In Defense of the Marriage

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

It used to - please tell me what they are now though?

Automatic rights to my partners estate if he dies before me, the fact that I have no legal protection if we buy a house together like a married couple would. I'm unable to prove my income as I'm currently not working because I'm studying with the OU and my partner provides an income for me a the moment, and on top of that I'm unable to make any medical decisions for him if he is unable. All of which would be available to me if we were "married".

Originally Posted by Chris T

'Marriage' is at least two things in our society today. In part, it is a binding legal contract under which two people form a partnership that brings certain legal privileges and responsibilities. But there are all kinds of legal partnership that have a similar effect and none of them is known as 'marriage'. That term arises from the religious aspect of it, which stresses both the spiritual and physical side of the union - two bodies, one male, one female, literally joined together to make a whole (in Christianity at least).

Does this mean that you'd like all those who married in a registry office (specifically to have no religious interference) to not be able to call themselves married? As far as I am concerned the name given to the contract is of little consequence, I'm not at all bothered in the slightest that it may not be called "marriage" what I am bothered about is that I currently have no option to make some form of commitment that allows me the legal rights that "normal" couples (of any religion) have.

This is why there are always religious objections when the subject of 'gay marriage' comes up - according to the Christian notion of what marriage is, it is simply not possible for two people of the same sex to be married. Our society has now (sadly IMO) gone beyond being Christian, or religious at all in any traditional sense, so it is a little anachronistic to allow legal privileges to one group of people but not another. What is required is a legal framework that allows same-sex civil partnerships but which does not attempt to dress itself up in quasi-religious terminology.

I can't see that the word marriage has that many religious connotations these days, our language is a fluid thing and the meaning of words change over time. If you asked 1000 random people in the street what marriage meant to them I'd bet most of them wouldn't immediately say "Christianity".

I'm afraid that this idea that the word marriage belongs to one group of people and they have the patent to decide whats done with it is wrong, you still recognize Hindu/Muslim marriages why not gay ones?

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Chris T

'Marriage' is at least two things in our society today. In part, it is a binding legal contract under which two people form a partnership that brings certain legal privileges and responsibilities. But there are all kinds of legal partnership that have a similar effect and none of them is known as 'marriage'. That term arises from the religious aspect of it, which stresses both the spiritual and physical side of the union - two bodies, one male, one female, literally joined together to make a whole (in Christianity at least).
<snip>

But neither of you have managed to point out what the legal privilages of marriage are these days. We can find lots of examples of the legal responsibilities it rightly or wrongly brings (we could ask Ray Parlour for examples of these). But privilages, tax breaks - not unless you are over 65, greater state benefits - no probably worse. What are these miracle legal privileges that Marriage brings. The last 20 years of Govt. have managed to remove them all IMHO.

The above is not to say Marriage is not worthwhile, but it is not something you enter for financial reasons, but relegious, emotional and spiritual reasons (and to be able to live in the same country).

Originally Posted by Chris T

What is required is a legal framework that allows same-sex civil partnerships but which does not attempt to dress itself up in quasi-religious terminology.

If that approach is taken, does it not imply that the same arrangment should also be made for aetheists?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

<snip>

The above is not to say Marriage is not worthwhile, but it is not something you enter for financial reasons, but relegious, emotional and spiritual reasons (and to be able to live in the same country).

Yes, some people DO enter into it for financial reasons...my father and stepmother (as much as they do sincerely love each other) wouldn't have got married, but now they own properties etc between them, and with children on both sides, wills and pensions, getting married makes it a lot less complicated sorting all that kind of stuff when one or the other party dies...

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by dellwear

Automatic rights to my partners estate if he dies before me,

A will resolves this and should be written even if you are married (or straight and cohabiting). Insurance companies are more forward thinking than the government and will hapily pay a life insurance policy over to a gay partner if that is what the policy holder nominated. As a married couple your automatic rights to your partners estate are severely impared if you have children, to the point they could take sufficient ownership of your home that they could force you out (though unless you adopt I realise this is a bit of a technicality)

Originally Posted by dellwear

the fact that I have no legal protection if we buy a house together like a married couple would.

Yes you do, a good (or even a very average) property conveyencor would suggest you own the property as tennants in common (not joint tennants), tennents in common both own a shadow 100% of the property in event of death of a tennant, then ownership automatically is shared between the rest of the tennants.

Originally Posted by dellwear

I'm unable to prove my income as I'm currently not working because I'm studying with the OU and my partner provides an income for me a the moment,

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here. Most firms and their pension policies allow you to specify a same sex life partner ( in my companies case you must have been living together for two years). In such an example in the event of death, the company pension scheme would provide death in service benefits to the same sex life partner.

Originally Posted by dellwear

and on top of that I'm unable to make any medical decisions for him if he is unable. All of which would be available to me if we were "married".

Nothing a living will won't resolve. In reality if you have a healthy relationship with him and his parents, you would want to be including them in the decision and they would want you to be included in the decision regardless of what the law said. Similarly the NHS will pretty much overlook the law for visitor rights etc. I know if I had to make a decision to turn of Mrs H life support I would be making this decision in conjunction with her Mother and rest of family regardless of whether I had the ultimate right to overrule.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

If that approach is taken, does it not imply that the same arrangment should also be made for aetheists?

Isn't that what we call a civil service?

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

But neither of you have managed to point out what the legal privilages of marriage are these days. We can find lots of examples of the legal responsibilities it rightly or wrongly brings (we could ask Ray Parlour for examples of these). But privilages, tax breaks - not unless you are over 65, greater state benefits - no probably worse. What are these miracle legal privileges that Marriage brings. The last 20 years of Govt. have managed to remove them all IMHO.

The above is not to say Marriage is not worthwhile, but it is not something you enter for financial reasons, but relegious, emotional and spiritual reasons (and to be able to live in the same country).

Currently I have no right to stay in this house if my partner decides to kick me out, it's rented in his name even though I have paid half the rent/bills for years and bought half of the furniture, if we were a straight couple we'd have the option to get married, this in turn would give me some legal protection, currently I have no option but to trust my partner not to kick me out.

Again I'd point to the medical rights, I currently would have to ring and speak with my partners family (who he doesn't have anything to do with) to get permission for him to have an operation or medial procedure should he be unable to provide his own permission.

There are also other financial considerations, for example should he be unable to support the both of us at the moment we wouldn't be entitled to the same level of benefits. These are just some of the protection/rights I'm not allowed because we do have the same options available to us, surely in the 21st century a whole section of the community should be in this position.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an activist sort, I wouldn't even dream of marching, or protesting about the current situation however I do still feel aggrieved about the way things are.

You didn't mention the other points that i made, what do you think about them? Should we do as Dr Wadd said?

Edit- I see you've replied since

Originally Posted by dr wadd

If that approach is taken, does it not imply that the same arrangment should also be made for aetheists?

For myself, as a Christian, I see the marriage relationship between one man and one woman as part of the created order, so it is difficult to see it as anything other than that, whether or not those getting married acknowledge God. However this just serves to underline the difficulty of trying to align something that has been essentially Christian in our culture for longer than anyone can remember with a modern legal framework that is becoming increasingly post-religious and is required to acknowledge other ways of looking at the world.

Your point about the correct terminology for any non-Christian union is a good one. In fact if you have a Register Office wedding you are not currently allowed any religious references in the ceremony at all, although the word marriage is of course allowed. I think the reason the word is not objected to in those circumstances by society at large is because it has been a very long time indeed since there were laws banning any kind of marriage except Christian ones. Society has simply become used to it. However in this case we are dealing with something which is not going to gradually become accepted, but which would (in theory) go from being illegal one day to legal the next. This makes little allowance for the fact that attitudes can change a lot more slowly than laws do and I think goes some way towards explaining why it is only gay marriage that is causing objections.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

A will resolves this and should be written even if you are married (or straight and cohabiting). Insurance companies are more forward thinking than the government and will hapily pay a life insurance policy over to a gay partner if that is what the policy holder nominated. As a married couple your automatic rights to your partners estate are severely impared if you have children, to the point they could take sufficient ownership of your home that they could force you out (though unless you adopt I realise this is a bit of a technicality)

Again though these are things that are given to married couples, an option we are denied.

Yes you do, a good (or even a very average) property conveyencor would suggest you own the property as tennants in common (not joint tennants), tennents in common both own a shadow 100% of the property in event of death of a tennant, then ownership automatically is shared between the rest of the tennants.

Again cost and hassle to us that we wouldn't need to go through should we have the option of a "marriage" type contract.

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here. Most firms and their pension policies allow you to specify a same sex life partner ( in my companies case you must have been living together for two years). In such an example in the event of death, the company pension scheme would provide death in service benefits to the same sex life partner.

What I'm saying is that if I apply for financial support to help pay toward the cost of my degree I am unable to prove my income making it almost imposable to get any form of help because the government do not see our finances as joint.

Nothing a living will won't resolve. In reality if you have a healthy relationship with him and his parents, you would want to be including them in the decision and they would want you to be included in the decision regardless of what the law said. Similarly the NHS will pretty much overlook the law for visitor rights etc. I know if I had to make a decision to turn of Mrs H life support I would be making this decision in conjunction with her Mother and rest of family regardless of whether I had the ultimate right to overrule.

Again something we have to go out and do that is automatic to straight couples, even with a living will I don't have any rights, he would detail what he wants happening, hardly the same.

Like I said in a past post, we don't get on with his family and should something happen to him I'd have no right to organize the funeral, dispose of his belongings or his/our money.

Originally Posted by Chris T

However in this case we are dealing with something which is not going to gradually become accepted, but which would (in theory) go from being illegal one day to legal the next. This makes little allowance for the fact that attitudes can change a lot more slowly than laws do and I think goes some way towards explaining why it is only gay marriage that is causing objections.

Surely this is how it worked for non-religious marriages, the law was changed on one day and the next it wasn't illegal, I can't see the HUGE difference allured to by some.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by dellwear

<snip>Don't get me wrong, I'm not an activist sort, I wouldn't even dream of marching, or protesting about the current situation however I do still feel aggrieved about the way things are.

You didn't mention the other points that i made, what do you think about them? Should we do as Dr Wadd said?

Edit- I see you've replied since

I have replied, but some of the points don't hold true with the additional information you have added to this post (renting - does your landlord know he is subletting! living wills and parents relationships), however there are still ways and means, it does require more effort.

Dr Wadd said - stop killing each other? Well yes. Have some kind of civil arrangement - yes - if Homosexuality has been legalised, then the logical progression is that a declaration of partership that is equivilant in the eyes of the law (though not necessarily the church) should exist. After all the Church doen't really recognise a civil marriage (unless you are trying to remarry).

Mrs H sells Wedding invitations and things, she has actually done a couple of Commitment ceremonies, from a commercial point there is no sense in refusing the pink pound, and they have far better taste than some brides. She was shocked when she was told that many invitation studios didn't want to deal with them though!

[Ramrod]

From todays Times:

Only losers get married

I REALLY LOVE my girlfriend; I think she loves me. We are both of a good age to get spliced. Consequently I am thinking of popping the question. Last week I nearly did it †â€ÂÂÂ� but a small voice inside made me hesitate. That voice was asking: Why on earth should I marry? Whatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s in it for me, for men, for any modern British male? Is there any point in a man taking such a hideous risk? I donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t like thinking this way: it feels grubby and unchivalrous. But facts keep rudely intruding, such as the Ray Parlour case. These things can leave a man feeling a little confused †â€ÂÂÂ� and in need of a short, simple, pros and cons list.

Letââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s do the pros first. Traditionally, one of the major selling points of marriage †â€ÂÂÂ� especially for highly sexed young men †â€ÂÂÂ� has been sex itself. When sex is unavailable outside wedlock, licensed lovemaking sounds great. But since the Sixties, casual, no-strings-attached sex has been widely available outside marriage in Britain. So sex is no longer a significant plus point.

What about the legitimisation of children? Again, this factor must once have been crucial in making marriage attractive. Not any more. Does anyone these days really care if kids are illegitimate? There may still be vague question marks over inheritance law for ba*tards, but it feels like a marginal issue, at most.

Finally, (itââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s quite a short pros list) there is status. As with legitimacy and sex, this is a plus whose potency has dwindled. Marriage used to be the Western version of †œkilling your lionââ‚ ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�. It was how men became that proper and exalted thing: king of the castle, a paterfamilias, the official head of the household.

Nowadays, it ainââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t necessarily so. In any modern family, the woman is quite likely to be the major breadwinner; the wife may also be the †œhead of the householdââ‚ ¬ÂÂÂÂ�, inasmuch as that concept exists any more. Am I saying that these social changes are intrinsically bad? Not at all †â€ÂÂÂ� how many intelligent men really liked having a doormat for a wife? But there is no denying that, status-wise, things have changed, and not to the advantage of men.

Now for the cons. These begin at birth: with the laws on reproduction. Marriage brings a man no more rights over the reproductive process than he had before. Zero. If a woman gets pregnant, she can abort the child as she wishes. The father-to-be doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have a right to be consulted, or even informed. At least two dozen UK court cases have confirmed this. Hereââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s one: in 2001 Stephen Hone, a 24-year-old salesman, went to the High Court to stop his former girlfriend from aborting the foetus. Hone offered to give up his job and look after the child, if his ex would go full-term. Of course, the court found in the womanââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s favour; as it would have done even if they had been married. She aborted.

Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m not saying this is morally wrong. Only a caveman would want to return to a situation where women can be forced to give birth. But there is still something in the contemptuous way that the law treats men that irks. Consider the contemporary comments on the Hone case by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service: †œWhere she has the abortion, when she has it, and what happens to the foetus as a result, are for her and her doctors and no one else.ââ‚ƚ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�

But what if a woman lies that she is on the Pill and gets pregnant? Presumably the man isnââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t expected to support that child, is he? Strangely enough, he is. The law does not recognise that mothers manquÃÃâ€*’©es can act †œfraudulentlyÃà ‚¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ ÂÂÂ� in conceiving this way; instead, it taxes the man.

Even when it comes to children wanted by both partners, the law sides heavily with the wife, the ex-wife, the mother. Women win more than 90 per cent of custody cases. Men, for sure, are usually awarded access, but that means little †â€ÂÂÂ� 50 per cent of the 50,000 contact orders made each year are broken †â€ÂÂÂ� nearly always at the expense of the father. We know this because of the Fathers 4 Justice Campaign, those saps on bridges in Superman suits. And what have they achieved so far? To elicit this terse statement from the Home Office: †œThe Government does not believe that a legal principle to contact would be helpful.ââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�

Itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s not looking good, is it? Then we have to think about divorce law as it relates to earnings. Here I have an anecdote that I think is telling.

When I was working on a travel article in Spain I met a yoga teacher called Peter who used to be a high-flying lawyer. As Peter sat in the lotus position he told his story: he had once been very much in love with his wife, to whom he was faithful. Then his wife, who had never had a job, started an affair with her personal fitness trainer; she consequently demanded a divorce. Despite the womanââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s adultery, the courts awarded his wife the children, the house and the majority of their money. One day, after the divorce, Peter, now exiled to a bedsit, rang up his own house: the fitness trainer answered, on the phone Peter still paid for, in the living room Peter had furnished; with Peterââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s kids laughing in the background. Thatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s when Peter gave up his job, moved to Spain and started teaching Ashtanga. There were tears in his eyes as he told the story, ten years later.

You see my problem. How can I pay lip service to a laughable institution such as modern marriage, an institution so obviously devalued, trashed and unbalanced, from the male point of view? I feel as if society is asking me to tattoo LOSER across my forehead. Why donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t I just cohabit, and avoid all these risks and pitfalls? And yet, the paradox remains: on an emotional level I really do still want to take my vows, to make this solemn declaration, to announce in the presence of my friends, my family, my God, that this is the woman I love above all others.

Itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s a horrible dilemma. Which is why Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m loading the burden on to you. Put it another way: Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢d like to end this piece with a plea. Can any reader give me one, cold, clear, non-religious reason why I, as a modern British male, should tie the knot? If you can furnish me with just one sound argument in favour of wedlock, I am sure that my heart will do the rest.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

I have replied, but some of the points don't hold true with the additional information you have added to this post (renting - does your landlord know he is subletting! living wills and parents relationships), however there are still ways and means, it does require more effort.

Yes my landlord does know, I'm listed on the tenancy agreement as an agreed occupier, I guess the fact that my property manager is gay helps

As for the point about it taking more effort, this is one of the main problems, these days we are all suppose to have equal opportunity's in life. One section of society shouldn't have to go out of their way to get the same rights as the rest. I thought that sort of thing went out of the window with Emily Pankhurst and Martin Luther King. Obviously not, gays/lesbians are currently still treated with prejudice, many may not like to think of it like that but they are, perhaps this is down to the fact that we were/are not as vocal as ethnic minorities, or women.

Dr Wadd said - stop killing each other? Well yes. Have some kind of civil arrangement - yes - if Homosexuality has been legalised, then the logical progression is that a declaration of partership that is equivilant in the eyes of the law (though not necessarily the church) should exist. After all the Church doen't really recognise a civil marriage (unless you are trying to remarry).

Then where's the problem with calling it marriage? If the church don't recognize civil marriages but let them call it marriage then why not gay marriages??

[SMHarman]

This thread is moving way to fast to keep up with.

Originally Posted by dellwear

Again though these are things that are given to married couples, an option we are denied.

Being married to an "Alien", we both lose most of the taxable breaks over each others estate, so marriage has not given this one to me (I know mine is an exception - but in these days of cheap airfares and globalisation a growing exception - , I'm just pointing out that exceptions even exist in the current framework).

I'll PM you a will framework you just need to put your name and his into it and get some friends who are not financially linked to the will to sign it and you are done. Costs nothing. Regarding eers and forms, I have to fill the same forms in too, even though i'm married. You also need to consider that the trusteed of any firm insurance have ultimate discretion on the payouts, so they could pay to you even if documentation did not exist.

For a rental property I don't know how it works, but at the next 12month contract signing you probably should be put on the lease.

In the examples above all you are losing out on is the right to the estate tax free on death. This is probably the only fiscal benefit of note left for marriage, and a valid reason why OBs father and stepmother married.

Originally Posted by dellwear

Again cost and hassle to us that we wouldn't need to go through should we have the option of a "marriage" type contract.

No more cost and hassle than when I bought a property with an ex girlfriend. A simple change of words (in reality, more transactions are probably done in common now due to the tax benefits). Joint is better if one is bringing more into the property and wants to reflect that, e.g. one is paying a 100k deposit on a 200k house you may split the ownership 75/25.

Originally Posted by dellwear

What I'm saying is that if I apply for financial support to help pay toward the cost of my degree I am unable to prove my income making it almost imposable to get any form of help because the government do not see our finances as joint.

I'm being very thick here - isn't this an advantage. You are therefore a student earning 0, the government has forced itself to be unable to look at his income, therefore you get money?

Originally Posted by dellwear

Again something we have to go out and do that is automatic to straight couples, even with a living will I don't have any rights, he would detail what he wants happening, hardly the same.

Like I said in a past post, we don't get on with his family and should something happen to him I'd have no right to organize the funeral, dispose of his belongings or his/our money.

This is one of the areas more difficult to resolve without civil partnerships (which I hope you can see I agree with). But his living will could detail that he wants you to decide with guidance from the medical profession what should happen.

A will could certainly cover the rest, who the executor is, who decides on the funeral arrangements, how his assets are distributed.

Originally Posted by dellwear

Surely this is how it worked for non-religious marriages, the law was changed on one day and the next it wasn't illegal, I can't see the HUGE difference allured to by some.

Indeed. What is the difference. Opinions didn't change overnight when Homosexuality was legalised, now we have "queer eye for the straight guy".

(hope I got all these quotes right.)

edit, to save adding more posts to this thread

Originally Posted by dellwear

Then where's the problem with calling it marriage? If the church don't recognize civil marriages but let them call it marriage then why not gay marriages??

Absolutly none IMHO, but if you want to get it past the general public, the house of commons, lords (probably the easiest part) and into law, you'd be best not to put the word marriage in there.

(I think we need an Incognitas "Longest average post award" for this thread)

Originally Posted by dellwear

Surely this is how it worked for non-religious marriages, the law was changed on one day and the next it wasn't illegal, I can't see the HUGE difference allured to by some.

Very true, although what I was saying was in answer to a different question entirely. Dr Wadd's question, in so many words, was if the word 'marriage' is ok today for atheists, why is it not ok for homosexuals. My answer was, essentially, that the use of the word is seen as ok today for atheists because it is not a current issue, it's something that was dealt with at some distant time in history. No doubt when the law was changed there was a big furore, as there is now over the issue of gay marriage.

I don't want to play semantics over this. I know what I believe to be true about marriage so it matters little to me what other people choose to call it. Christmas is another good example of how a Christian term can be adopted and used in celebration of something quite different by a secular society. I hope I am also mature enough to accept that other people disagree, currently those people are probably a majority in the UK and the laws of the UK can't be set by any minority group. If the democratic majority want to extend marriage to gay couples, and to call it marriage, then it should be allowed to happen. However I suspect that while there is probably broad support for the idea of same-sex legal union, the semantic issue will trouble a lot of people and that it may prove difficult to get it on the statute book for that reason.