Same Sex Marriage

[tenni]

From comments made on a thread about whether a poster on this site would boycott a business that actively discriminates against same sex couples, I began to wonder what the views were about same sex marriage on this site.

Please identify how you see your sexuality when commenting.

Do you believe:
1/ There is only true equality for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Pansexual people if the word marriage is used in legal unions regardless of the sexuality of the people in the couple.

2/ As long as you have all of the same legal rights as heterosexuals it doesn't matter whether the word marriage is used or some other word that separates same sex couples from opposite sex couples. This does not support inequality and shame/stigmatization of Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Pansexual people's identity.

3/ Without true equality for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Pansexual people in marriage, there will remain shame and stigma attached to being a non heterosexual.

4/Only opposite sex couples should be permitted to use the word "marriage" for their legal unions.

5/ If you attach the word "gay" to a marriage (ie gay marriage) and one of the people is bisexual you are denying the bisexual of their identity. "Same sex marriage" is the only term that honours the sexuality of a bisexual.

6/ If there is true equality, the word "marriage" should be used for all legal unions regardless of the sexuality of the couple. To even attach the words "same sex" is to discriminate against GLBT people. Even this "same sex" label perpetuates the stigmatization of bisexuals/pansexuals and gays/lesbians

[saint_asian]

I've been so affirmative on this fact. We are all stewards in our own life hence we must do everything that is we think right for us and marrying the one you love regardless of the gender is a great act and amazing acts that we can have in order for us to fulfill our life as individual and chose to love someone.

[Long Duck Dong]

From comments made on a thread about whether a poster on this site would boycott a business that actively discriminates against same sex couples, I began to wonder what the views were about same sex marriage on this site.

Please identify how you see your sexuality when commenting.

Do you believe:
1/ There is only true equality for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual people if the word marriage is used in legal unions regardless of the sexuality of the people in the couple.

2/ As long as you have all of the same legal rights as heterosexuals it doesn't matter whether the word marriage is used or some other word that separates same sex couples from opposite sex couples. This does not support inequality and shame/stigmatization of Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual people's identity.

3/ Without true equality for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual people in marriage, there will remain shame and stigma attached to being a non heterosexual.

4/Only opposite sex couples should be permitted to use the word "marriage" for their legal unions.

5/ If you attach the word "gay" to a marriage (ie gay marriage) and one of the people is bisexual you are denying the bisexual of their identity. "Same sex marriage" is the only term that honours the sexuality of a bisexual.

6/ If there is true equality, the word "marriage" should be used for all legal unions regardless of the sexuality of the couple. To even attach the words "same sex" is to discriminate against GLBT people. Even this "same sex" label perpetuates the stigmatization of bisexuals and gays/lesbians

sexuality..... am pansexual, got bored with being bisexual .... thinking about becoming heterosexual and not interested in being gay.. cos fucking assholes or marrying them doesn't appeal to me....

1) I live in NZ, I fought for the civil union bill, its freedom of union for all without the stigma of christian marriage.... so yeah I am getting hand bound as part of a civil union....

2) shrugs.... the word is not important, the love understanding and honesty is..... only fools fight over words....

3) the right to marriage, doesn't make a marriage equal, its the people in it that make a marriage, not who is married to who and what sexuality / gender they are

4) personally I do not care, I am not gonna fight over a word, what matters to me is my partner and our vows

5) bullshit.... bisexuality is bisexuality.... it doesn't matter who you are marrying.... unless you are saying bisexuals are actually closet gays that use females as a cover..... hey that sounds like somebody in this site, with their anti hetero female issues

6) its whats inside a person that matters.... so its civil union for me and DD.... not the wording, but a civil union best matches how I think as a person, my sexuality has nothing to do with it

[tenni]

I am a bisexual man.

I find belief 6 that attaching even the term "same sex" to the word marriage an interesting perspective. This was the perspective of a gay Canadian man. In Canada, we have had equal rights of marriage since 2005 on a national level but some provinces such as my own had equality for different sexualities in marriage for many years before that( some maybe as early as 2002). I think that once a society accepts that there should be no discrimination based on sex/gender when it comes to marriage, that more progressive thinkers like this gay man may develop a belief that it should just be called marriage without attached words if there is true equality in the society. I find some posters who live in societies without equality based on sex/gender seem to accept whatever their society will grant them. They accept another label other than marriage or as is more common in Canada the label of "same sex".

Worse is to accept "gay" marriage imo because it does deny bisexuals of their identity as in belief 5. Gay marriage is a common term even in Canada. I'm not sure if it is spoken more by gay people or mainstream but it does bisexuals a disservice imo. It may have even been on this site that someone wrote this. If you see two same sex people and they say that they are married, I think that even in more supportive societies an assumption is that they are gay/lesbian when in fact one may be bisexual.

I do also think that to accept separation of labels when it comes to marriage is to perpetuate the stereotype that bisexuals, pansexuals, gays and lesbians are "different" and supports stigmatization and shame for GLBT people.

[AidanS57]

I'm bisexual.


Well, Tenni, can you explain why you covered all the spectrum except Trans? That lack to me invalidates this entire question :disgust:

That being said I will answer. Don't ask the sexuality of my partner cause it's none of your business.

For me I don't care if it's marriage or civil union or two pieces of string knotted together til someone cuts them apart or a blanket over our heads. It's who you enter into an agreement with that matters.

I fell in love with a woman who completes me and as such I asked her to marry me. When the time comes for us to decide on a ceremony we will consider a lot of things but mostly her heritage as a Native American. :2cents:

Aidan

[tenni]

"Well, Tenni, can you explain why you covered all the spectrum except Trans? That lack to me invalidates this entire question "

AidanS57
As I understand it, transexual is not a sexuality.

The sexualties are more or less heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, gay and lesbian (with a few synonyms replacing such words as bisexual etc.).

Transgender is a gender issue (male , female, transgender ...or other words are used in place of transgender)

I believe that if you marry a transexual in Canada, they will identify their gender as male or female on the marriage license. They may marry a person with the same of opposite gender. As I understand it, transexuals will identify as one of the sexualities (heterosexual, bisexual, gay, pansexual, lesbian).

I did mention GLBT in one spot (point 6) when referring to those who are discriminated against.

I was very careful and thoughtful when I did not include transexual as a sexuality because it is not.

As far as I can decipher, I would guess that you are more inclined to belief #2?

[jonric]

I believe that marriage should not be a legal term at all. A marriage should be the union that is sanctioned by a religious ceremony.

Not being religious myself, I know many who have had ceremonies performed by a JP or other official. These should be considered civil unions.

To me marriage carries the religious stigma and the government should have no hand in it. Only the lawyers profit when the divorce proceedings begin.

Just for the record, yes I am bitter toward marriage.

[12voltman59]

For a long time---I had thought that simply granting "civil unions" to same-sex couples who wanted something looking like "marriage" was sufficient enough until I wound up reading in its entirety, the ruling of the California appeals court judge who ruled the first California law that banned same-sex marriage as being unconstitutional.

The state government then moved to start allowing same sex marriages, only to have those anti-same-sex marriage groups from putting up Prop 8 to once again ban "gay marriage" and sadly--they got enough California voters to approve that one too once again stopping same-sex marriages from taking place in that state--I was hoping that since the appellate court judge's ruling was so detailed and wide reaching--it would have killed Prop 8 too, but alas, to date, Prop 8 still stands as set California law.

What made me change my mind about the utility of "civil unions" was shot down by what that judge said in his findings---namely that "civil unions" in California and elsewhere do not go far enough in granting all of the rights and of course--the responsibilities that are conferred by LEGAL MARRIAGES by each of the states as set down in writing in each state's civil and criminal codes and in the case of California--its state constitution.

It used to be that states once recognized "common law marriages" but that has changed in recent years due to the codification of what constitutes LEGAL MARRIAGE in each of the states---in the civil codes--the laws outline what sort of areas that are covered in the areas of contract law such as the of raising children, transferring of estates, parental rights and other related legal aspects. In terms of the aspects of legal marriages listed in the criminal codes----most state statutes mostly define in great detail who cannot marry and that includes people who are brothers and sisters, parents and children, perhaps even how many levels of cousins distant one must be before marriage is legal, prohibiting marriage of an adult to a person under the legal age of consent and or majority age, polygamous marriages, and also--in the states that don't allow it--say very clearly that persons of the same gender may not marry. At one time---they banned blacks and whites from legally marrying.

Since in these sections---they are defining who can and cannot marry---they lay out the criminal and civil penalties one may face for entering in such an illegal marriage.

In previous threads on this topic---we have had people say that marriage is only a religious ceremony---perhaps in other countries that may be so--but here in the US---we do have LEGAL marriages as set clearly in state laws and statutes and this is of course the only sort of marriage I am referring to for the purpose of this discussion.

We need to have each state come to recognize and approve same-sex marriages, and we also will need to void the federal and various state "Defense of Marriage" acts that have been popped up in recent years so that all blocks to "gay marriage" are knocked down.

Once again, I have to say the word SADLY again---all of that is probably not gonna happen now, since we currently have this rash of "Tea Partisim" going on with its atavistic, throw back mentality now infecting the minds and souls of so many Americans.

[Annika L]

Good questions Tenni!

(Unfortunately, I'm going to muck up your thread with a long post.)


Please identify how you see your sexuality when commenting.
I am bisexual.

(1) There is only true equality for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Pansexual people if the word marriage is used in legal unions regardless of the sexuality of the people in the couple.
Something about this question bothers me...there seems to be a kind of logical disconnect between "true equality" and using the word "marriage" for legal unions. I think my answer to the next question gets at what you mean here, though.

(2) As long as you have all of the same legal rights as heterosexuals it doesn't matter whether the word marriage is used or some other word that separates same sex couples from opposite sex couples. This does not support inequality and shame/stigmatization of Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Pansexual people's identity.
I believe that if there is true separation of church and state, the state will not deign to rule on what is called "marriage", and will leave that to individual religions. If, however, they are going to call their state-sanctioned unions "marriage" (even when completely non-religious in nature), then yes, giving a different name to the unions of same-sex couples supports inequality, even if the same rights are granted. The word itself is unimportant, but whatever word is used by the state should apply to all state-sanctioned unions...differentiating based on the sexes making up the union is by definition treating those unions differently (i.e., unequally).

(3) Without true equality for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Pansexual people in marriage, there will remain shame and stigma attached to being a non heterosexual.
This is a really interesting question...hence I'm divided on it :tong:. I guess I think that there will be shame and stigma attached to being a non-heterosexual until we all learn to get over shame and stigmatization...and I guess I don't see that any marriage issue has much to do with that, except in that if same-sex couples could marry (or at least have legal unions with the same rights as hetero couples), it would *help* reduce shame and stigma.

(4) Only opposite sex couples should be permitted to use the word "marriage" for their legal unions.
I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to get proprietary about words. Having said that, I do think of marriage as a religious concept (I know there may be historical basis to debate this), and as being different in concept from legal unions. I think this is the logical disconnect I was referring to in (1). So basically I think that anyone who belongs to a religion that calls their union "marriage" should be able to use that word for their union, regardless of whether it is a "legal union".

(5) If you attach the word "gay" to a marriage (ie gay marriage) and one of the people is bisexual you are denying the bisexual of their identity. "Same sex marriage" is the only term that honours the sexuality of a bisexual.
I don't know about all the heavy "denying/dishonouring" language, but I do think that "same-sex marriage" is the correct term to use. It simply makes grammatical sense...how can a marriage be gay? People are gay (or not). But in general, using "gay" in place of "non-straight" demonstrates either laziness of thought or ignorance of bisexual and other alternate sexuality issues.

(6) If there is true equality, the word "marriage" should be used for all legal unions regardless of the sexuality of the couple. To even attach the words "same sex" is to discriminate against GLBT people. Even this "same sex" label perpetuates the stigmatization of bisexuals/pansexuals and gays/lesbians
This to me is identical to the question of citing race in referring to anything. In general, do you say "Look at those black people over there" or just "Look at those people over there"?

In cases where it seems appropriate to say "Look at those black people over there" (say, there is a large group of people, and a set of black people are doing something worth pointing out), would you be equally likely to say "look at those white people over there", if that was the case? Or would you call the black people "black people" and the white people just "people"? (An incident comes to mind where a friend was telling me a story about being in a public toilet stall and "all of a sudden, a little black girl climbs under the wall into my stall!" The little girl's race was completely irrelevant to the story, and I found it offputting that it was mentioned...she never would have told me about a "little white girl" climbing under the wall.) Still, there are situations where referring to "a black person" is relevant and appropriate.

Similarly, I think "same-sex" can be used to describe a particular marriage without being stigmatizing...hey, it does describe that kind of marriage. But if you call every same-sex marriage a same-sex marriage all the time, and refer to opposite-sex marriage only ever as "marriage"...or if you occasionally designate a same-sex marriage as "same-sex", but in comparable circumstances you would refer to an opposite-sex marriage simply as "marriage", then yeah, you are being inappropriately discriminatory, and might ask yourself why you're pointing out the one but not the other.

[tenni]

Annika L and others

Thanks for your observations Annika. What I am wondering about is what is going on in my country and other countries regarding same sex marriage. I sense from some of the responses so far, that there is differing perspectives evolving. I used the six points based upon statements that I have either read or heard recently. I am wondering if within a country like Canada with marriage equality regardless of gender if some are beginning to move beyond the actual "we demand" same sex marriage rights to issues such as point 6. Now, that is not to say that there is not still resistance to even permitting same sex marriages and certain "religions" still would prefer to quash same sex marriage. But as time moves forward, others may be examining the role of marriage and GLBT and heterosexual aspects such as shame/stigmatization aspects.

Canada was the fourth country in the world to acknowledge marriage equality between all sexualities. I have used the words "true equality" because that equality issue of our constitution' Charter was used to obtain same sex marriage. There is absolutely no legal difference between a marriage between a man and a woman compared to two women or two men. This requires a certain mind set that may not have yet evolved (or will) in other countries. I'm not sure?

Now, the issue of marriage and church is not applicable in Canada in a legal sense. The state controls who is permitted to marry anyone and not a church. If a minister does not have a license to marry from the state, the church marriage ceremony is not legal regardless of the genders of the couple. Yes, of course, people chose to marry in churches and religion enters into their marriage services if they want that. Ministers/priests/churches who oppose same sex marriage are not forced to perform same sex marriages because of the freedom of religion aspects of our Constitution Charter. Our Prime Minister is a fundamentalist Christian. He and many in his party fought strongly to prevent marriage equality. Words about it being against God etc. can still be spouted by a "Christian Reform" section of his party. However, society has moved to such a point now, that they can not hope to alter the Constitution.

Personally, I do wonder if stigmatization of GLBT would be reduced if there was not difference between heterosexual and same sex marriages. No separate term for same sex unions. It seems logical to me. Each time a bisexual feels shame and discomfort about disclosing their sexuality it is for a reason. Rejection due to difference may be a big part of that. Only time will tell if marriage equality helps.

[Bluebiyou]

Yeah,
Blah, blah, blah.
Let the deliberate breeders claim "marriage".
And anyone else claim 'civil union' with the same basic rights.
Hell, I'd rather be in a 'civil union' with Mrs. Blue... where we could file taxes together, claim her with full benefits on my insurance, and survivor takes all in death. Just have the title "marriage" reserved for the breeders; fine by me.
WIN GLBT and WIN church.

Did I mention I think breeders should pay much higher taxes than non-breeders?

Bluebiyou's political taxation platform:
Overpopulation has been an elementary issue since 1970. The first baby gives you a tax exemption (it's human nature to want to nurture a child).
Second and subsequent child costs you in equal amount as first tax exemption. So second child is break even. Third child, you're paying an extra 3 thousand dollars taxes every year. Forth child, you're paying another extra 3 thousand dollars (total 6 thousand). By twelve children, you're paying the low budget, cut rate price of an additional $30,000 taxes(far below the cost to society) for your ego gratification of procreating from your loins.
So if you really want to breed and multiply... you properly pay as you should.
Adoption and foster care are different issues of course. Entirely different tax tables appropriately apply!
I also think all immigrants that do not pass through the standard legal portal (application for American citizenship) since 1960 should pay very heavy fees to be American. $20,000 a piece if their parents not born in the usa. $40,000 a piece if they claim usa citizenship and were not born in usa.

[nudistharry]

Leave the term "marriage" in churches, let the church decide whether or not same-sex can "marry."

Outside of church, (in laws, tax codes, insurance, etc.) REPLACE the term "marriage" with something else (such as "civil union", or "legal union", etc.) that applies to all "unions" whether it ie same sex or opposite sex.

In other thought: why not replace "Husband" and "Wife" with "Spouse", "Domestic Partner", or something else that doesn't indicate gender. Again, leave "Husband" and "Wife" up to the churches.

Anyhow, I don't think there will be "equality", let alone "true equality", for GLBT in my lifetime. I hope I'm wrong in this belief, but don't expect to be.

[darkeyes]

Yeah,
Blah, blah, blah.
Let the deliberate breeders claim "marriage".
And anyone else claim 'civil union' with the same basic rights.
Hell, I'd rather be in a 'civil union' with Mrs. Blue... where we could file taxes together, claim her with full benefits on my insurance, and survivor takes all in death. Just have the title "marriage" reserved for the breeders; fine by me.
WIN GLBT and WIN church.

Did I mention I think breeders should pay much higher taxes than non-breeders?

Bluebiyou's political taxation platform:
Overpopulation has been an elementary issue since 1970. The first baby gives you a tax exemption (it's human nature to want to nurture a child).
Second and subsequent child costs you in equal amount as first tax exemption. So second child is break even. Third child, you're paying an extra 3 thousand dollars taxes every year. Forth child, you're paying another extra 3 thousand dollars (total 6 thousand). By twelve children, you're paying the low budget, cut rate price of an additional $30,000 taxes(far below the cost to society) for your ego gratification of procreating from your loins.
So if you really want to breed and multiply... you properly pay as you should.
Adoption and foster care are different issues of course. Entirely different tax tables appropriately apply!
I also think all immigrants that do not pass through the standard legal portal (application for American citizenship) since 1960 should pay very heavy fees to be American. $20,000 a piece if their parents not born in the usa. $40,000 a piece if they claim usa citizenship and were not born in usa.

I HATE the term "breeders"... so fucking dismissive and contemptuous of human beings.. a guy at a party called Kate an me best m8 "breeders" even tho Kate is bi and Jo gay, an that was the last thing he said after I flew at the bastard with me gob lettin rip.. if it wasnt for fucking "breeders" none of us would be around...

...and the rest of the post is tripe an all, Blue... hangya head in shame boy!!! Get that pointie hat wiv the D on it onya head an go stand on corner till class is finished.. will deal wivya then!!!

[AidanS57]

Tenni,

I meant what I said, I don't choose ANY of your limiting options. Do not try to put words in my mouth. I don't care what I wind up using to make my lady mine in every way.


Darkeyes,
You and I have disagreed in the past but your response to Bluebiyou's drivel was more than adequate in expressing the offensive nature of the post.

Aidan

[tenni]

AidanS57
This is not what you chose for yourself but what you believe in as far as same sex marriage.

Blu
It is my understanding that the derogitory term "breeder" is a slur used by certain (angry?) gay men to describe any heterosexual. They don't have to have children to be called "breeders". I believe that if you are with a woman then you (blu) would considered a "breeder" by some even if you are bisexual?

However, I have heard a similar perspective about marriage as far as children are concerned. As I heard it, no one should be permitted to be married unless they are having /raising children regardless of sexuality of the couple. In other words, marriage is about families. The point is that marriage should be for child rearing and laws should be established to protect children in such families/marriages. People who are not having children should not be permitted to be married. (something like that)

[DuckiesDarling]

Heteroflexible.

My views are simple, I believe in equality.

Marriage was originally nothing but a contract between two people creating a kin relationship. I believe all people regardless of sexuality or gender identity should be allowed to engage in the contract.

The religious overtones are where people get confused. Then it starts going into what certain religions believe marriage should be.

I consider civil union or civil partnership to be the same as marriage. I would never say that Fran and Kate aren't married, that they are united in a civil union. They are married.

The US is slowly moving towards establishing the legal right for all sexes to marry, the only problem is so far they haven't come up with a same sex divorce.

So I beleive that everyone should have the right to both marry and to divorce just like any other heterosexual couple.

I do not believe that using the term same sex marriage devalues a person's bisexuality because quite frankly it's none of my business if one is bi and the other gay/les. If they want people to know they will tell people.

When I look at a married couple, I see two people in love. I don't think one might have a tail and horns because they are bi and the other isn't. They are just people united legally.

As Annika said to call a hetero couple married and same sex couple as same sex marriage would be wrong. I call all marriages marriages, now how about you, Tenni?

[tenni]

DD
My present perspective was given in post 4. I have found that my perspective continues to evolve over time. I certainly believe that equality means that there is no differentiating between the genders of the couple (or even a triad). I'm not sure about polyamour but open to legalizing such marriage arrangements for those who wish to legalize their relationship. (uh..just a little bit ahead of the curve with such thoughts for mainstream thinking)

[nudistharry]

Heteroflexible.

My views are simple, I believe in equality.

Marriage was originally nothing but a contract between two people creating a kin relationship. I believe all people regardless of sexuality or gender identity should be allowed to engage in the contract.

The religious overtones are where people get confused. Then it starts going into what certain religions believe marriage should be.

I consider civil union or civil partnership to be the same as marriage. I would never say that Fran and Kate aren't married, that they are united in a civil union. They are married.

The US is slowly moving towards establishing the legal right for all sexes to marry, the only problem is so far they haven't come up with a same sex divorce.

So I beleive that everyone should have the right to both marry and to divorce just like any other heterosexual couple.

I do not believe that using the term same sex marriage devalues a person's bisexuality because quite frankly it's none of my business if one is bi and the other gay/les. If they want people to know they will tell people.

When I look at a married couple, I see two people in love. I don't think one might have a tail and horns because they are bi and the other isn't. They are just people united legally.

As Annika said to call a hetero couple married and same sex couple as same sex marriage would be wrong. I call all marriages marriages, now how about you, Tenni?

Here in the US, the conservatives (who mostly are opposed to same sex marriage) use religion to defend their stance on "marriage" being between a man & a woman. "Civil union" was coined to disarm their religious argument. Many people here who favor same sex marriage don't like the term "civil union", they want the term "marriage" to be used regardless of the genders involved since it is believed that a "civil union" between 2 people wouldn't have the same rights & responsibilities as a "marriage" between a man and a woman.
My belief is that if the government stops using "marriage" completely and replaces it with "Civil Union" (or comes up with another term) to refer to a couple in a "marriage type" of relationship, it would be easier for all "unions", regardless of gender, to have the same rights, responsibilities, etc. And a "divorce" would end a "union" since "marriage" no longer existed in the laws. Also, it would completely remove the religious argument used by the conservatives here.
The church may consider the couple "married", but the government would consider them "united."

[void()]

tenni and others,

Please identify how you see your sexuality when commenting. Although my wife is inclined to say I seem more at ease with men. Frankly, I don't see it but then wives are seldom ever wrong, even if wrong. ;)

I am a bisexual male, no doubts, never had curiosity either.

6: If there is true equality, the word "marriage" should be used for all legal unions regardless of the sexuality of the couple. To even attach the words "same sex" is to discriminate against GLBT people. Even this "same sex" label perpetuates the stigmatization of bisexuals/pansexuals and gays/lesbians.

This comes as close to my view as able, I suppose. But I rather call lovers, lovers and forgo all other rhetoric. If a man loves another man, fine. If a woman, another woman, fine. Man and woman, fine. Man, woman, man is fine also. And for me there is inclusion of those whom transform into truer selves. You identify a person as a person foremost of all. Even on Venus, people are people.

This is a view which has been held all of this life and probably others. It is as natural as breathing. It has always been, always will be. In my humble view, people ought to remember that and not tear it down with exclusion and classification. Someone was relating to me a view that systems are not always evil, recently. But look where they have us. We exclude and destroy.

Love knows no bounds, nor has need of them. Yes, love can fight and win wars. Love needs not war, though. It is already the victor.

[darkeyes]

b6: If there is true equality, the word "marriage" should be used for all legal unions regardless of the sexuality of the couple. To even attach the words "same sex" is to discriminate against GLBT people. Even this "same sex" label perpetuates the stigmatization of bisexuals/pansexuals and gays/lesbians.



Am wiv u here, Vodie.. being in a civil union we never say we are so.. we say as do most people I know who are in such unions, we say are marrried cos that is the reality.. yet it is not the legal state.. it is illegal to discriminate against people on grounds of sexuality throughout the UK and the European union.. yet here is one area that the UK breaks European and UK law.. as partners in a civil union we have the same rights as if we were a heterosexual couple in a civil or religious marriage. Yet legally we are prevented from being married.. we are considered therefore second class.. this will be tested before long in the European courts and I am pretty sure it is something which will be won by those of us who who believe in true equality for all irrespective of sexuality.. the difference in term may sound very little and to some petty.. yet it is without doubt one area of sexual apartheid..

[Long Duck Dong]

in nz, we would fight you if you tried to take away our civil union and replace it with *marriage for all * as that would cost us our rights to have a union recognised......

to many of us that fought, the civil union has become a way we can be joined together that most marriage celebrants would refuse to do... and its not same sex marriage......things like hand binding, oath and vow, rites of blood.. that people hold special to them, are now a option for them, that they would have never had if marriage was made available for LGBT as hand bindings are not a marriage, they are a union between two people that transcends marriage and the understanding of marriage..... hand bound marriages are a modern aspect........

our fight was not just to have the equal rights to a union for all, but the rights to have our style of union recognised by a marriage celebrant and signed off on, as a legally recognised ceremony of union

many people have said, just get married and have the real ceremony later..... and that makes me laugh... yeah spend 2000 on a fake ceremony for a piece of paper and make fake vows, just so you can do it all later on and have it mean something yet have it not be valid at all.....
and I ask people would they make a 2000 dollar mockery of saying vows for a piece of paper then have a real ceremony that is not legal and recognised

in NZ, it was resolved by the fact that a civil union can be changed to a marriage and vice versa... a loop hole in NZ for people like fran and kate..... not the best option I know... but something that the anti lgbt marriage people never realised until it got thru.... and man were they pissed off over it but it was law now...

so yeah, to some of us, a union is superior to a marriage... but we are people that do not conform to the christian ways... we remain true to the old ways that christian marriage replaced...... the union and handbinding....

[darkeyes]

Interesting Duckie.. yet what you describe is marriage such as is practiced in the UK now outside of the religious arena.. civil marriages take a multitude of different forms which are tailored to suit those who are to be married.. similarly for civil unions.. many are simply of a stock form, but many, ours included took a form which reflected who we are and what we believe as human beings. The ceremony was devised by us in a form we wished it to be and held in a place of our choosing which was important to us..

.. I am not saying to anyone that they must marry, for if civil union is what a couple wish their union to be known as such and not a marriage I can live with that. I am sufficiently liberal to trust that people know their own minds and what they want from life and society when it comes to tying the knot, or otherwise. My point is that the right to marry should be granted to all those who wish it, irrespective of the gender of those who wish to do so. My point is that at present the two kinds of union are a form of discrimination against those same sex couples who would prefer a marriage and their union to be known as such, and those heterosexual couples who wish a civil union, and their union to be known as such.

I am uninterested in the Christian concept of marriage.. marriage was about in one form or other long before Christianity or even the Judaism upon which it was built.. until the gay movement began to press for the right to marry, no one questioned a civil ceremony as being other than a marriage.. it is that fact, and governments failure to confront religious bodies that prevents us from have the right to marry. We are not saying force religious groupings to marry us.. although for many there is no doubt that would be an ideal, but we are saying, that until such times as we have the right to marry and have our union recognised as such, discrimination remains of our kind.. the word marriage is not owned by religious institutions.. and it is about time that point was made very clear and very loud in their poor llittle shell like earholes.

I dont happen to believe that any kind of union is superior to another when it comes to human relationships.. I do happen to believe that we should have the union of our choice.. religion not withstanding cos thats a much thornier issue.. yet some religions in Europe do marry same sex couples .. those couples may have to undergo a civil ceremony later but not all religious bodies, even Christian denominations refuse a marriage to gay people.. France in fact, insists on a civil ceremony after a religious ceremony for straight people.. and interestingly, some mainstream ministers and priests will bless a same sex union irrespective of their church's views on homosexuality..

So I dont demur much from your points Duckie, I merely think civil union/marriage is an area where we still have a discrimination problem and one which need not be..

[void()]

"being in a civil union we never say we are so.. we say as do most people I know who are in such unions, we say are marrried cos that is the reality.. yet it is not the legal state.."

Me and wife left religion out of our ceremony. A judge married us. Yes it was in a church but no religion was in the vows and it was only a legal ceremony. But yes, we are married as far as we are concerned. Our families are traditional Protestants, Baptists and her sister was married in the same church.

We're respectful and didn't want to rock the boat but so much. And so we had a religion free ceremony in a church. The families never noticed, and if they did none have ever voiced disapproval or malcontent. And presently, that is not any of the trouble me and wife are having living here with my mum.

Mum is being odd and a little too dramatic for our lives. We lived on our own for ten years and got into a slower, less dramatic rhythm of living. And we did alright, survived a week without electricity to boot.

I would marry my boyfriend, also, if allowed by society. And I don't think he would need to live with us. He has his own life and I appreciate that. Love him for who he is, what he is. Do not want to change anything, he's perfect in my view. :)

But yes, agree society has us in an apartheid. While not exactly militant about it, I am growing tired of it, to a point I could easily become violent. I'm one of those straight actors who cringe internally at work as co-workers degrade others about homosexuality. At times I feel like just chiming in "well I'm about half queer, so what?"

One day the boat will include us all. I think it already does but that's just a delusion, much like freedom being brandied about when nothing else is left to lose. Bother, if it were to me we'd all realize _Imagine_ by Lennon. I had to have been born a decade too late. *sigh*

[Long Duck Dong]

lol I will give you a idea.... there are about 800 people that can marry you.... about 200 that will do same sex marriage / civil union... there are 3 that will do a handbinding. vow of oaths and other forms of ceremony

the 3 were giving permission to conduct a legal ceremony of union after the civil union bill was legallised...... before that, there was only marriage and traditional christian style.....

as for the union being superior to marriage, thats a personal viewpoint.... and not a overview of civil union vs marriage in a legal sense.... so that was my fault for not clearing that up......
what I should have said, was to me, a handbinding carries far more value to me as a person and what I believe, than a marriage..... so a hand binding civil union matches my beliefs more than a traditional marriage.....

I am all for basic human rights... and the right of choice......so I believe that everybody should have a choice like we do in NZ, with marriage and civil union both being equal in legal and law as a right of choice on how they are joined

if people want to fight to make marriage the only option then all i ask, is do not be like the anti LGBT and take my right of union away from me, cos to do that, is to make us no better than they have been to us by witholding our right to have a legally recognized union of our choosing....