Sweden Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Leifmk]

I haven't really followed this because it doesn't interesst me much but as I understand it once gay marriage is legal it will be by law discrimination and punishable by law those who do not want to marry gay people.

You obviously haven't really followed this, because your understanding is completely wrong. It even says so in one of the early posts in this very thread: Individual churches, and individual priests, will be allowed to opt out of performing marriages. Much the same as, well, everywhere else this sort of thing has become law.

Divorce and second (and third, etc.) marriages have been legal in most places for a few generations now but have you ever heard of a Catholic (etc.) priest being forced to perform someone's second marriage? Because I sure haven't. Nor have I, generally speaking, ever heard of a priest of any religion being forced to perform any marriage in particular (for instance, many churches will only perform marriages for people who are actually members of said church). I have heard of priests refusing to perform marriages for couples who they thought, for various reasons, were not suitable for each other; the usual consequence of this is that the couple has to go find someone else to perform the marriage.

 

[fugazi]

Leif, you're spot on about the relationship between the church and marriage. All these Christians who think they 'own' it should read some proper history books and be amazed. But hey, who am I to tell them they're wrong

 

[Zack]

Uhm, when you try to be sarcastic the next time, avoid being so obviously wrong.

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of his post, though?

 

[Atticus]

They're happy that the law recognizes their unions and the heterosexuals are happy that their marriage hasn't been devaluated.

Devaluated? I thought they were just different...

and no rudeness to eradicate by proper application of political correctness...

As far as I know "civil unions" or whatever they are, didn't exist before gay marrriage was legalized. Here they are "registered realtionships", and frankly that looks like the poltical correctness to me. From the start the idea of gay marriage has been to extend institution to homsexuals, that's what it means, and people understand those words. If I for example told a Japanese that registered realtionships are allowed in Finland, I'd probably had to explain what it means. I would explain it by saying "gay marriage".

But well, you're the onw who'se nitpicking on use of words, this and East-Europe and everything. It seems only invariant thing in "political correctness" is that it's the use of words of people who disagree with you.

Oh say, if you some day elect a woman to do the same job the president of Czech Republic is doing now, what shoud she be called? Have you ever had a woman to do the things prime minister usually do? What was she called? Have you thought of renaming your country since republic has traditionally for thousands of years been a system, where only men are able to vote or stand as candidates?

 

[admiral-bell]

They will not be seen as the same even by the eyes of the law - read my previous posts - because those two types of union are not even. In regular marriage there are man and woman, and woman is protected more in a lot of countries. In the same-sex union both parties are even, so laws should consider this. So even if same-sex couples will get the "word" marriages, they will not be really equal because it is unfeasible.

Firstly, I would like to question the premise that the parties in a marriage (under the present system) are unequal. Secondly, the plan I was talking about does not involve marriage, it involves civil unions. Please get the terminology right. And lastly, Even if the current form of marriage is slightly unequal, who cares? We should still afford people the same set of legal rights the comes with marriage.

"Your idea" is wrong and ignorant. (And keeps coming back up again again, I sincerely doubt you came up with it yourself.)

It is wrong and ignorant because marriage does not originally belong with "the churches", nor has it ever really historically been the province of the churches. In much (but never all) of Christian Europe, there was a period when you had to have a church ceremony for a marriage to be legally binding. This period began a while after the Reformation, and ended in most places some time between the late-18th and mid-19th centuries -- we're talking two or three centuries, at most, and it was over long before anyone now living was born. Clearly an anomalous state of affairs compared to the history of Christianity as a whole.

I'll admit my idea isn't original. However, if marriage is originally a secular institution which churches have now claimed, and not one that government has claimed from churches, why not just give churches "marriage" and let the government keep all the secular benefits for a new sort of union?

The idea of everyone getting civil unions is ideal because all people get the same legal rights under the same institutions, but no one loses the word that they have laid claim to (marriage). It places the secular part of marriage in secular hands and puts the rest of marriage (including the word itself) in the hands of the churches. I honestly don't see where these objections are coming from.

 

[sumit1207]

But well, you're the onw who'se nitpicking on use of words, this and East-Europe and everything. It seems only invariant thing in "political correctness" is that it's the use of words of people who disagree with you.

No, you see, the politically incorrect warriors can never themselves be "politically correct." It's just not possible for them to be butt-hurt over some words so much they feel the need to introduce a new, unnecessary term. Only liberals can do it.

And I'm not exactly understanding the argument against same-sex marriage because there's just SOOOO many legal terms that address gender roles that change is simply not possible. I mean, really? That's just not a reason in itself to stop gay marriage, just a minor hurdle after gay marriage is inevitably legalized. You don't hear about the legal catastrophes occurring in the gay marriage countries and states, so it's probably NOT a big deal.

 

[Atticus]

That's right, besides if the existing laws are gender specific, perhaps they should be changed too. As far as I know Finnish laws use only "spouse", and if someone needs protection (to which Snorrius refered), then the court desides which one it is. It's much smarter than making laws protect wifes on the assumption that they are always the ones who need protection.

 

[Leifmk]

I'll admit my idea isn't original. However, if marriage is originally a secular institution which churches have now claimed, and not one that government has claimed from churches, why not just give churches "marriage" and let the government keep all the secular benefits for a new sort of union?

Oh yes, that would go over well with everyone who wants to get married but doesn't want to involve a church.

The point of having a gender-neutral marriage law rather than a separate civil union for same-sex couples is that the latter is not equality under the law; it is not true justice; "separate but equal" invariably turns out to not be equal. Civil unions were introduced here back in the early 90s and were "good enough" for a transitional period, until social attitudes changed enough to allow mainstream support for true gender-neutral marriage laws.

The idea of everyone getting civil unions is ideal because all people get the same legal rights under the same institutions, but no one loses the word that they have laid claim to (marriage). It places the secular part of marriage in secular hands and puts the rest of marriage (including the word itself) in the hands of the churches.

These two sentences seem to be in direct contradiction of each other. Giving "the churches" exclusive rights to anything that has not been theirs previously is to take it away from everyone else.

In every modern pluralistic state, the "secular part" of marriage is the whole of marriage already, as far as the law is concerned. Some states offer to delegate officiant powers to persons who are not civil servants (mostly priests of various religions, so you can choose to have a religious ceremony and do the legal paperwork as part of that, as opposed to doing it in an office before or after the ceremony).

 

[admiral-bell]

Oh yes, that would go over well with everyone who wants to get married but doesn't want to involve a church.

What? So you are talking about the group of people who want to get married for non-secular reasons but don't want to have a church involved? Despite the fact that these people are probably a small group, because under the proposal "marriage" has no legal definition any longer, you could have anyone marry you. I fail to see how this is a problem.

The point of having a gender-neutral marriage law rather than a separate civil union for same-sex couples is that the latter is not equality under the law; it is not true justice; "separate but equal" invariably turns out to not be equal. Civil unions were introduced here back in the early 90s and were "good enough" for a transitional period, until social attitudes changed enough to allow mainstream support for true gender-neutral marriage laws.

Right.

These two sentences seem to be in direct contradiction of each other. Giving "the churches" exclusive rights to anything that has not been theirs previously is to take it away from everyone else.

What I meant by "giving it to the churches" is removing any secular or legal claim on the word. It just becomes another word that anyone can use. Besides, my church, and many others, would marry gays if allowed to.

In every modern pluralistic state, the "secular part" of marriage is the whole of marriage already, as far as the law is concerned. Some states offer to delegate officiant powers to persons who are not civil servants (mostly priests of various religions, so you can choose to have a religious ceremony and do the legal paperwork as part of that, as opposed to doing it in an office before or after the ceremony).

However, we must go beyond the law. What I propose is exactly the same as what you propose, except with a name change. The reason I like the civil union idea is because it is somewhat accommodating, increasing the chance that it will be accepted by the more religious. We are on the same side here.

 

[Shadylookin]

Don't see why. Marriage as an institution should be reserved for traditional couples. Gay/lesbian couples should have an option to form a legally established partnership equal in effect to marriage - just don't call it marriage, please. IMHO this is the best solution acceptable to pretty much everybody except the most hardcore religious hardliners.

Is such semantic squalling even relevant to Sweden(they're not English speaking natives afterall)?

and to be fair marriage is one man and as many women as he wants purchased with a previously agreed upon number of goats from their fathers. So your bizarre fake institution based upon love(and high divorce rates) really just hijacked my definition.

 

[warpus]

Hey Winner, I see you haven't responded to my post.

I am going to take that as an admission that your initial definition of marriage was incorrect.

 

[scherbchen]

way to hop on the band wagon! but we welcome you

 

[Snorrius]

and to be fair marriage is one man and as many women as he wants purchased with a previously agreed upon number of goats from their fathers. So your bizarre fake institution based upon love(and high divorce rates) really just hijacked my definition.

Actually, you mentioned interesting problem. If some "advanced" states allows same-sex marriage, then why not to make next step and allow polygamy and polyandry? Another thing is to allow marriages between close relatives: brothers, sisters, parents and children. After all, it was possible in some cultures, and who we are to stay on the way of Love?

 

[Equuleus]

Good for Sweden.

 

[Atticus]

Actually, you mentioned interesting problem. If some "advanced" states allows same-sex marriage, then why not to make next step and allow polygamy and polyandry? Another thing is to allow marriages between close relatives: brothers, sisters, parents and children. After all, it was possible in some cultures, and who we are to stay on the way of Love?

One reason is that no one has proposed that seriously, so far it's been just a rhetorical tool people use to fight against gay marriage.

Polygamy isn't simple enough to be addressed by the law: If there 's one man with many wives, are each of the females married to the man, or also to each others? If the former, what is the legal status of different wives? How does one's death or divorce alter the marriage? The contract would be totally different for each couple... er, group.

Also I have never heard of anyone out of her/his own free will being in a sexual relationship with his/hers sister, brother, mother or father. I suppose that kind of marriage would be more often forced than not. Furthermore, close relatives are already privileged in regards of each others when it comes to inheritage, adoption etc.

Even if this kind of rhetorics appeals to some people, it's pretty empty. Why don't we make marriage laws for humans and Alpha Centaurians? Also ther must be a marriage for carbon and sulphur based organisms. And what about if there really are in a far away galaxy Jedi knights, whose ability to do mind tricks must be included in the marriage laws?

Or on the other hand: if you really think that is valid criticism, why isn't it valid criticism of heterosexual marriage also?

 

[Arwon]

Actually, you mentioned interesting problem. If some "advanced" states allows same-sex marriage, then why not to make next step and allow polygamy and polyandry? Another thing is to allow marriages between close relatives: brothers, sisters, parents and children. After all, it was possible in some cultures, and who we are to stay on the way of Love?

That's not a "next step" and never has been.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Interesting thread...

Actually, what's the point of the same-sex partnerships at all? What's the point? For the marriages it is needed to protect children mostly, and to solve some other family issues. But same-sex? They will not have any children, so they can just live happily with each other why they need this hassle at all?

Actually Snorrius, the point is that without a legally recognized partnership, one partner does not have the legal status normally accorded in a man-wife relationship, and vice-versa.

As an example, my partner cannot make medical decisions for me if I am unable to, nor can I for her. My will and estate can be challenged in the event of my death, possibly denying her right to inherit my property, even if I stipulate that she should receive it. Why am I not accorded this basic human right to look after the person I love and care for and have chosen to spend my life with? Our relationship is functionally no different than that of a hetero union. Why are we treated as second class citizens?

 

[Camikaze]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but this kind of works the other way too.

If same-sex couples are not recognised as couples, they will receive certain tax benefits, or more to the point, will not have to declare joint income (and hence be in lower tax brackets). However, if their relationships are recognised, then they will be forced to pay higher tax due to the this recognition.

So it makes the tax system fairer on heterosexuals, you could argue, but it also could lead to more institutional-born discrimination. If two people of the same sex that live together are under scrutiny to as to their sexuality by the Tax Office (whether they are a same-sex couple, or just two people living together), they may see this as, perhaps, unnerving and an unwarranted intrusion and speculation upon their private lives. Also, some 'closet gays' would be forced to disclose their sexuality, perhaps leading to them being more discriminated, due to tax regulations.

So, it's not all beneficial for homosexuals.

 

[holy king]

That's not a "next step" and never has been.

run for your your lives, it's a gateway marriage!!!!!!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Actually, you mentioned interesting problem. If some "advanced" states allows same-sex marriage, then why not to make next step and allow polygamy and polyandry? Another thing is to allow marriages between close relatives: brothers, sisters, parents and children.

Marriage between animals and plants! cats and dogs! You have a good point. We never should have allowed women to vote. I'm sure now we've done this, the next step surely is to allow pets to vote.

- Ziggy. Strawmanning Strawmen since 8:56 this morning.