Same sex marriage - a legal question

[minkymurph]

To come straight to the point, same-sex marriage has raised an interesting legal point in my part of the world which in my view, relates directly to the nature of marriage.

One of the arguments put forward against same-sex marriage is it changes the nature of marriage. I appreciate many on these forums do not support same-sex marriage at all, but I would like to invite discussion on the legal implications of same-sex marriage.

To explain -
I don’t know what the situation is in other countries, but in the UK adultery and non-consummation are grounds for civil divorce. The same provisions have not been made in relation to same-sex marriage. In my view, this means the law is drawing a distinction between a same-sex marriage, and a heterosexual marriage in that they are not of the same nature. Rather, in law is a same-sex marriage simply a civil contract between two people and the state is acknowledging the marital element of the contract in accordance with the wishes of the parties who entered into it, and a heterosexual marriage is perceived as more than this?

If so, it can be argued same-sex couples are not being given the same rights as unlike heterosexual couples, there is no provision for civil divorce. By contrast, it can be argued if the law were changed in order to permit heterosexual couples to divorce for any reason they so choose as it is merely a contract between two parties, this would have the effect of devaluing marriage.

Thoughts please.

 

[edwest2]

Gay rights advocates started this. I did the following in 2011.

Went to the emergency room and was accompanied by a friend. NO ONE asked what our relationship was. I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years and among the rules and the paperwork, sexual orientation/identity never came up.

I had my friend named beneficiary on my retirement fund (IRA) over the phone in about 5 minutes. NO QUESTIONS were asked about our sexual orientation/identity.

I had the same friend go to my bank to have his name recorded as beneficiary. A few pieces if ID, a few papers to sign. Done. No questions about our sexual orientation/identity.

I plan to leave everything I have to my friend in my will and I am NOT required by law to list our sexual orientation/identity.

Gay rights advocates claim they can’t do anything like that. That is 100% false.

They had NO REASON to put so-called gay marriage on the ballot. None. They could have set up house and no one would have cared much. But they are the ones who are saying two completely wrong and contradictory things: "the State should get out of the ‘marriage business,’ and the same State should recognize their "marriage’ with an official piece of paper.

Legally, no one needs my permission to live how they want. Only gay rights advocates insist on reordering the furniture and calling their relationship “marriage.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Allegra]

Gay rights advocates started this. I did the following in 2011.

Went to the emergency room and was accompanied by a friend. NO ONE asked what our relationship was. I worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years and among the rules and the paperwork, sexual orientation/identity never came up.

I had my friend named beneficiary on my retirement fund (IRA) over the phone in about 5 minutes. NO QUESTIONS were asked about our sexual orientation/identity.

I had the same friend go to my bank to have his name recorded as beneficiary. A few pieces if ID, a few papers to sign. Done. No questions about our sexual orientation/identity.

I plan to leave everything I have to my friend in my will and I am NOT required by law to list our sexual orientation/identity.

Gay rights advocates claim they can’t do anything like that. That is 100% false.

They had NO REASON to put so-called gay marriage on the ballot. None. They could have set up house and no one would have cared much. But they are the ones who are saying two completely wrong and contradictory things: "the State should get out of the ‘marriage business,’ and the same State should recognize their "marriage’ with an official piece of paper.

Legally, no one needs my permission to live how they want. Only gay rights advocates insist on reordering the furniture and calling their relationship “marriage.”

Peace,
Ed

They most certainly do have a reason. They want legal means to silence anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle. That’s the only reason.

 

[gardenswithkids]

To come straight to the point, same-sex marriage has raised an interesting legal point in my part of the world which in my view, relates directly to the nature of marriage.

One of the arguments put forward against same-sex marriage is it changes the nature of marriage. I appreciate many on these forums do not support same-sex marriage at all, but I would like to invite discussion on the legal implications of same-sex marriage.

To explain -
I don’t know what the situation is in other countries, but in the UK adultery and non-consummation are grounds for civil divorce. The same provisions have not been made in relation to same-sex marriage. In my view, this means the law is drawing a distinction between a same-sex marriage, and a heterosexual marriage in that they are not of the same nature. Rather, in law is a same-sex marriage simply a civil contract between two people and the state is acknowledging the marital element of the contract in accordance with the wishes of the parties who entered into it, and a heterosexual marriage is perceived as more than this?

If so, it can be argued same-sex couples are not being given the same rights as unlike heterosexual couples, there is no provision for civil divorce. By contrast, it can be argued if the law were changed in order to permit heterosexual couples to divorce for any reason they so choose as it is merely a contract between two parties, this would have the effect of devaluing marriage.

Thoughts please.

You’ve brought up one example of how calling homosexual relationships “marriage” changes marriage laws that affect heterosexuals. “Failure to consumate” is part of the marriage laws in many places and usually grounds for divorce and/or legal annulment. This is one of the non-religious arguments against homosexual marriage–two members of the same sex are not capable of consumating their union together. Changing the definition of marriage to permit same-sex unions requires changes to a multitude of other laws related to marriage and family.

I’m not a lawyer, but I would guess that with existing laws “failure to consumate” could be applied to any homosexual couple where one of them decided he no longer desired to be “married”. A homosexual could point out that his “marriage” was never consumated.

 

[Julia_Mae]

To explain -
I don’t know what the situation is in other countries, but in the UK adultery and non-consummation are grounds for civil divorce. The same provisions have not been made in relation to same-sex marriage. In my view, this means the law is drawing a distinction between a same-sex marriage, and a heterosexual marriage in that they are not of the same nature. Rather, in law is a same-sex marriage simply a civil contract between two people and the state is acknowledging the marital element of the contract in accordance with the wishes of the parties who entered into it, and a heterosexual marriage is perceived as more than this?

If so, it can be argued same-sex couples are not being given the same rights as unlike heterosexual couples, there is no provision for civil divorce. By contrast, it can be argued if the law were changed in order to permit heterosexual couples to divorce for any reason they so choose as it is merely a contract between two parties, this would have the effect of devaluing marriage.

Thoughts please.

I think you presented a very clear case and sound reasoning. But, it’s my view that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely and all of these unions (heterosexual or same sex) be termed “civil union.” I don’t think this devalues marriage but puts it where it belongs, under the auspices of religions, who have higher definitions of the commitment than governments do, in any case.

Marriage is not a civil contract, it’s something else, something more special, something greater. Because we live in societies with governing bodies, marriages also would subject to civil law under the “civil union” statutes. But civil unions are simply not marriages because someone wants to use the word.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Hi

I also live in the UK. It is not yet been enacted yet and is still in the drafting stage. I feel confident that with all the interested parties involved the bill will be poured over again and again until - these types of issues are resolved by proper drafting of the final act.

As I see it the proposed legislation is more about ‘equal rights’ and ‘discrimination’ than an attack on individual sexual morality or the more traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman, or the religious views of marriage.

 

[edwest2]

Hi

I also live in the UK. It is not yet been enacted yet and is still in the drafting stage. I feel confident that with all the interested parties involved the bill will be poured over again and again until - these types of issues are resolved by proper drafting of the final act.

As I see it the proposed legislation is more about ‘equal rights’ and ‘discrimination’ than an attack on individual sexual morality or the more traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman, or the religious views of marriage.

Equal rights for what? Two men want to live together, so who’s stopping them? Who’s telling them what to do?

It is an attack on sexual morality and right reason. Put a bunch of chickens in a hen house and without a rooster, how many chicks do you get? How do we get the next generation of human beings? There is only one way.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

People in the UK are being lied to.

Peace,
Ed

 

[aprilfloyd]

Equal rights for what? Two men want to live together, so who’s stopping them? Who’s telling them what to do?

It is an attack on sexual morality and right reason. Put a bunch of chickens in a hen house and without a rooster, how many chicks do you get? How do we get the next generation of human beings? There is only one way.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

People in the UK are being lied to.

Peace,
Ed

Hi Ed,

The proposed legislation is to offer equal rights in terms of marriage, a heterosexual can get married so why can’t a homosexual.

As far as I am aware we will get the next generation of human beings the same way we have always done.

What is your connection between sexual reproduction and ‘same sex marriage’

 

[gardenswithkids]

…The proposed legislation is to offer equal rights in terms of marriage, a heterosexual can get married so why can’t a homosexual.
…

Traditional law and traditional morality already allow homosexuals as individuals to marrying— as long as they follow the laws that apply to everyone. As individuals they have the same rights as every other individual in regards to marriage–which is a legal relationship that involves sexual acts that relate to mating and reproduction.

All men and women have restrictions on whom we can and cannot marry.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed,

The proposed legislation is to offer equal rights in terms of marriage, a heterosexual can get married so why can’t a homosexual.

As far as I am aware we will get the next generation of human beings the same way we have always done.

What is your connection between sexual reproduction and ‘same sex marriage’

It’s all here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Hi Ed,

The proposed legislation is to offer equal rights in terms of marriage, a heterosexual can get married so why can’t a homosexual.

As far as I am aware we will get the next generation of human beings the same way we have always done.

What is your connection between sexual reproduction and ‘same sex marriage’

Homosexual marriage is not a right at all. That’s what they want you to think though.

 

[aprilfloyd]

It’s all here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

Thanks for link. It does read as though the author feels threatened by homosexuality or that homosexual marriage can undermine heterosexual marriage

It also does not address the other side of the agreement. It left me thinking why do Catholics feel so threatened.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Homosexual marriage is not a right at all. That’s what they want you to think though.

They just want equal rights, no different from woman or blacks wanting equal rights

 

[sw85]

To come straight to the point, same-sex marriage has raised an interesting legal point in my part of the world which in my view, relates directly to the nature of marriage.

One of the arguments put forward against same-sex marriage is it changes the nature of marriage. I appreciate many on these forums do not support same-sex marriage at all, but I would like to invite discussion on the legal implications of same-sex marriage.

To explain -
I don’t know what the situation is in other countries, but in the UK adultery and non-consummation are grounds for civil divorce. The same provisions have not been made in relation to same-sex marriage. In my view, this means the law is drawing a distinction between a same-sex marriage, and a heterosexual marriage in that they are not of the same nature. Rather, in law is a same-sex marriage simply a civil contract between two people and the state is acknowledging the marital element of the contract in accordance with the wishes of the parties who entered into it, and a heterosexual marriage is perceived as more than this?

If so, it can be argued same-sex couples are not being given the same rights as unlike heterosexual couples, there is no provision for civil divorce. By contrast, it can be argued if the law were changed in order to permit heterosexual couples to divorce for any reason they so choose as it is merely a contract between two parties, this would have the effect of devaluing marriage.

Thoughts please.

In other words, divorce was the big, ruinous battle that we lost, and gay “marriage” is merely an epiphenomenon or aftershock. I’ve endorsed that hypothesis before.

 

[edwest2]

In other words, divorce was the big, ruinous battle that we lost, and gay “marriage” is merely an epiphenomenon or aftershock. I’ve endorsed that hypothesis before.

There is no evidence for your conclusions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for link. It does read as though the author feels threatened by homosexuality or that homosexual marriage can undermine heterosexual marriage

It also does not address the other side of the agreement. It left me thinking why do Catholics feel so threatened.

Threatened? Who wrote that?

Please answer the following: Why does anybody care what Catholics think about this subject? Who needs anybody’s permission to live how they want?

Best,
Ed

 

[sw85]

I’m not sure what you need to convince you. Divorce was fatal to the sacramental view of marriage. If marriage can be ended through means short of death, then it must not be a sacrament but merely a contract. If our understanding in this respect has been wrong, there’s no reason it can’t be wrong in other respects, too. That’s the logic of our enemies. I grant the logic, obviously, but deny the premises.

 

[buffalo]

They just want equal rights, no different from woman or blacks wanting equal rights

They want license for a particular behavior/act, which is different than the color of one’s skin. This idea has been pushed by the homosexuals and many have bought it hook, line and sinker. When one looks deeper one can see the fallacy.

As American’s they have the same rights as everyone else protected by the Constitution. A chaste homosexual has no need to declare his attraction to anyone.

While speaking of rights - where do rights come from?

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure what you need to convince you. Divorce was fatal to the sacramental view of marriage. If marriage can be ended through means short of death, then it must not be a sacrament but merely a contract. If our understanding in this respect has been wrong, there’s no reason it can’t be wrong in other respects, too. That’s the logic of our enemies. I grant the logic, obviously, but deny the premises.

The sacrament of Holy Matrimony still exists. Nothing will end it. Your conclusion does not follow.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sw85]

The sacrament of Holy Matrimony still exists. Nothing will end it. Your conclusion does not follow.

Peace,
Ed

I know this. I said the “sacramental view” of marriage. i.e., the view that society used to have, which coincided with the view the Church does have. Those views diverge now, and divorce is the reason why. Gay “marriage” didn’t just bubble out of the vacuum.