I’m happy for you. No, really. I’d be happy too, but it’s hard to smile when you’ve been kicked in the teeth.
In the US, 3 more states have (probably) voted to ban the possibility of gay marriage. Arkansas banned gay fostering and adoption. In the run up to California’s Prop 8 vote, The Yes on 8 Campaign held a rally against gay marriage. It’s not often you see pictures, in a civilised country, in the 21st century, of 15,000 people, that, well, hate you.
It’s not about gay marriage. It’s about equality. Human rights.
There are 6 countries which give gays and lesbians equal rights (apart from maybe blood donation) – Canada, Spain, Belgium, Norway, South Africa, the Netherlands.
In the UK, I can’t get married or give blood.
There are at least 76 countries where homosexuality is illegal, in 7, punishable by death.
So, be happy. Really. It’s a great day for equality, today. Celebrate, today. But tomorrow, there’s work to be done.
What’s the difference between marriage and civic partnerships (other than not being able to marry in a church)? I’ve just read all the related wikipedia articles but apart from the fact that the legislation that defines them is different, it all seems to say that the legal consequences are the same. So is there something I’m missing or is it the fact that there is a distinction between the 2 forms that is the problem?
I’m intrigued since this is just about the one and only issue that I actually gave Blair and co credit for.
Oh dear – Proposition 8 has passed it seems.
— Alex Robinson 5.11.08 #
It’s just semantics. Civic partnerships are a technical win, if not emotional. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, call it a duck. If it’s meant to be marriage, call it marriage.
Regarding semantic differences, here’s a fun fact: I’m in a registered partnership in Finland, and just had a kid. So far we’ve been treated like any other married couple by government employees, hospital staff, and the like. However, I just got the first bit of paperwork about the kid, and it lists her as having been born “out of wedlock”. The form has my name on it, and some fields have been left blank for the father’s name, but my wife does not exist, and I’m not supposed to put her name down in the “father” spaces(though I might anyway). Semantics, yes, and expected, and technically unimportant, but honestly, it stung to actually see that on paper. It’s also ridiculous. I have one paper saying I’m in a committed relationship recognized by the government, and another one saying my child was born to an unwed mother who has chosen not to pursue the identity of the father. Brilliant.
That’s disappointing. Is it just paperwork catching up with society, or one government department thinking it doesn’t matter?
And I do think this shows the preposterousness of ‘civil partnerships’ as a quasi-marriage…
It’s because over here, civil partnerships are specifically for gay couples. Straight couples doing a civil ceremony are still considered “married”. Ergo, I am not married.
This is the government’s way around the fact that although civil partnerships are officially recognized, gay people are not allowed to adopt, but lesbians are having kids anyway, especially since fertility treatments were made legal for them in 2006. We’re in limbo-land. Luckily I suspect the government will soon realize that it’s a good thing for a kid to have two parents and will make it legal to adopt your partner’s biological offspring.
Unfortunately, all this still leaves gay men screwed, for the most part. Which is horrendously unfair.
Chris, it was all very disappointing. But what struck me was how all referendums on restricting abortion failed. I think gay marriage has come to the forefront of the minds of some folks, overshadowing all anti-abortion talk. Maybe they can only think of one thing at a time.
The other sad thing is that I find the current state of hetero-marriages abysmal (especially in Finland). Divorce rates are so high across the developed world making mockery of the marriage these anti-gay marriage folks are trying to uphold.
Argh. It really steams me up.
A few other marriage things that make me shake my head: – Black-White marriages were illegal in many states for a long time. Obama’s mom was a brave one (and I know others who braved convention back then). – Women forced to take married names – In our wedding certificate, we had to specify that my wife was NOT taking my family name. By default she would. – Lot’s of folk in the nordic region get married after having kids and such. I think it’s partly due to the way marriage and the marriage process is restrictive in these parts.
And one last thing: when I arrived in Finland, I didn’t have our marriage certificate when we registered the children, so my kids didn’t belong to me and were listed as ‘bastardi’, even though their mom was 6000 miles away. To make matters even more complicated, the US IRS dumped millions of women (like my wife) off their husband’s tax records that year because they hadn’t registered as married with the Soc Sec office. So I was unmarried in two countries.
Why do we make something so nice and simple into a joke?
BTW, Chris, I hope the world is a kinder place when the time comes for you to tie the knot. :-)
contact
email:
chris is at anti-mega.com
Twitter:
@antimega
iChat/AIM:
antimega77