make kids a tax deductible expense (a bit like Australia).

Regarding tying the knot as you put it, the fact my partner and I have been together for 12 years surely of itself demonstrates that we are where we wnat to be! And I most absolutely do not want kids!

I worked with a great guy who died of cancer a year ago. Two days before he died his partner of 22 years came into the hospital so they could be married - they had two nearly grown up kids. The reason? Because if they weren't married she couldn't claim his pension rights. If they'd been married, separated and hated each other's guts she'd have got the money. Love and committment mean zilch to the law. It's time for it all to be looked at dispassionately, in the light of reality.

Anyway, what's wrong with kids? My cousin and his partner have got a lovely little boy - gaymen You just can't win

"Regarding Blatherskites comments in post 17 - these have been dealt with much more ably than I could by other researchers. I mean who enters into a "marriage" for a laugh?"

Yes, the questions were answered successfully, and I hope the US takes its lead from the French in this regard. However... where did I say anything about a laugh?

Apologies - I believe you said frivolous!

Third Man - kids just are not for me - I take my hat off to those who can nd do bring children up in this world particularly where they end up as reasonably well adjusted members of society!