The Legality of homo/bi/transsexuality and Marriage

Canadian Leaders Agree to Propose Gay Marriage Law

Will Americans applaud or defame this momentous decision?

This thread is intended to discuss this bit of news as well as the more general theme of: Why isn't homo/bi/trans/non-heterosexuality given legal equality? I know that there's already a thread called "Homosexuality - huh?" but that thread seems to deal more with the moral and religious side of the issue, rather than the legal side.

Anyway...feel free to discuss.

KK EDIT: The misspelled title was bugging me. Fixed it.

 

Dont mean to offend anybody here but as long as Bush is president there wont be such change for the homosexuals living in the US.

 

I grew up with the registered partnership law tha was passed in Demark 15 years ago, so the idea of doing it in a church is not that wierd to me. On the other hand I'm not religous, that influences my desicion.
Time is changing fast and church marriage is not what it was 40 ago, today its more something you do to follow tradition or to please your parents. I know some people that doesn't believe in god but was married anyhow.

I understand the religious problems, I dont however see the moral problems.


-Mulacki

 

While the Canadians no doubt see themselves as being at the leading edge of enlightenment and progress, Emperor Caligula would be disappointed that they've failed to legalize Man-Horse unions. When, oh when, will that outdated and mean-spirited prohibition on true love be lifted? How long will a man and his sheep be forced to keep their love secret?

 

The Netherlands and we here in Belgium already legalized it.

I second AJA's request though. =D

 

AJA has opened my eyes. Beastiality and the love between 2 people is the EXACT same thing.

 

The general Western prohibition on homosexual unions is nothing short of primitive. If we are to develop as a society we need to gleefully abandon the shackles of ignorance and fear, and accept the inherent right to privacy of individuals.

I'll also be watching to see who doesn't support the idea of same-sex unions to see if they also fallaciously claim to be libertarian. Can't be a libertarian and believe in censoring peoples lives!

E_S

 

I'm curious as to the legal aspect. Countries recognize the legalities of each other's marriages. If I were to get married in the US and move to Canada, I would be considered legally married in Canada.

How does this work with homosexual unions? If they legally get married in Canada, would another country such as the US recognize it?

 

I'm not sure, either. As far as health care and such, I think that the company/business decides on a case-by-case basis, outside of any non-discrimination laws in place. As far as federal/state benefits and taxation, I would guess that you'd need to produce evidence of a civil union, and if the state/country in question doesn't recognise homosexual unions, I would imagine they would reject the legal basis of the claim.

Does anyone know how it works for people married in hawaii or Vermont, and then move to other states? I'd google it, but I'm too busy right now.

 

I don't know and don't have time to google for it either. Maybe later

But that does make sense, Red-Seven. Country A recognizes the union between a man and a woman. Country B recognizes the union between a man and a woman. Therefore they agree to recognize each other's marriages.

But if country A recognizes homosexual unions and country B does not, country B wouldn't recognize homosexual marriages from country A since it doesn't even recognize or legalize them in its own country.

 

As far as I know, the case law in Vermont didn't authorize same sex marriages, but stipulated that denying benefits to gay/lesbian couples violated the Constitution in Vermont.

As a result, a parallel legal status, "unmarried domestic partnership," was created. The gay couple has to offically apply for the civil recognition.

The new status allows same sex partners to receive health benefits, family leave, etc..without being formally married.

Again, as far as I know, there are no legal cases that prohibit status as a "domestic partner." Even if there is an individual state that has banned same-sex marriages, the status should be portable.

There would have to be a court case ruling that determined the legality of the status, to see if it can formally stand.

 

Mr44 has answered part of the question regarding the recognition of homosexual unions performed in one state and whether they will be recognized in another state.

Under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, one state must recognize a legal action taken in another state. Thus, when I get a judgment against a defendant in a Texas court, I can take that judgment to another state where the defendant may reside and have the courts in that state enforce it. Similarly, people who have drivers' licenses from other state may be allowed to drive on Texas roads (but that may have more to do with states not being allowed to restrict interstate commerce).

Generally, if I move to another state, the other state must recognize the marriage that I had performed/memorialized in Texas under the US Constitution under the full faith and credit clause. If I get married in Mexico or overseas somewhere, that marriage may be recognized as well but under different guidelines. However, many states began to rush to define marriage in their state constitutions as only being between a man and a woman following a Hawaii case in 1993 that held that the definition of marriage under Hawaiian law (I don't recall if it was under the Hawaii constitution or a statute) was unconstitutional under the Hawaii state constitution because it excluded homosexuals.

State constitutions may afford more rights in some cases than the US constitution. (For example, in Texas, our state constitution has greater protections for property than under the US Constitution.) In New Jersey, the New Jersey supreme court ruled that the Boy Scouts could not discriminate against homosexuals under the New Jersey constitution. But the precedent set by that case is not binding on Texas or other states because the New Jersey constitutions may contain provisions that are not present in the Texas constitutution, and the decisions of New Jersey's courts are not binding on Texas (though they may be cited and followed as persuasive authority if the Texas Supreme Court decides to follow the New Jersey's reasoning). Remember, each state may enact protections that are greater than those afforded by the US constitution under the purview of states' rights. Thus, Texas is not bound to recognize Vermont civil unions or homosexual marriages in states where these might be recognized under those states' constitutions or statutes because Texas has no similar provision and statutorily and constitutionally limits recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples.

However, states cannot enact protections that are less than those guaranteed by the US Constitution. States are generally free to define marriage in their constitutions and to limit recognized marriages to heterosexual couples as long as that limitation is not unconstitutional under the US constitution. These limitations will undoubtedly be challenged at some point under the equal protection or due process clauses of the US Constitution. The pending Texas sodomy case, if decided favorably to the homosexuals who were arrested, will surely be the basis of the argument that if you cannot penalize homosexuals for engaging in the same acts as heterosexuals, homosexual couples cannot be denied the recognition of marriage by the respective states.

As US Constitutional law currently stands, states may prohibit sodomy. A 1986 decision upheld a Georgia statute prohibiting sodomy, but as I recall, the Georgia statute did not differentiate between homosexuals and heterosexuals as the Texas statute does. Strictly on equal protection and other legal/constitutional grounds, it seems to be hard to justify this differentiation. I would suspect that Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia would uphold the Texas statute since Scalia and Rehnquist upheld the Georgia statute in 1986. Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Souter will probably vote to strike down the Texas statute. Kennedy and O'Connor will be the swing votes, as usual. O'Connor upheld that Georgia statute, but frequently differs with Scalia and Thomas. It will be intere

 

Good for them. They are taking a step on a controversial issue that too many people are afraid to discuss in the US.

I myself am somewhat divided on gay marriage, but I'm all for gay rights. We're a long way away from that in the US, methinks.

Peace,

V-03

 

AJA, I hope your sickening comparison between the love between humans and the love between humans and animals is just some sick joke, not how you really feel.

 

AJA has opened my eyes. Beastiality and the love between 2 people is the EXACT same thing.

What KaineDamo and OWK have said.

Bestiality, since the animal cannot make a choice, is the equivalent of rape, not homosexual love.

50 years ago, interracial marriages were as condemned as homosexual marriages are now. Hell, I as an Irish-American would be condemned for marrying an Italian-American. However, although there are some people today who condemn interracial marriages (I think they're racists, but that's me), no one in their right mind would consider making them illegal. Hopefully this country will progress enough to allow homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

That's not to say that a church that is really against homosexuality shouldn't have the right to refuse to perform ceremonies. I don't have a problem with that. Some Catholic churches refuse to marry anyone who isn't Catholic. That doesn't mean that a Catholic/Protestant couple can't go somewhere else and marry. The church has the right to make certain rules against issues that are otherwise allowed by the law. But homosexual couples need another place to go in order to form a legal union. It is only fair that they receive the same benefits as a heterosexual couple. One cannot always choose whom one loves.

 

AJA, while having sex with you might be considered bestiality, you must realise that most humans aren't quite so primitive.

 

I can see into the future. AJA will say something along the lines of;

"But allowing gay marriages will lead the way to acceptance of beastiality!"

 

i think any two people who want to have the state legally recognize them as a married couple ought to be able to do so. gay couples should not be precluded the same rights that straight couples get across the board. i don't care who's gay, who's straight, who's married or who's living with whomever. common law marriage came about as a method of trying to accomodate the changing nature of people and their relationships. newsflash: people are going to do what ever they want to do. being gay isn't something that warrants dicrimination. actually, most of the men i've known who find it a reprehensible lifestyle have a bit of a double standard. some of them have or (have at least tried) to get their wives to go 21st century part time lesbian chic. two men? gross! two women? oh, heck yeah! it's just uh......spicing things up in the bedroom. two beautiful women having lesbian sex is infinitely more acceptable in American society now than two gay men. see the recent beer commercials for proof.

 

The lawsuits are really about to begin now.

From today's Houston Chronicle:

______________________

Canada to recognize same-sex unions
Cabinet's decision comes one week after Ontario court ruled ban unconstitutional

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
New York Times

TORONTO -- The Canadian Cabinet on Tuesday approved a new national policy to open marriage to gay couples, which opens the way to making Canada the third country to allow same-sex unions.

The decision to redefine marriage in Canada to include unions between men and between women will immediately take effect in Ontario, Canada's most populous province and one that borders the United States. It comes after the province's highest court ruled last week that current federal marriage laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

Once aides to Prime Minister Jean Chretien draft the necessary legislation, the House of Commons is expected to pass it into law in the next few months. Although leaders of the two conservative parties and some backbench Liberals have expressed reservations, there is little organized opposition to the new law, and polls show a solid majority of public opinion in favor of the change.

Canada follows in the steps of the Netherlands and Belgium but could be of far greater significance because of its potential impact on the United States.

The policy opens the way for same-sex couples from the United States and around the world to travel here to marry, since Canada has no marriage residency requirements. In addition, gay activists in the United States are already declaring that Canada will serve as a vivid example to Americans that same-sex marriage is workable and offers no challenge to traditional, heterosexual family life.

Canadian marriage licenses have always been accepted in the United States, but, in at least some states, the change in Canadian policy could present legal challenges to same-sex couples claiming rights and privileges deriving from their Canadian licenses. Issues over adoption rights and inheritance and insurance benefits are likely to arise in courts and state legislatures.

"What this presents for American couples is an opportunity to easily enter into a legal marriage and come back to the United States with a powerful tool to break down the remaining discrimination here," said Lavi Soloway, a Canadian-born lawyer and founder of the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force in New York.

Canada's new marriage policy comes at a time when the government is also pushing for legislation that would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, another policy that diverges sharply with U.S. practices.

Polling experts and social scientists note that morality and politics mix much less here than in the United States, with Canadians regularly attending church services in far lower numbers than Americans and with fundamentalist Protestant groups attracting far less support.

"You have to look at history as an evolution of society," Chretien said after the Cabinet meeting. "According to the interpretation of the courts these unions should be legal in Canada. We will ensure that our legislation includes and legally recognizes the union of same-sex couples."

Gay activists celebrated the decision as a civil rights milestone.

"June 17th will be a day gays and lesbians will remember for a long, long time to come," said a smiling Svend Robinson, a gay member of the House of Commons from the left-of-center New Democratic party.

_________________________

As a person with homosexual acquaintances and friends, I am not overly bothered by this. As a conservative and Christian, I have mixed feelings on certain aspects of homosexual rights. But as a lawyer (the focus of this thread) I can't imagine how the distinction will continue between heterosexual and homosexual couples. This is not to say that Canada's actions will cause America to fall in line with it. As the article points out, Americans are generally more religious than Canadians and are more conservative on t

 

Yes, but a lot of people once considered interracial marriage "deviant" and considered African-Americans inferior to whites, and those of Mediterranean origin as inferior to those of Northern European origin.

 

Kaine damo said: I can see into the future. AJA will say something along the lines of;
"But allowing gay marriages will lead the way to acceptance of beastiality!

Why do people think that alowing gay marriages and gay rights will lead the way for bestiality or pedophilia?
Homosexuality: two responsible consenting people
Pedophilia: a child is abused, the pedophile tricks the kid into having sexual intercourse with him
Bestiality: the animal has no frickin' idea of what's happening.

Homosexuality: two responsible consenting people only that they are of the same sex.

Permitting gays to marry wil not lead to the legalisation bestiality or pedophilia.

 

Thank you Canada for taking this monumental step FORWARD.

I've had freinds in Same Sex relationships that have lasted far longer that 'conventional' marriages (one for 20+ years.. they are still deeply in love). The only problem is that their domestic partner was unable to collect death benifits ect ect ect...

What people do in their own Bedroom is their OWN BUISNESS.

If two people want to have a legalised domestic partnership what buisness it is of mine what 'accessories' they were born with?


Edit to Add

One couple I knew was considering having children, but the big problem is if one of them passed, there was no way for the other person to 'keep' the child without having to wrestle with the ugly beast that can be the state. Marriage would protect the entire FAMILY.....

 

I am against the legalization of gay marriage.

I am not against gay 'unions' if homosexuals choose to do so where one partner can make decisions for the other medically and such. However, gov't-sanctioned marriage is out of the question.

Marriage is between a man and a woman only for the purpose of founding and maintaing a family in the traditional fashion.

It should stay that way.