Sweden - Gay Marriage Now Legal In.....

I think if the trend continues of there being fewer & fewer marriages & child rearing becomes more a responsibility of the state (out of necessity) bestowing any "benefits to marriage" will become less politically tenable or important.

I wouldn't bet on it. They estimate there are well over 1,000 benefits to civil marriage.

More importantly, "marriage" (of two people) is so ingrained as a concept in Western culture, I suspect it would take decades if not centuries to wean everyone from the habit.

Speaking of children, however, one benefit of same-sex marriage is that I now have a legal relationship with my stepchildren. There are numerous advantages to that in addition to hospital visitation rights and presumed rights of inheritance absent a will. (My stepchildren are my heirs. Should my father, whom I have seen twice in 40 years, be able to show up and confiscate my estate on the ground that he is my "real" relative? Such things have happened in probate courts with homophobic judges, despite wills to the contrary.)

(BTW, I was married in 2008, not 2006. I'm really not that sentimental about dates and anniversaries; fortunately, my husband has accepted I am who I am.)

If anything, the fight for marriage equality should remind us that civil marriage DOES still matter, even if its course does not always run smoothly.
 
I wouldn't bet on it. They estimate there are well over 1,000 benefits to civil marriage.

More importantly, "marriage" (of two people) is so ingrained as a concept in Western culture, I suspect it would take decades if not centuries to wean everyone from the habit.

Speaking of children, however, one benefit of same-sex marriage is that I now have a legal relationship with my stepchildren. There are numerous advantages to that in addition to hospital visitation rights and presumed rights of inheritance absent a will. (My stepchildren are my heirs. Should my father, whom I have seen twice in 40 years, be able to show up and confiscate my estate on the ground that he is my "real" relative? Such things have happened in probate courts with homophobic judges, despite wills to the contrary.)

(BTW, I was married in 2008, not 2006. I'm really not that sentimental about dates and anniversaries; fortunately, my husband has accepted I am who I am.)

If anything, the fight for marriage equality should remind us that civil marriage DOES still matter, even if its course does not always run smoothly.

I guess I didn't explain myself very well. My point was that as the percentage of married people declines the unmarried will be less likely to want to give the 1000 benefits to the married. Imho we are in a period of rapid change & I don't share your view about the future of marriage. Wish I could.
 
I guess I didn't explain myself very well. My point was that as the percentage of married people declines the unmarried will be less likely to want to give the 1000 benefits to the married. Imho we are in a period of rapid change & I don't share your view about the future of marriage. Wish I could.

I'm not sure marriage rates are declining so drastically. Yes, there has been a small decline since 2006, but since the studies I can find include everybody 15 and older, then factors such as longevity and delayed marriages may result in lower figures, even if roughly the same percentage of people are getting married.

Obviously, fewer people marry now than in the 1950s, a time when remaining unmarried was seen as highly suspect.

But my area of training is cultural studies and, in that arena, marriage is still seen as the ultimate goal in almost all romantic narratives. This doesn't mean everyone ties the knot, obviously, but it's a strong indicator and encouragement.

BTW, those 1000+ "benefits" of civil marriage do not mostly come at the expense of unmarried people. (As I pointed out above, at the moment I'm paying higher taxes than I would if I were single.) Many, maybe most, of those "benefits" are simply a matter of legal and social clarity.

And let's remember there are responsibilities that come with the "benefits": I am now legally responsible for my husband's debts and vice versa.
 
And yet we still don't have gay marriage in Australia. In 2004, our government actually changed the Marriage Act to specify that it has to be between a man and a woman. Last year, the Australian Capital Territory made gay marriage possible, and then the High Court overturned it after the federal government appealed against it. I support gay marriage 100%. I don't see myself ever getting married. It's not meaningful to me and my parents never married. But at least I have that choice. Sometimes, Australia is really backwards and it's embarrassing.
 
Idaho's Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down By Federal Judge
The Huffington Post | by Mollie Reilly
Posted: 05/13/2014 8:02 pm EDT Updated: 3 minutes ago


"A federal judge has ruled that Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The ruling, handed down by U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale on Tuesday, followed oral arguments on May 5.

Earlier Tuesday, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) filed a preemptive motion asking for an immediate stay if Dale did rule against the gay marriage ban.

“In the event of an adverse order, Gov. Otter will timely and duly appeal it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,” the governor’s motion reads, according to the Spokesman Review."

More...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/idaho-gay-marriage_n_5319661.html
 
Read any of the court opinions overturning Prop 8. The justices do a great job of explaining the importance of legal recognition of civil marriage.

Myself, I didn't care much, one way or the other. My partner and I were together for 31 years before legal marriage became available to us. We only got married in 2006 because we thought it was a necessary political statement in favor of those who did want to marry.

HOWEVER, my now-husband and I are lucky to have accepting families on both sides. That is not true of many gay couples. And if, as you propose, there is no civil marriage, then such couples are not legally related to one another.

So that makes a parent or sibling (who may be extremely homophobic or otherwise hostile to her relative's gay partner) the closest relative to a gay person and in a position to overrule any decisions made by the non-legal "spouse".

It also allows the biological relatives of a deceased gay partner to claim that everything in the gay couples' shared domicile is the property of the deceased. Depending on the probate judge, the surviving "spouse" may have to produce proof that anything in the home belongs to him.

In states without civil unions for same-sex partners, scenarios such as those outlined above are not at all uncommon. I've lost count of friends over the year who were locked out of their homes, barred from the funeral, and had their joint-financial holdings confiscated just as they were trying to grieve.

Civil marriage may not be a perfect institution, but it's the most effective one we have invented thus far. All that is changing is the logical realization that what is beneficial to straight couples is equally beneficial to gay couples.

(I could write a post on the symbolic importance of same-sex marriage, something I didn't realize until we tied the knot. Whether or not getting married matter to ME, my marriage to my husband mattered very much to our children, grandchildren, siblings, nieces and nephews. But that's another story...)

There were never any questions about whether marriage should confer civil benefits until gay people began to be able to be married. Now suddenly...the civil benefits and the civil institution itself, is suspect.

IMO that argument is merely a thin veneer, for most, hiding a disgust and hatred of gay people and a desire to deny them equality.
 
There were never any questions about whether marriage should confer civil benefits until gay people began to be able to be married. Now suddenly...the civil benefits and the civil institution itself, is suspect.

IMO that argument is merely a thin veneer, for most, hiding a disgust and hatred of gay people and a desire to deny them equality.

gitana, my virtual friend, I think you are right in many, probably most cases. But I assume you didn't mean to pass judgment on the poster who raised the issue here; we don't know him/her well enough.

And I have heard gay and gay-friendly celebrities (Mario Cantone, Kathy Griffin) say they originally opposed marriage equality simply because they thought marriage was an obsolete institution. (I know Griffin has since come around and now lobbies for equality. I don't know Cantone's current position.)

As I said above, I might have agreed with them once upon a time. But I have since had ample time and experience to rethink the matter. I agree with the federal courts that legal marriages are a benefit to society, be they gay or straight.
 
Oregon today.

Hallelujah!

It was embarrassing for awhile there when the West Coast, the "land of fruits and nuts", was behind the curve on this issue.

Proud Left Coaster here.
 
19! Almost halfway (finally!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Finally, some good news out of my state, a state which has become an embarrassment on the national stage over the past couple of years:

MADISON, Wis. -
A federal court has overturned a state ban on same sex marriage and the Dane County Clerk plans to stay open late to issue licenses.

LINK:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/court-overturns-samesex-marriage-ban/26370048

Of course, our Attorney General is vowing to appeal.......
 
Finally, some good news out of my state, a state which has become an embarrassment on the national stage over the past couple of years:

MADISON, Wis. -
A federal court has overturned a state ban on same sex marriage and the Dane County Clerk plans to stay open late to issue licenses.

LINK:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/court-overturns-samesex-marriage-ban/26370048

Of course, our Attorney General is vowing to appeal.......

Of course. But good for the Badger State, anyway! My husband is a Beloit and UW-Madison grad and has been very embarrassed of late. LOL.
 
Why do the clerks' offices stay open late when a court decision comes down. I see that over and over in the gay marriage context and nowhere else, ever. In the stone ages, I spent many an afternoon on a subway to file something in person at a courthouse before they closed for filing at 4:30 or 5:00 - no exceptions. Actually, they were gleeful to close the door in your face. Not to mention, I've yet to meet a court/gov't employee who is willing to stay past "closing time" and, if they do, there's much time and a half or double time to be paid. wtf?
 
Why do the clerks' offices stay open late when a court decision comes down. I see that over and over in the gay marriage context and nowhere else, ever. In the stone ages, I spent many an afternoon on a subway to file something in person at a courthouse before they closed for filing at 4:30 or 5:00 - no exceptions. Actually, they were gleeful to close the door in your face. Not to mention, I've yet to meet a court/gov't employee who is willing to stay past "closing time" and, if they do, there's much time and a half or double time to be paid. wtf?

Thank you! I had a huge problem with my county clerk's office actually opening up on a Saturday for this purpose. God knows I've never received any special treatment for any business I need to take care of up there, and as a taxpayer, I don't understand how you can open what is supposed to be a public office only for one small segment of the population (and same sex marriage was the ONLY business being taken care of that day). And it was all a waste of time, as the ban was reinstated on Monday.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
2,645
Total visitors
2,786

Forum statistics

Threads
590,021
Messages
17,929,113
Members
228,039
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top