Spanish M.P.s Approve Gay Marriages

[Thomas_Merton]

Not directly linked to Thailand, but perhaps of some interest:

see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4636133.stm

Spain's lower house of parliament has voted in favour of allowing gay couples to marry and adopt children.

The controversial decision overrules last week's rejection of the bill by the upper house, the Senate.

The bill will become law in a month's time, making Spain Europe's third nation after the Netherlands and Belgium to allow same sex marriages.

EDIT// I do believe the information in the final sentence is inaccurate. As far as I am aware Denmark has approved same sex marriages since 1969.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Thomas_Merton

[george]

Follow-up:

Spain permits gay marriage

Catholic stronghold is fourth nation to do so

MADRID: -- Spain legalised same-sex marriages yesterday, becoming only the fourth country to do so after Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands and dealing a blow to the Catholic Church in a traditional stronghold.

``Today Spanish society is giving an answer to a group of people who for years have been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended,'' Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told parliament.

Supporters jumped to their feet to celebrate in a crowded public gallery when the lower house of parliament passed the law, overriding a rejection in the upper house or Senate.

Outside, dozens of same-sex couples hugged and kissed, some of them in tears.

The law gives same-sex unions the same status as heterosexual ones, including adoption and inheritance rights.

The Socialists' liberal agenda is a major break with the past: Spain was ruled from 1939-1975 by Catholic nationalist dictator Francisco Franco who banned homosexuality and divorce.

``I am remembering all those years, all the people who couldn't see this ... all the young people who are going to live differently,'' rights activist Pepe Paz said outside parliament. The 38-year-old plans to marry in September.

The legislation, passed 187 to 147, is a setback to the Vatican. Pope Benedict has condemned gay marriage as an expression of anarchic freedom and his predecessor John Paul urged Spain to remember its Catholic roots. Despite the church's opposition, a survey last year showed 70% of Spaniards supported legalising gay marriage.

After a boisterous debate, opposition Popular Party (PP) leader Mariano Rajoy accused Mr Zapatero of acting irresponsibly by pushing through a gay marriage law instead of seeking consensus on civil unions, which several European countries already allow.

``He has caused an enormous division in Spanish society,'' he said. Mr Rajoy said the Popular Party would study an appeal to Spain's constitutional court and a party colleague said it would consider repealing the law if it returned to office.

The PP also condemned Mr Zapatero for ignoring a massive protest against gay marriage in Madrid earlier this month. Organisers said 1.5 to two million showed up, including bishops and nuns, while the government said there were 166,000.

Spanish Roman Catholic bishops have commanded all Catholics to resist applying the same-sex marriage law. While about 90% of Spaniards call themselves Catholic, fewer than a fifth are practising.

Mr Zapatero's liberal reforms, which include a law passed late on Wednesday to make divorce easier, and changes to stem cell research rules, are popular among young people. Emma Avila, 45, said she never expected gay marriage to become legal, expecting at most civil unions to be allowed. Amid chants from fellow activists of ``Now we are legal!'', she recalled how lesbians were treated during the dictatorship: ``They used to make you feel as if you were from another planet.''

Canada on Tuesday became the third country to legalise same-sex marriages. Belgium allowed for them in June 2003.

The Netherlands allowed same sex-marriages in December 2000 although Dutch law had recognised registered partnerships since 1998.

-- Reuters 2005-07-01

[ProThaiExpat]

If countries with strong Catholic Churches are granting civil rights to gays in the marriage arena, what are the chances of it happening in Thailand?

I would think a Buddhist country would have less political and religious opposition to such a move.

Would appreciate anyonen's input on the likelyhood of it happening in Thailand and the reasons for your opinion.

[AsiaWolfie]

Germany has that too since a couple of years already..... its not called "Marriage" but "Registered partnership", in fact its almost the same, giving registered couples a lot of essential legal rights....

oh, the new Pope from my home country hates gay marriage of course..... back to the stone age, Mr. Ratzinger....

[Thaiquila]

If countries with strong Catholic Churches are granting civil rights to gays in the marriage arena, what are the chances of it happening in Thailand?

I would think a Buddhist country would have less political and religious opposition to such a move.

Would appreciate anyonen's input on the likelyhood of it happening in Thailand and the reasons for your opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the chances of this happening in Thailand in the forseeable future to be basically zero.

Why?

I have seen no evidence at all that there is a Thai gay civil rights movement advocating for this change. Even if there was, it would still be remote, but if Thais aren't even trying for this, there doesn't appear to be any hope.

I know many farangs would wish they could marry their boyfriends, but like many things, you can't always get what you want.

[WhiteShiva]

If countries with strong Catholic Churches are granting civil rights to gays in the marriage arena, what are the chances of it happening in Thailand?

I would think a Buddhist country would have less political and religious opposition to such a move.

Would appreciate anyonen's input on the likelyhood of it happening in Thailand and the reasons for your opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the chances of this happening in Thailand in the forseeable future to be basically zero.

Why?

I have seen no evidence at all that there is a Thai gay civil rights movement advocating for this change. Even if there was, it would still be remote, but if Thais aren't even trying for this, there doesn't appear to be any hope.

I know many farangs would wish they could marry their boyfriends, but like many things, you can't always get what you want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This may be off-topic (and if so, my apologies), but why do you have to call it "Marriage", rather than "registered partnership" or something else? I am not trying to start a flame war, and I will be the first to admit my ignorance on this matter, but wouldn't there be less oposition from the rabid religios right and other conservatives if one choses an expression which is not normally associated with hetrosexual couples, children, families, etc?

Just curious.

[Thaiquila]

WhiteShiva, your comment really is off topic, but as this is Thai Visa, consider how useless anything other than an official marriage would be to Thai immigration for a support visa.

As long as we are off topic, does anyone think there is anything farangs can do to move the idea along in Thailand? Somehow I don't think gay parades with go go boys in Bangkok is going do much.

The only thing I can think of is that if a Thai is married to a foreign national of a country with legal gay marriage (and there has got to be some of these couples), perhaps there could be a court case for Thailand to recognize the marriage, if such recognition would benefit that couple in some way. Might be a first step.

[TokyoT]

WhiteShiva, your comment really is off topic, but as this is Thai Visa, consider how useless anything other than an official marriage would be to Thai immigration for a support visa.

As long as we are off topic, does anyone think there is anything farangs can do to move the idea along in Thailand? Somehow I don't think gay parades with go go boys in Bangkok is going do much.

The only thing I can think of is that if a Thai is married to a foreign national of a country with legal gay marriage (and there has got to be some of these couples), perhaps there could be a court case for Thailand to recognize the marriage, if such recognition would benefit that couple in some way. Might be a first step.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Being a farang in Thailand you should no that there is little we can do directly to change things – gay or straight. The scenario you suggest might be interesting to watch unfold.

Seems like to me the thing that would help most would be to help build develop a better base of Thai gay rights group(s).

[ProThaiExpat]

hiteShiva: Good question!! Whenever you "provide" for a minority group through special legal action you are creating a "separate but equal" class of citizens, which has been denounced in the west as inherently discriminatory.

In the U.S. they tried it with education, segregatng blacks to black shcools. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1954 established that separate but equal was inherently discriminatory.

The logical step is to have the secular government declare all couple joinders as "civil" unions and leave the churches to marry whom they please, calling their ceremonies marriage. Thus the government, which is secular in most countries, would give licenses to all who apply, straight, gay, or whatever. There are many churches more than willing to marry gays. The United Church of Christ being the most recent.

There are some U.S. states, the U.K., perhaps Germany and other countries who have created a separate class for gays who want a "marriage" but it is definitely second class citizenship. They are called everything but marriage. A temporary solution at best. A secular state should treat all of its citizens equally and allow the churches to discriminate, as they always have on many levels.

As to Thailand, since Thai immigration recognizes foreign marriages, it will be interesting to see what they do when a falang marries a Thai abroad and presents his valid marriage license from Spain, for instrance, to support a married to a Thai 400k deposit. May vary at first among offices. Perhaps the Thai government, when faced with widespread western enactment of gay marrage laws, will take a step forward on its own to conform to modern western concepts of equality.

Edited July 1, 2005 by ProThaiExpat

[PeaceBlondie]

Excellent reply, ProThaiExpat and others. The trouble with calling all registered partnerships as 'civil unions' is that the religious right and the pro-hetero-marriage crowd will insist that we're anti-family. Straight couples hardly realize the advantages that legal marriage provides, such as inheritance, survivorship, child custody rights, property settlements, divorce proceedings, tax deductions, property ownership, etc. However, led by church leaders of churches they hardly ever attend or support anyway, they'll be screaming that we're destroying marriage and causing the end of the world.

Good luck. Not my battle.

[ProThaiExpat]

PeaceBlond is quite right about the majority. That is why Prime Minister Martin of Canada in addressing the parliment regarding their recently enacted gay marriage law said it is up to the legislature to enact laws that provide equality for all Canadians when it is clear that the "tyrany of the majority" would never permit it. if they were consulted.

In the U.S. the congress seems to me more representative of the current right leaning electorate with a heavy influence by the religious right so it is unlikely it will act as the parliment did in Canada. Thus the courts will end up doing it, as Massachusetts has already, California is about to and Washington state is deciding the issue, decision out in October.

It will be twenty years or less before the U.S. Supreme Court gets around to telling states, as it did with inter-racial discrimination, that all citizens of the U.S. are entitled to equal rights.

Thailand has that basic concept of equality of its ciitzens and without a religious right to deal with, it may come sooner to Thailand than the U.S. as a nation.

[WhiteShiva]

Excellent reply, ProThaiExpat and others.  The trouble with calling all registered partnerships as 'civil unions' is that the religious right and the pro-hetero-marriage crowd will insist that we're anti-family.  Straight couples hardly realize the advantages that legal marriage provides, such as inheritance, survivorship, child custody rights, property settlements, divorce proceedings, tax deductions, property ownership, etc.  However, led by church leaders of churches they hardly ever attend or support anyway, they'll be screaming that we're destroying marriage and causing the end of the world.

Good luck.  Not my battle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point was simply that you may be better off fighting for "civil unions" with all of the above mentioned rights, than calling it "marriage" - which, after all is just a word. I am not gay, legally married to a Thai woman, but quite frankly, I don't give a toss what people think of it or call it - we did it for practical reasons. If the church/Sangha/etc refused to accept us as married, it would not matter to us at all - as long as the authorities do.

I am all for letting gay people have the same rights as others, but at times I feel the purpose of parts of the gay movement seem to be as much to provoke reactions as to actually work to gain the same rights as others. IMHO "civil rights" would be a lot less provocative than the term "marriage". The church (or at least parts of it) may not be supportive, but so what?

Edited July 4, 2005 by WhiteShiva

[The Dude]

I'm a firm believer that anything gay should be kept in the closet. There's nothing wrong with the closet at all. It worked great that way for centuries

[Thomas_Merton]

I'm a firm believer that anything gay should be kept in the closet. There's nothing wrong with the closet at all. It worked great that way for centuries

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a firm believer poeple who have your point of view should not post in this forum and use the time saved to get an education.

[The Coder]

I think this go around of governments allowing gay marriage falls far short of the ideal because (1) it is none of the governments business whether people are married (2) it should not be up to the government to define what constitutes a marriage and (3) marriage should have no bearing on ones taxes or any other legal matters. People should have the freedom and flexibility to decide what marriage is and not need a piece of paper from the governments to legitimize it. If one person thinks marriage is between a man and a woman that is made by a sacrament from the church, so be it. If one other thinks multiple wives are legitimate, then good for them. Governments should just bow out and leave people alone. Rewriting mountains of laws to drop marriage from them and refining work place benefits will probably prevent this from ever happening in this lifetime. Some people are just afraid of change and use the government to apply the brakes to people who do not think like themselves. What constitutes a family today is in many ways different than what it was centuries ago. I would imagine it is going to be a lot different in centuries to come as lifestyles evolve. In Thailand I note a lot of nuclear families where the west the trend is day care families. And in many cases these fall through the cracks of marriage / dependent laws.

As for Thailand, I fully expect they will fall in line with allowing gay marriage. They are very good at rubber stamping laws from the west. There is that relatively new law prohibiting smoking inside restaurants. RIGHT... As if anyone paid attention. Seems just a face thing to keep up with the west.

[ProThaiExpat]

The Dude: "It worked great that way for centuries"

Worked well for whom? Slavery worked well for centuries by the same logic.

The Coder: You raise a good question regarding govenments role in the marriage contract. Harkening back to my political science days, the rght of government to regulate marriage is derived from its police power. A power said to exist to promote the welfare of the governed.

Pre-marital health checks come to mind as one of those legitimate exercises of police power. It is said that a marriage contract is tri-lateral, the participants and the government. The govvernment is involved to protect the rights of the offspring, if any, arising out of the union. Child support issues come to mind.

Philosphically I agree with the American founding fathers that the "the government that governs least, governs best". Alas, an ideal that has lost to the ever increasing power of bureauocracy.

[jdinasia]

If countries with strong Catholic Churches are granting civil rights to gays in the marriage arena, what are the chances of it happening in Thailand?

I would think a Buddhist country would have less political and religious opposition to such a move.

Would appreciate anyonen's input on the likelyhood of it happening in Thailand and the reasons for your opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the chances of this happening in Thailand in the forseeable future to be basically zero.

Why?

I have seen no evidence at all that there is a Thai gay civil rights movement advocating for this change. Even if there was, it would still be remote, but if Thais aren't even trying for this, there doesn't appear to be any hope.

I know many farangs would wish they could marry their boyfriends, but like many things, you can't always get what you want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This may be off-topic (and if so, my apologies), but why do you have to call it "Marriage", rather than "registered partnership" or something else? I am not trying to start a flame war, and I will be the first to admit my ignorance on this matter, but wouldn't there be less oposition from the rabid religios right and other conservatives if one choses an expression which is not normally associated with hetrosexual couples, children, families, etc?

Just curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's either the same thing so worthy of the same name. Or not. Brings to mind the civil rights movement in the USA ... Seperate but Equal ... never happened ... was always seperate and unequal. I really don't care as "equality" is just kinda goofy to me. People aren't equal. I'll stick with being just a little bit superior to the straight folks ;-)

[ChrisP]

I have seen no evidence at all that there is a Thai gay civil rights movement advocating for this change. Even if there was, it would still be remote, but if Thais aren't even trying for this, there doesn't appear to be any hope.

Any ideas WHY there is no visible Gay Civil Rights movement in Thailand...? Really, are NO thai gays interested in the Gay Marriage issue...? I would have thought they would be all over it.. what with seeing all the hundreds of Thai girls "marrying well" to Farangs..... and getting all the benefits of that, both now and later...

And yes, I know there's very little we Farang here can do to influence things.

I just think it will be interesting to see the Immigration guys when gay couples show up in LOS from Canada and Spain with legal Marriage Certificates...

Come to that, what will happen in the USA too..??

Surely one country can't say "I don't recognise that you are legally married" (whether you are Gay OR Str8) if you DID actually legally marry in another Country entirely, and have legal proof to prove it..?

Or am I just being a little too naive here..?

On another related topic..

New York Times today

NYT- First Gay Couples Apply for Marriage Under New Spanish Law

You may have to Log In to the NYTimes to read it.. (it's free)

First, I strongly applaud the Spanish Parliament for their support of Gay Marriage DESPITE the country being predominantly Roman Catholic (who are vehemently opposed to even the idea...)

"Parliament's decision to legalize gay marriage has provoked tremendous animosity among religious conservatives in Spain, a predominantly Roman catholic country."

Second, there's some truly WONDERFUL hyperbole from Ricardo Basques, President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops...:

"...It throws moral and human order into confusion!"

Whoa!!! Jeez. If he wasn't being serious it would be hilarious.

(I wish, btw, that someone would make a collection of all the amazing published hyperbolic quotes from the Religious Right etc who throw up their arms over this issue and cry that THE SKY IS FALLING IN... )

Finally.. also in the same issue of the NYTimes on the Op-Ed page is a great article by Stephanie Coontz, Director of Public Education for the Council on Contemporary Families, (didn't know we had one), and the author of "Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage"

James Dobson of the evangelical group Focus on the Family has warned that without that ban, marriage as we have known it for 5,000 years will be overturned. My research on marriage and family life seldom leads me to agree with Dr. Dobson, much less to accuse him of understatement. But in this case, Dr. Dobson's warnings come 30 years too late. Traditional marriage, with its 5,000-year history, has already been upended. Gays and lesbians, however, didn't spearhead that revolution: heterosexuals did......

Marriage has been in a constant state of evolution since the dawn of the Stone Age. In the process it has become more flexible, but also more optional. Many people may not like the direction these changes have taken in recent years. But it is simply magical thinking to believe that by banning gay and lesbian marriage, we will turn back the clock.

The great article goes on to elaborate on the history of the various social and cultural changes that have happened WITHIN heterosexual marriage in the last 200 years.... and why same-sex marriage is just another development down the line. Do try and read it.

NYT - The Heterosexual Revolution

ChrisP

[ProThaiExpat]

ChrisP: You young'ins are forgiven for not knowing immediate past history when many states had laws making inter-racial marriage illegal with drastic penalties, while others like California, felt it was unconstitutional to discriminate against those who chose a partner of anothr race.

The way these state's "handled" inter-racial married in their midst was to apply a "means test", often done in the law, whereby they would recognize a legitimate inter-racial marriage if it was obtained legally from another state and the "facts" indicated that the move to the intolerant state was not my the couples own doing, ie. a company transfer or the like.

They would not recognize those who were residents of their backward state who went to a more permissive state to marry one of another color and then return home to live where it was not permitted.

The court decision in Califfornia was in 1947 and it took until 1964 before the U.S. Supreme followed the lead.

For those falang married to Thais who read this post and hold the view of "The Dude" or others against gay marriage, imagine if you can how you would feel if there was a law in your own country or even in Thailand that forbade you from having married your wife as she is of another race!!!!

[ChrisP]

I'm maybe being charitable, but I think (I hope) The Dude's comment in post #13 was meant to be a little "Tongue In Cheek"... If so I missed the RollEyes smilie's that normally help say that...

ChrisP

Mod.

[WhiteShiva]

If countries with strong Catholic Churches are granting civil rights to gays in the marriage arena, what are the chances of it happening in Thailand?

I would think a Buddhist country would have less political and religious opposition to such a move.

Would appreciate anyonen's input on the likelyhood of it happening in Thailand and the reasons for your opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the chances of this happening in Thailand in the forseeable future to be basically zero.

Why?

I have seen no evidence at all that there is a Thai gay civil rights movement advocating for this change. Even if there was, it would still be remote, but if Thais aren't even trying for this, there doesn't appear to be any hope.

I know many farangs would wish they could marry their boyfriends, but like many things, you can't always get what you want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This may be off-topic (and if so, my apologies), but why do you have to call it "Marriage", rather than "registered partnership" or something else? I am not trying to start a flame war, and I will be the first to admit my ignorance on this matter, but wouldn't there be less oposition from the rabid religios right and other conservatives if one choses an expression which is not normally associated with hetrosexual couples, children, families, etc?

Just curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's either the same thing so worthy of the same name. Or not. Brings to mind the civil rights movement in the USA ... Seperate but Equal ... never happened ... was always seperate and unequal. I really don't care as "equality" is just kinda goofy to me. People aren't equal. I'll stick with being just a little bit superior to the straight folks ;-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well it is not the same, in the eyes of most people. Straight people marry, settle down and have children (although not necessarily in that order). I married my g/f for two reasons: 1) expectations (hers, her family) and 2) so that any children we have would be given the chance of obtaining full citizenship in our respective home countries. If we did not plan (or were unable) to have kids, I for one would probably not have bothered to get married, or at the very least postponed it for a few years.

Try answering this: If gay couples could register, and be given the same rights (and obligations) as straight couples who are married, but would not be able to call it "marriage" - would that be acceptable? I am sure that would be much more acceptable to a larger part of the population.

Edited July 6, 2005 by WhiteShiva

[ChrisP]

^

Nope, sorry. Not ok with me.....

Still comes under the banner of "separate but equal".

Straight people marry, settle down and have children

Sorry again.. that's very sweeping generalization. Many straight couples marry and specifically NEVER want to have children... yet they still want all the rights and benefits of marriage and being a legalized "couple".

That seems to fit quite well the gay couple situation too.

WhiteShiva, if you haven't already, plz read the NYTimes article on Heterosexual Marriage I quoted and linked to above.... It might explain some other situations to you.

ChrisP

[PeaceBlondie]

I married, made 6 children, and then divorced, and then raised most of the minor children by myself -so, I need to ask,

What's the big deal about marriage? Every one of my kids screwed around before marriage, and those who finally married had a 'trial period' - my son in Ireland is still in the trial period after having a baby and living together for about 3 years ("But Dad, she and I don't know each other yet."). When I told my 14-year old twins that I was gay, they replied, "Oh, all our friends are bisexual."

Generally nowadays, in most countries, marriage is an outdated institution that failed the grade.

Why do gay men want to imitate a failed institution? In that tri-lateral relationship that was mentioned, it's almost like you marry the failed institution.

There's a great but sad book by a gay, katoey-type of Filipino who claims to have married three men. Each time, the 'marriage' started by the husband being expected to be on top, and it ended when the husband was found on the bottom with another man. It was the role expectations that were screwed up, not to mention the relationship.

[WhiteShiva]

^

Nope, sorry. Not ok with me.....

Still comes under the banner of "separate but equal".

Straight people marry, settle down and have children

Sorry again.. that's very sweeping generalization. Many straight couples marry and specifically NEVER want to have children... yet they still want all the rights and benefits of marriage and being a legalized "couple".

That seems to fit quite well the gay couple situation too.

WhiteShiva, if you haven't already, plz read the NYTimes article on Heterosexual Marriage I quoted and linked to above.... It might explain some other situations to you.

ChrisP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chris, I personally have no problem with gay marriages, I am simply suggesting that the word is (for most people) associated with hetrosexual couples. My point was that if the gay community used another term (say, "civil union"), you might find a broader base of support in the non-gay community. Which is basically what you are striving for, right? Who cares what you call it - it is the civil rights (and obligations) you are after - not the word.

Tempting as it may be, I fear that upsetting the "establishment" will get you nowwhere. If both sides are willing to be a bit flexible, I believe a lot more will be achieved.

[zarzuela]

As someone who knows a bit about Spanish politics, I have to tell you all that even though gay marriage is legal in Spain, very few couples have actually got married since the law was introduced.

I've been thinking about this issue and to be honest, I don't think I want to get married. Not that I don't believe in true or everlasting love, but I think it is more complex for gay men to go through all those legal processes.

Anyway, I feel very happy for the Spaniards, especially because they were usually one of the most conservative socities in Europe but now they are well ahead some other countries in social matters... Viva Espana!