Same Sex Marriage Laws Around The Globe - Photos -

[LaoPo]

Same Sex Marriage Laws Around the Globe - Photos -

Nations that have approved Gay Marriage

http://www.huffingto...r_n_647478.html

to make it easy for you:

1. The Netherlands - since 2001

2. Belgium - since 2003

3. Spain - since 2005

4. Canada - since 2005

5. South Africa - since 2006

6. Norway - since 2008

7. Sweden - since 2009

8. Portugal - since 2010

9. Iceland - since 2010 - the Lady PM Johanna Sigurdardottir is a Lesbian; the first Head of a Government in Europe who is openly gay; probably even the first in the world.

10. Argentina - since July 2010

???...which Asian country will be first to accept same-sex marriage ?

LaoPo

[Jingthing]

I bet Cambodia will be the first. Malaysia -- NEVER!

[JohnLeech]

I bet Cambodia will be the first. Malaysia -- NEVER!

I'll take that bet. The Supreme Court in Nepal ruled that same sex marriages were legal two years ago and the Nepalese government has already said that the constitution will be changed this year to reflect that. The only thing holding it up is the government being in a state of limbo due to political infighting.

While some gays refuse to accept anything but "marriage" others gays still prefer the term Civil Partnership (or Civil Union,etc), as long as it has the same rights as marriage. Double the number of countries that permit same-sex marriage have some sort of Civil Partnership, with varying degrees of rights and benefits - in the UK and NZ, for example, the rights are identical to marriage (except for courtesy titles for male partners of male peers or knights).

[Jingthing]

Nepal it is.

[isanbirder]

I bet Cambodia will be the first. Malaysia -- NEVER!

I'll take that bet. The Supreme Court in Nepal ruled that same sex marriages were legal two years ago and the Nepalese government has already said that the constitution will be changed this year to reflect that. The only thing holding it up is the government being in a state of limbo due to political infighting.

While some gays refuse to accept anything but "marriage" others gays still prefer the term Civil Partnership (or Civil Union,etc), as long as it has the same rights as marriage. Double the number of countries that permit same-sex marriage have some sort of Civil Partnership, with varying degrees of rights and benefits - in the UK and NZ, for example, the rights are identical to marriage (except for courtesy titles for male partners of male peers or knights).

I prefer Civil Partnership. Marriage has so many religious connotations that I don't think it is appropriate.

Political infighting... well, I don't think Thailand will even consider it while there are so many weightier things to be dealt with.

[Jingthing]

Marriage religious? I thought most countries officiate marriages civilly anyway; there is no need for a religious ceremony (that part is optional). Would Martin Luther King have been satisfied with separate but equal? I think too many gays have an inferiority complex, oh thanks for the bone Massah, sorry to trouble you. In my book, ALL or nothing, no sloppy seconds.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Marriage religious? I thought most countries officiate marriages civilly anyway; there is no need for a religious ceremony (that part is optional). Would Martin Luther King have been satisfied with separate but equal? I think too many gays have an inferiority complex, oh thanks for the bone Massah, sorry to trouble you. In my book, ALL or nothing, no sloppy seconds.

You should read what I said more carefully, Jingthing. Until the last century, marriage was a religious ceremony in all major religions, and, though many of us have discarded our religious upbringing, the religious significance of marriage is still there in the background, more strongly in some places than others (e.g. perhaps, Islamic countries). To me as a Christian, yes, it is religious, but that is not what I said.

Edited August 1, 2010 by isanbirder

[Jingthing]

I don't think countries that are legalizing gay marriage are mandating that any religious body participate in the change. That is their choice. So people can get their marriage certificate through a government office and also have a religious ceremony at a place that welcomes them (certainly possible in many places), or they can skip the religious part. Just like heterosexuals. That's the goal. Full equality under the laws of nations. The goal is not to change religions, though of course there are gay people among all religions that may be working on that WITHIN their religion, but that is a separate movement.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Jingthing

[Mario2008]

Marriage is a legal institution, that exists since long before the establishement of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church pretends it is a religious matter, but a marriage and a church wedding are two different things in many countries.

[endure]

Up until March of this year it was against the law for civil partnership ceremonies in the UK to contain religious references. The Quakers, Liberal Judaism and the Unitarians all lobbied for a change in the law so they could have civil partnership ceremonies for their members and it's now legal (but not compulsory) for religious groups to do so.

[isanbirder]

Marriage is a legal institution, that exists since long before the establishement of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church pretends it is a religious matter, but a marriage and a church wedding are two different things in many countries.

I deliberately didn't mention the Catholic Church because I think we should be thinking more broadly. Many countries are not, and never were, Christian of any sort. For example, Thailand, where we should all like to see Civil Partnership laws, has a philosophy (Buddhism) rather than a religion, unless you call them animists. Islamic countries, on the other hand, consider all marriages bound by their religious laws (as far as I know). I would prefer to have a terminology which is not country-specific, and therefore does not clash with anyone's religion.

But I wouldn't go to war over it!

[LaoPo]

Marriage is a legal institution, that exists since long before the establishement of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church pretends it is a religious matter, but a marriage and a church wedding are two different things in many countries.

I don't know which country/countries you're talking about but in Europe the Marriage institute as we know it nowadays is only a few hundred years old.

In the Middle Ages it was not even common to marry amongst the "normal" people in the street, so to speak.

Marriage as we know it now, as well as proper surnames, were installed during Napoleon's era.

Before that "marriage" was just a kind of promise made to each other or by 2 families who agreed upon an arranged marriage; the latter still common in parts of the world.

The Catholic Church is older than Marriage as such.

But, of course this has nothing to do with the same-sex marriage in the OP.

LaoPo

[JohnLeech]

Marriage religious? I thought most countries officiate marriages civilly anyway; there is no need for a religious ceremony (that part is optional). Would Martin Luther King have been satisfied with separate but equal? I think too many gays have an inferiority complex, oh thanks for the bone Massah, sorry to trouble you. In my book, ALL or nothing, no sloppy seconds.

That's probably why "gay marriage" laws will take so long to be approved in many countries as the "All or nothing" brigade try to make martys of themselves when it is totally unnecessary, putting obstacles in their own path so that they have something to protest about.

To many people, straight and gay, the idea of gay marriage or any sort of "marriage" that is not between a man and a woman is simply laughable - that is what marriage is: a union between husband and wife; Mr and Mrs; Lord and Lady. Two people of the same sex cannot "marry" any more than they can be a mother or father (biologically) and have children of their own. However you dress it up or whatever twist you put on it or laws you pass, it simply isn't humanly possible.

It isn't a question of being "satisfied with separate but equal" but of realising that marriage and partnership are different but equal.

[Jingthing]

Oh no you di'int bring up the breeding argument? By that tripe logic, hetero couples with one infertile spouse, or really old ones, would not be allowed marriage either. Have you heard of adoption? Have you heard of lesbian motherhood? Have you heard of free will heterosexual childless couples, even when both are fertile? It's not a matter of martyrdom, it's a matter of fighting for equal civil rights under the law, and yes, this is now a GLOBAL movement.

Just some decades ago in many USA states it was illegal for different races to marry heterosexually of course. Blacks and whites -- ILLEGAL. Asians and whites -- ILLEGAL. Asians and blacks -- I don't know! In any case, those backwards laws are all gone now. Why should gay people settle for any less? Do you think people in interracial marriages would have settled for a different class of marriage not called marriages? It's even absurd when you really think about it.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Jingthing

[JohnLeech]

I don't know which country/countries you're talking about but in Europe the Marriage institute as we know it nowadays is only a few hundred years old.

In the Middle Ages it was not even common to marry amongst the "normal" people in the street, so to speak.

Marriage as we know it now, as well as proper surnames, were installed during Napoleon's era.

Before that "marriage" was just a kind of promise made to each other or by 2 families who agreed upon an arranged marriage; the latter still common in parts of the world.

The Catholic Church is older than Marriage as such.

But, of course this has nothing to do with the same-sex marriage in the OP.

LaoPo

Actually it does have quite a bit to do with same-sex marriage, but ........

........ it is incorrect unless you are talking about enshrining marriage, surnames, etc in modern law rather than common practice and ancient law.

Surnames (rather than family or clan names) pre-date Napoleon by over three hundred years, at least in Britain, both formally and generally. While Clan names were still used in Scotland until the 17th century and English interference (when many Clan names became surnames), surnames and family names were the norm by the beginning of the 15th century; Henry VIII, for example, ordered that children's surnames be recorded using their father's name rather than their mother's.

Marriage, exactly "as we know it now" was practiced in Ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire and formally covered in Greek and Roman law - which is both European and certainly pre-dates the Catholic Church (and Christianity), as do gay marriage and gay unions. Greek law permitted gay unions to be publicly formalised, while Roman law permitted gay marriages - the Emperor Nero, for example, had a public gay marriage (probably three!). It was not until the influence of the Christian Church that a law was introduced in 342 AD prohibiting same-sex marriage, making it an offence punishable by execution.

[JohnLeech]

Oh no you di'int bring up the breeding argument? By that tripe logic, hetero couples with one infertile spouse, or really old ones, would not be allowed marriage either.

That was neither my "logic" nor my point, and I had hoped for rather more from you than totally mis-representing what I wrote - although it is not unexpected.

I never said or remotely suggested that "the breeding argument" should be a condition of marriage, as you say. What I wrote was that "Two people of the same sex cannot "marry" any more than they can be a mother or father (biologically) and have children of their own." I did not write ".... unless ...."

My point is that this insistence on the term "marriage" is as unnecessary and as "absurd" as replacing mankind with humankind. "Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman making them husband and wife - nothing more, nothing less; it is not sexist, it is simply what the word means.

My point was that Civil Partnership, at least as it is in the UK, does give you "equal civil rights under the law", which is what you claim to be "fighting for".

[Jingthing]

It is not 100 percent equal if we are kept as the OTHER with a segregated word. Separate but equal is NOT equal.

[isanbirder]

It is not 100 percent equal if we are kept as the OTHER with a segregated word. Separate but equal is NOT equal.

We should be concerning ourselves with the substance of partnership (equal civil rights etc), not the name.

[jcbangkok]

Just a point of fact ....

Marriages in the USA are handled on a state level. A number of states have approved some form of same sex marriage. Not sure how many other countries might be similar in terms of not making it a national issue. With that said, i would also bet at some point the issue in the US does rise to a national level (Supreme Court) as somebody will surely make it a constitutional issue.

[jcbangkok]

Marriage is a legal institution, that exists since long before the establishement of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church pretends it is a religious matter, but a marriage and a church wedding are two different things in many countries.

I don't know which country/countries you're talking about but in Europe the Marriage institute as we know it nowadays is only a few hundred years old.

In the Middle Ages it was not even common to marry amongst the "normal" people in the street, so to speak.

Marriage as we know it now, as well as proper surnames, were installed during Napoleon's era.

Before that "marriage" was just a kind of promise made to each other or by 2 families who agreed upon an arranged marriage; the latter still common in parts of the world.

The Catholic Church is older than Marriage as such.

But, of course this has nothing to do with the same-sex marriage in the OP.

LaoPo

LOL, kind of funny because you say "marriage as we know it today..." proving that marriage existed prior to it become a church matter. Marriage goes back to the beginning of recorded history. Yes, it was different but it still was an agreement that came with responsibilities. It also included some sort of ritual (be it just moving in together or family payments) for it to start as well as end. Marriages are well documented in Ancient Greece as well as what was expected of wives.

As for gay marriages ... maybe it is God's way of controlling the population.

[JohnLeech]

It is not 100 percent equal if we are kept as the OTHER with a segregated word. Separate but equal is NOT equal.

We should be concerning ourselves with the substance of partnership (equal civil rights etc), not the name.

Precisely.

[Jingthing]

My impression is that usually when gays aren't granted marriage rights but get something, they get BOTH a different (lesser) deal with the different name. Yes, there are exceptions, but the simplest most elegant way to do it is to just include gays with the rights of everyone else, same language, same laws.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Jingthing

[kek]

Just a thought ... the title of this post was "Same Sex Marriage Laws Around the Globe - Photos - Nations that have approved Gay Marriage"

Are any of you marrying kinds going to give us a look at your wedding photos? Show us confirmed bachelors what we are missing

[Jingthing]

Just a thought ... the title of this post was "Same Sex Marriage Laws Around the Globe - Photos - Nations that have approved Gay Marriage"

Are any of you marrying kinds going to give us a look at your wedding photos? Show us confirmed bachelors what we are missing

That sounds like fun.

The reason I care about this issue for my home country is out of concern for future gay youth. I want them to grow up feeling like first class citizens, not people who are denied the basic human rights of their heterosexual peers. I don't think gay marriage will actually be all the popular percentage-wise; it's a matter of having the same choices.

[JohnLeech]

My impression is that usually when gays aren't granted marriage rights but get something, they get BOTH a different (lesser) deal with the different name. Yes, there are exceptions, but the simplest most elegant way to do it is to just include gays with the rights of everyone else, same language, same laws.

You're right - that is the "impression". The reality, however, if you actually check the legislation, is that most civil partnerships/unions, etc, give identical rights to marriage and it is the exceptions (such as adoption rights in a few countries) which are notable. Some European countries even took the easy way out and limited their Civil Partnership laws to saying that wherever the word "marriage" appeared in any law it also included Registered Partnerships, and wherever the word "spouse" appeared it also included Registered Partners.

Talking of " same language", I think you'll find most married people introduce their "other half" as their wife or husband, while most gays or lesbians in any formalised relationship (whether same-sex marriage or civil union/civil partnership, etc) use the word "partner". Partnership sounds pretty simple and elegant (and logical) to me.

I don't think gay marriage will actually be all the popular percentage-wise

Why would you think that? I'm sure you have some reason (OK, I'm not that sure), but I hope its better than the rather out-dated idea that gays are naturally more promiscuous than straights that the anti-gay lobby have often advocated; there is nothing to indicate that there is any truth in it, despite any "impression" you may have from your own experience.

[Jingthing]

The reason I don't think gay male marriage will be as popular as hetero marriage --

1. Many gays don't want to model themselves after borgeious straight models. They want to define things and relationships for themselves.

2. Give me a break! Gay men ARE more promiscuous than straight men on average. It is a fact. That wouldn't prevent marriage though for those who want a stable home life and/or are open to more open relationships on the side.

3. Most gay men in my opinion do NOT want children and having a stable structure for the children is a supporting reason to get married, which most gay men won't have.

4. Many men like to have independent financial lives and not mix their money thing 100 percent with another man. Marrying would open up legal/financial ties that many men would rather avoid.

5. There will be less family/social pressure for gays to get married than straights.

These are my opinions only. I do have another interesting one. I believe the DIVORCE rate for gay marriages will be significantly less than for straight marriages.

The goal of marriage rights equality is NOT the same as the goal of gays being exactly like straights, or marrying (or divorcing) at the same rate as straights.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

The reason I don't think gay male marriage will be as popular as hetero marriage --

1. Many gays don't want to model themselves after borgeious straight models. They want to define things and relationships for themselves.

2. Give me a break! Gay men ARE more promiscuous than straight men on average. It is a fact. That wouldn't prevent marriage though for those who want a stable home life and/or are open to more open relationships on the side.

3. Most gay men in my opinion do NOT want children and having a stable structure for the children is a supporting reason to get married, which most gay men won't have.

4. Many men like to have independent financial lives and not mix their money thing 100 percent with another man. Marrying would open up legal/financial ties that many men would rather avoid.

5. There will be less family/social pressure for gays to get married than straights.

These are my opinions only. I do have another interesting one. I believe the DIVORCE rate for gay marriages will be significantly less than for straight marriages.

The goal of marriage rights equality is NOT the same as the goal of gays being exactly like straights, or marrying (or divorcing) at the same rate as straights.

Basically I agree with you this time, Jingthing, though I find 'popular' an odd concept to use about marriage/civil partnerships. On divorce, who knows?

[JohnLeech]

[quote name='Jingthing' timestamp='1280864300' post='3793405'] ....... These are my opinions only. .......

Your "opinions" seem a little confused.

1. If gays "want to define things and relationships for themselves" rather than "model themselves after borgeious straight models" that indicates they do not want "same-sex marriage" but would prefer a different but equal relationship, such as a Civil Partnership. And why are straights more bourgeois than gays?

2. "Fact" or "opinion"? Or maybe "impression". "Gay men ARE more promiscuous than straight men on average. It is a fact." Facts are verifiable and established, supported by clear evidence; maybe you could give some verification (please don't quote anything by David Glesne or the Catholic press!)? I think you'll be surprised at how marginal the differences are in most studies if you check properly. The vast majority of gay men like the vast majority of straight men and do not follow the "Pattaya norm" or the New York/LA bath houses on which you seem to base your "facts".

Talking of statistics, did you know that the only study (a Canadian one) made on it concluded that the probability of a 20-year-old gay or bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78 percent for men in general?

3. Agreed (in general). 1 out of 5 isn't bad.

4. So gay men are tighter with their wallets than straights?? Are you serious? You are also factually wrong, as the "legal/financial ties" are already there in most countries with gay partnership laws due to laws on co-habitation, regardless of whether a relationship is formalised or not.

5. Once gays are "accepted", then there is no reason to think that "family/social pressure" will be any different - unless of course we accept the gays are promiscuous argument and family and friends look for different moral standards from gays and straights.

Statistics can be made to show virtually anything, but so far the divorce rate for gay couples is considerably higher in Scandanavian countries (those who have had gay partnerships longest) than for straight couples, although it is considerably less in the UK. Reasons suggested for a higher divorce rate are the usual lack of children as a reason to keep a couple together and that both partners are more likely to have separate incomes, making a divorce financially simpler. In the UK it has been suggested that those who have registered Civil Partnerships are mainly from the middle and upper-middle class, higher income, slightly older age group, where divorce is markedly lower than the average in a comparative straight group, consequently making the gay and straight divorce rate similar comparing "like for like".

If the "goal of marriage rights equality is NOT the same as the goal of gays being exactly like straights", and gays "want to define things and relationships for themselves" then you have just refuted your entire argument for gay marriage rather than Civil Partnerships - you can't have it both ways (speaking purely metaphorically).

The world has moved on since the days of the Gay Liberation Front. Maybe you should do the same.

Edited August 4, 2010 by JohnLeech

[Jingthing]

John, I am what I am. I find your tone hostile and I am not interested in a flame war with you. Goodbye.

[Jingthing]

History was made today in California on gay marriage. A few of the most powerful, competent, experienced lawyers in the US(who happen to NOT be gay) launched an historic case to overturn the voter's overturn of the marriage equality in California. The argument was that it was unconstitutional to deny gays the same civil rights to marriage that others have. This was a national argument and it was about marriage, wanting the SAME deal as everyone else. Yes, sir, the SAME deal, the same language, MARRIAGE, the SAME civil rights. In the US, it is ridiculous to have anything but marriage as there are tens of thousands of existing laws that specifically mention marriage. If you don't call it marriage, they are not getting the same rights unless you pass THOUSANDS of new laws.

This case in California will possibly/probably mean this case will go to the supreme court. The national supreme court. They will decide if gay Americans are having their civil rights violated or not in regard to MARRIAGE rights. Not namby pamby domestic partners language, MARRIAGE. Equal rights. Full equal rights. This is going to be all or nothing indeed and it is a fight worth fighting, win or lose.

Point to keep in mind, when in the US interracial marriage bans were outlawed, interracial marriages were actually much less supported than gay marriage today. They got their rights because they DESERVED them under the civil right protection of the constitution. As do gay Americans.

The significance of this case which makes it historic is that the California court ruled for the first time in history that denying equal civil MARRIAGE rights to gay Americans violates the NATIONAL constitution, NOT about only one state's constitution.

Who knows, maybe if the US finally makes this just change, it will have an influence on many other countries, including THAILAND.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Jingthing