Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

I wasn't planning on writing for a while, but I saw an article on CNN and thought it was yet another perfect example for you, regarding the above question (although it throws in polygamy as well). From this CNN article...The evidence, including scientific evidence, is that minors can and do have sex with adults and do not necessarily find it bad, or get angry with the person who had sex with them. Noted gay columnist Dan Savage (the guy that coined "santorum") has repeatedly written about his own positive experiences with an older man when he was 13.It happens, it just usually gets swept under the rug, just as what happened to gays throughout the last few centuries and most specifically the late 1800s when gays became more open yet were still criminals.(note to admins: When I came to evc today I found myself automatically logged in as a "guest", I'm not sure if that indicates some sort of hacking with my account or a mistale based on ISP recognition?)

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm assuming no such thing. Your claim was that sex had NOTHING to do with marriage. Remember you even went on to say it wasn't a license for sex.I was rebutting that claim and pointed out that in fact marriage licenses started as de facto sex licenses (without it sex WAS a crime), and sex remains a critical element in choice of marriage partner as well as the existence of such a license affecting which sexual partners you can have. Now you've skipped over my argument. They want to deny support for a sexuality they view as harmful, just as with denying some sort of legal support for other mental or physical illnesses.As an example, as nice as typhoid Mary was and as well meaning as she might have been, was it an intentional denial of ALL RIGHTS others enjoy (ability to get positions and licenses for preparing and serving food) when they denied her ability to do this?IF gay sex is considered harmful to them, even potentially risky (as we can see with frivolous claims to tax incentives for polygamists or genetic damage to incestuous couples), then it can be denied.At least that's the precedent, and it is logically constructed even if I find it repulsive and inconsistent with other beliefs I hold. It is in fact consistent with many underlying principles liberals are espousing these days. The difference between the two camps is who they happen to like. They would if they could I'm sure, but they don't have the numbers for that kind of Constitutional tampering.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean to say gays were responsible for the bias in calling for sexual rights. What I was trying to say is that the process which led to all sorts of changes (social and legal) culminating in sexual rights for gays was biased in and of itself. The push came from mainly liberal quarters (gay and nongay elements) and was biased against other sexual minorities.Some of the bias, or the success of maintaining such a bias, may have been due to the coincidental rise of the feminist movement at the time. Manifestations of heterosexual sex were getting villified all the time, and so advances for "deviant" hetero practices were likely not to find support.In any case, it can be said that the gay movement as a whole is rather biased. When challenged regarding the rights of other sexual minorities (for example Scalia's challenge within the very decision that legalized gay sex in the US) they notoriously deny the rights of others. They usually flippantly (or callously) point to some physical difference in the other act and suggest that must provide a possible reason, though there is no actual evidence to support such a position.Indeed that very same reasoning can be used against gays. There certainly IS a difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, or other cases of "rights" issues, and so a plausible reason to suggest they be treated differently. Yet when this is done the gay camp is up in arms.There is a vast irony to a movement that appeals to the civil rights movement for blacks, as well as the liberalization of interracial sexual activity, to support their own cause, while denying any other sexual minority the same appeals (including precedents set by the gay movement). You need look no further than EvC to find gay activists doing that very thing. I think that is a very convenient statement. It is an argument to deny other sexual minorities their rights via apathy, while moving forward with gay rights.In fact, I can offer an equal non sequitor that sexual rights are identical with practical physical differences marking how each should be handled on an individual level and not on the legal level. And it is much harder to push for sexual rights in a piecemeal fashion (getting progressively harder for each remaining minority than the one before).But lets say I agree with your argument. Then why should anyone (at least the vast majority) give a crap about gay rights at all? Since most people are not gay and or do not engage in such activity, why shouldn't they view it as practically different than hetero sex (since it is) and so not worth advancing until the "subtleties" related to its practice are all worked out (presumably by someone else at some other time)? Why "lump it in" with other civil rights issues?Many in the black civil rights community actually argue that position, only to be shouted at by those in the gay movement. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot? Step on the other people's toes! Why can this not be said about gays? Or more accurately, why can people NOT continue to claim issues must still be explored just the same as with other minorities? I don't know how many times I'll have to deal with this favorite liberal excuse for not allowing polygamy. The first thing I should note is that the only real change has to occur in textual law is allowing for it on the forms. The rest is set by CASE LAW. The idea that complexity must be worked out in advance before allowances are made is not consistent with the reality of how US law works in general.With that in mind...1) All legal issues related to gay marriage have not been ironed out, yet it is being argued to go ahead with that. It is NOT the same as hetero marriage in that people (like friends) could "cheat" the system for tax or immigration purposes more broadly, and there will be an increase in complexity for child custody issues. There may be analogies to complex hetero marriage arrangements but new case law will have to emerge.2) The supposed complexities in polygamous marriage have analogies to set business contracts (involving multiple partners), after all these are simply legal contracts, as well as OTHER NATION'S LAWS. Polygamy exists legally in a majority of nation's around the world. That stands in stark contrast to the number which allow gay marriage. My guess is there is plenty of legal precedent we can copy directly... if we need to do such a thing.3) The gay movement appealed to the fact that other nations, and specifically the Netherlands, allowed gay marriage to argue that it SHOULD be accepted within US law. As mentioned above, polygamy exists in a majority of nations and just recently the Netherlands allowed it to happen here... no not me. It is with an incredible inconsistency and irony to then reject polygamy's appeals. That is generally the case. Ahhhhh, the next well worn concept. Informed consent is simply a newly invented term, now overworked, to conveniently differentiate the sexual/marriage practices of minors from gays, despite no evidentiary support or logical consistency... but it sure sounds good.1) Minors are able to engage in pretty much all other acts and enter all other legal contracts, as long as they have their parent's consent. Unless you are claiming that kids can give informed consent on all subjects except for sex, in which case I'd like evidence for that claim, there is no consistency in arguments denying sex or marriage to minors on that basis.2) That argument works equally against people without full mental capacity. Thus if your stated criteria is accepted, the mentally handicapped could not have sex or enter marriage. Unless age allows for informed consent, regardless of mental capacity? Given that the mentally handicapped are allowed this right, and no one is arguing it should be denied to them, there appears to be a major hiccup in logic here.3) It is not impossible for a person to argue that homosexuals are not able to give fully informed consent. After all do they truly understand the consequences of their actions? I mean what person in their right mind would engage in activities as risky as gay sex (there is a vast statistical difference for male homosexual activity not to mention clinical mental health issues associated with all gay activity)? And what about larger societal and perhaps spiritual issues? Can anyone truly say they are truly fully informed about such aspects? Obviously I don't believe this argument, but a form of it was successfully used against gays for many years. It nice to see it resurrected to some degree by liberals fighting for gay rights, against the "potential threat" of other minorities.Just to make sure you understand, I am not blaming you for creating this argument. Its become quite popular. Its just fatally flawed, and I find it personally intellectually insulting.There is a difference with the legal rights of minors and adults, but it is an arbitrary and self-created issue, and not an inherent one. That sex is written off entirely for minors compared to other activities with much greater risk (6 yo's can fly planes for pete's sake) suggests something else is going on.I personally agree with some level of parental right over the rights of a child, but I do that with the acknowledgement I am acting selfishly and over the will of children who might know very well what they want and not face grave danger. Its a question of the reality that kids have to be physically taken care of for a period and so live under someone's roof. Granting that caretaker some additional power to shape that child's personal character makes some sense.But that is a conflicting rights issue and merely asserting an age barrier to any and all activity is not consistent with that sort of discussion. So assuming cases of parental approval, the sexual/marriage rights of minorities SHOULD mirror that of gays. The ice cream scenario is something I use myself to show why statistical correlation does not mean causation. You are correct that this is pretty much the kind of statistical evidence we have showing that homosexuality is harmful, or potentially harmful. And of course that means we are probably in complete agreement that it isn't a very valid argument. I personally despise the fact most people don't seem to know or care about the difference between correlation and causation.Unfortunately, it is the EXACT SAME statistical/logical argument being used against other sexual minorities, and embraced by some large factions of those who support gay rights. Given their acceptance of such arguments against other minorities (thus it is considered logical) that means it is able to be used by others against homosexuality.When people like the original poster ask for logical arguments for the immorality or illegality of homosexuality, I like to toss it into the mix.But I should add one other note, there remains the reality of an actual statistical risk in engaging in such an act, and its relation as a factor to the spread of disease. While it is not causative, it is higher in risk due to the numerical realities on the ground. Given that we control behaviors with less inherent populational risk or logical connectivity to harm (lets say watching porn leading to rape or some other problem) there seems to be a valid argument created to protecting public health along those lines.Heck, smoking pot is truly statistically less risky to one's health than engaging in homosexual sex... so why couldn't it be restricted? I hope you don't take my response as being too hard or angry. I thought you wrote a good post. Its just I disagreed strongly with the conclusion (that they should be treated differently) as well as a couple of the arguments used against specific minorities. Hopefully I've presented a reasonable argument against them.To underscore the thrust of my position vs your conclusion, look at that last sentence of your in the preceding quote. I am forced to ask what differentiates homosexuality from all other sexual minorities, in that you are open to be shown a reason you might not be aware of for them?Given the amount of research out there, it seems odd to suggest the physical differences between other minorities and homosexuality makes it plausible for you to hold out on advocating or supporting their quest for rights... yet the physical difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality does not make it plaausible for others to hold out on advocating or supporting their quest for rights.In fact homosexuality is equal, or perhaps slightly behind, other groups as far as its understanding. Certainly homosexual marriage is. We've had all of human history including recent societies filled with polygamous, incestuous, and minor marriages (as well as sex). There is no historical info on the impact of gay marriage to people within a culture, or openly gay sexuality within recent societies. There is logically then more room for "fear" of the consequence of its acceptance than acceptance of the other minorities.I don't know when I'll be back again, but when I do I'll check any responses. Hope I gave you something good to chew on.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Hi Holmes, thanks for the well thought out reply.Firstly I'd just like to say that I'm not from the US so I don't know anything at all about US law or legal processes etc. I can understand gay people being biased in as much as they're looking out for themself and trying to secure their own rights. I guess that's more being selfish rather than biased. But I agree it isn't fair that other minorities get overlooked. That is unfortunate and certainly doesn't help their case. I guess they're not less bigotted than anyone else. I don't think I was quite as clear as I meant to be. With regards to sexual practices I think they're all equivalent. When I was talking about subtleties I meant the legal issues concerned with marriage, not the right for people to engage in whatever sexual practices they want. And note I'm not using the subtleties as a reason for anything not to be legalised, just as a reason why it might make more sense for them to be discussed seperately. It can be said about gays. I don't think they should get preferential treatment over other minorities. Whoahhh, just a minute. I never said that polygamy should not be allowed. I do think it should be allowed. In the section you quoted that from I was talking about treating the legal implications seperately, not about disallowing anything. There is already a legal structure in place for monogamous marriages. Polygamous marriages can't go ahead until that is adapted for polygamous marriages.I don't know how US law works (heck I don't even know how UK law works and I live here), so I don't know whether adapting the law for polygamous marriage is simple or not. I imagine the most complicated parts would be the legal status of the children (what rights does one non-blood related parent have over one of the other spouses children). Well the issues with gay marriage would obviously need to be ironed out. Now I wasn't implying that the complexities with polygamous marriage were a reason that it shouldn't go ahead. Just that it was a reason to seperate it from other marriages that didn't have those complexities. Here I'm working from a (possibly false) assumption that since a framework for monogamous marriage exists then gay marriage issues will likely be the same as hetero marriage issues. Polygamy will put a whole new level of complexity on top of that with issues that probably haven't been discussed before, and so will take longer. I fail to see how that can't already be done with hetero marriages. Something would need putting in place to try and limit it, but I assume that there are already attempts to do this with hetero marriage? Why would child custody arrangements be any more complex? Well if the precedents are already there then it won't be as complicated as it could have been, but again I wasn't bringing up the complications as a reason not to go ahead with polygamous marriage. Just as reasons why they might be best discussed seperately. I have no idea what minors are or are not allowed to do in the US. I'm pretty sure that in the UK the parent has to do most things on their childs behalf. For example a parent or guardian would have legal control over any financial contracts the child entered into until the child became legally old enough control it for themself.But I certainly have no problem with allowing the marriages with the parents consent. In fact that is allowed here in the UK. Under the ages of 18 you need your parents consent to get married. Of course it works equally well with those people. And if a person is metally handicapped to the point that they can't legally enter into a contract then they surely can't marry someone. Can a person in a permanent vegative state marry? I know that's the most extreme end possible on the mentaly handicapped scale (except for people in a coma maybe?), but there has to be a cut-off point when a person is deemed unable to enter into a contract. With children that point is when they are deemed no longer the legal responsibility of their parents, but as you mentioned there is still the possibility of having parental consent etc.As to the issue of sex that's obviously not a legal or contractual issue in the same way as marriage. I imagine there is still the issue of consent in there. Having sex with a coma patient would probably constitute rape I imagine. At what level of mental capacity does it stop being rape? I have no idea. Yes I agree it's arbitrary. Legal age for sex could be moved from 16 to 15, 14 etc with little reason not to do it. But there has to be some point when children are deemed capable of making descisions on their own. Babies clearly can't do it. Toddler can't do it either I imagine. Wherever the line is placed it will still be arbitrary. This argument is more applicable to the marrige argument because legal issues need to be well defined. As for the sex issue that's a lot more complicated. I don't see how parental consent can be used because that doesn't mean much outside of a legal framework. You seem to be largely agreeing with me here. I have the feeling our views aren't all that different even on the points we're arguing over. And I agree that any such argument would be no reason to deny any of the other practices either. I would argue that if a sexual practices between two people harmed an independant (ie non-consenting) third person then that may be a reason to disallow it, but I don't see that being the case here. And even then it may not be clear cut as it would have to be the case that the harm to the third person was an intrinsic part of the act, and not just coming from that person not liking the act taking place. Not at all. Although I do think we're misundering each other on some of the points. This being one of those points. That wasn't the conclusion I intended to give. It's largely my fault, I wasn't clear enough. When I was talking about the legal issues being treated independantly that was simply because different issues may have different and unrelated implications that were best discussed seperately.I think the problem we're having is interchanging issues such as homosexuality (which are not really legal issues as such), with issues such as marriage (which have a legal aspect to them).The only place where I think a real difference is to be found is with minors. In this case the issue is with consent. That is not the case with homosexuality, incest, polygamy or any other number of sexual minorities. That's not to say that the issue shouldn't be discussed or is off limits, just that it would be of a different nature to say legalising incest. Hmm, after re-reading the context of that I see I was making the very mistake I talked about above (mixing up the issue of the sexual act with the issue of legal things such as marriage). With the exception of things such as consent (which is a legal issue), I don't think sexual acts are things that should be made illegal. When I said there may be reasons not to legalise something I was talking about the things that were actually legal issues (such as marriage), where there may be something making it impractical. Note I'm not exempting homosexual marriage from this either. If there is a reason I'm not aware of it's something that should be considered.I don't see how there could be any legal issues, but then I don't know anything about law and legal processes so I'm not in a position to claim there aren't any.Anyway, I'm running out of time. I agree with most of the things you've said, and I see no reason why sexual acts should be supressed other than over issues of consent. We could probably start a new thread on the consent issue. When are people able to consent? Should consent matter? etc...Edited by happy_atheist, : No reason given.

Point taken. I can agree with that. Actually I understood you weren't saying polygamy shouldn't be legal. I was noting that the point you were making is used by those attempting to keep it illegal. Its a tired and errant argument I've faced many times by those types, as well as many well meaning people that suggest their may be some grain of truth in there.Legal status of children can't be any more complicated for polygamists, than with divorced parents, adoption, and surrogates. The forms of cheating may become more broad, or simply cases that end up in legal court. The concept of common law marriage would have to apply to same sex couples as well, and that would open up a pandora's box of potential cases. Were they just dorm mates as the defendent claims, or were they longtime lovers as the litigant claims? They will inherently involve the most complex situations as children must come from other relationships, adoption, or surrogates. In addition new case law would likely emerge as homosexual couples may have to deal with differential custody where their sexual orientation or the manner of marriage is in question (legality in one state or nation will not guarantee it in all). This is not to mention issues where adoptions or surrogates go bad for a couple based on legal status of their orientation/marriage. You raised the issue of "informed" consent which is what I was responding to. You are correct that no ability to consent at all is an issue and that's clearly what separates a person in a coma from a minor. The point I was driving at was that no matter parental consent or no, sex is barred for minors. I think prosecution for sexual relations with minors should be related to the minor's desires as well as parental consent. After all such prosecutions are always in a legal framework anyway. I think the parent and child should make the call more than the gov't by using strict bars based on age. I do think we got tripped up trying to discuss both sexual and marriage rights, unfortunately it sort of gets mixed up as bars to sexual acts also tend to act as breaks to marriage. As was discussing earlier with mod, without homosexuality gaining legality, discussion of legal homosexual marriages are moot.On the consent issue, that is definitely a separate topic and one I've addressed before and likely won't have the time to address in the future (I've found I had a break this weekend which I didn't expect but the next two weeks will become increasingly busy and I may not be able to respond at all past monday).I'll leave it with this short statement on the issue, there is a difference between consent an the concept of "informed" consent. Minors are usually addressed by appeals to informed consent, because it is now pretty clear they can and do consent. Unfortunately the informed consent issue devolves along the lines I was discussing. It has no consistency with the fact that we do not consider it important in any other case except sex, and we do not apply it to any other group with similar capacities.To this it is accurate to point out one can, as people already have in the past and some still do, that homosexuals may be people incapable of giving informed consent. It can be argued they have a sort of deficiency which makes them susceptible to homosexuality. For similar cases you can point to treatment of pedophiles or people that like fantasy material involving sex with minors. Who is to measure whether gays are truly capable of knowing the consequences of their activities?Obviously I don't agree with this point of view, but it all starts opening up when we use informed consent as a measure beyond simple consent. The "answer" in my mind for potential child molestation is to increase the "value" of a child's claim to nonconsensuality, and an acceptance of the parent's right to refuse consent over the wishes of a minor.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You and I have had a number of discussions related to gay marriage and plural marriage. A friend of mine has recently been advocating a nihilistic point of view I hadn't heard before - or at least hadn't seriously considered - and I'm wondering what you think of it (if you've ever mentioned it before I apologize for missing it).The argument goes a major step beyond another one we've both heard and discussed before: that government should recognize only civil unions and leave the term 'marriage' exclusively to the use of churches. The nihilistic view would be to remove all legal recognition of marriage or marriage-like unions entirely and offer tax benefits only for financially supporting minor children. Any couple - or for that matter any group - who wants to hold any type of ceremony to solemnize any type of union would be perfectly free to do it, and they would likewise be able to enter into whatever type of legal contract they wish to assign survivorship rights, power-of-attorney, etc. with whomever they wish. I suppose it might still be necessary to limit the legal designation of next-of-kin to just one person so that the state isn't overburdoned with notiification duties in case of death or accident.My friend and I got bogged down in an argument over conjugal rights. Should there still be a way to enter into some sort of conjugal rights contract?I don't think there's any real possibility that the institution of marriage might be abolished in law, at least not in our lifetimes. To tell the truth I don't really like the idea. But it's an interesting concept, and when it came up I almost immediately thought of you and wondered what you'd think.

I completely apologize for having missed this post earlier. I hope its not too late for you to catch. I don't think I've mentioned this exact possibility, though I think something similar came up in a discussion about marriage (somebody else may have thought of it).I think it is an interesting concept. I'd be for it thought there would be issues related to immigration which might have to be ironed out. I'm not sure what you mean by conjugal rights. Do you mean for exclusivity to a certain partner? I agree with you were are unlikely to see such a change in our lifetimes.Personally I like the sound of it and wish it was the way our systems worked. I guess it seems more empowering to individuals and small communities. Most certainly gays would have had marriages a long time ago.That said I would never be dogmatic enough to insist on it. I think I prefer to advance the one you mentioned earlier (flexible civil unions, leaving marriages to churches) unless I found myself in a community that was ready for a larger shift.Since you said you didn't like the idea, what do you find troubling about it?On a side note... though somewhat related... I have mentioned the interesting system that the Netherlands has. There are three forms of recognized relationship. The marriage (which is just like the US, except gays can use it too). The Partnership (which has all the rights of marriage, just not the name). And the living together contract, which has a few less protections than marriages/partnerships.I am currently going through a trial, and the other side (actually I am unsure if I am the defense or prosecution), used the fact that I am in a partnership to try and hurt me and my partner. That is to say to draw a legal distinction and remove our rights. The court slapped the other side down, only to have an issue raised that because I am an American the laws of Netherlands should not protect me... even though the partnership is their own.This is perhaps a refutation of my own argument that names are not important as long as all rights are guaranteed by law. If we had been married there would have been no problem. Then again, the real name that made any importance is that I am an American. If I had been dutch, the partnership would have posed no problem.It'll be interesting to see how the case goes. The judge said she'll have to consider the argument that my being American creates a difference where there is none considered in their own laws. Not sure if my case will end up being precedent setting, or there is some obscure case the judge will follow.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

I completely apologize for having missed this post earlier. I hope its not too late for you to catch.

---

Not at all too late, I wasn't expecting a quick reply. We're suddenly having beautiful weather here in Mississippi and I'm not sitting around the computer much myself. I've wanted to post here at evc more often, but my time is more limited lately, and I feel compelled to try and make sure no one has already made the comment I want to make. By the time I do that sometimes I find I don't have time to make my points adequately so I don't post anything.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by conjugal rights. Do you mean for exclusivity to a certain partner?

---

Yes, some sort of legal contract by which one can exchange conjugal rights with another person or persons and which can provide for damages to be awarded in the event of a renege.

quote:

---

Since you said you didn't like the idea, what do you find troubling about it?

---

I'm not quite sure, it's just that I've always suspected that nihilistic arguments are a little bit too seductive. When I hear one, for some reason I can never satisfy myself that I've completely grasped the logic. So I'm like you, I suppose, in that I think I prefer the all-civil-unions option.

quote:

---

It'll be interesting to see how the case goes. The judge said she'll have to consider the argument that my being American creates a difference where there is none considered in their own laws. Not sure if my case will end up being precedent setting, or there is some obscure case the judge will follow.

---

I'm sure that the very little most of us Americans know about Dutch law is what we learned from watching the Natalie Holloway case on television, so if your judge indeed cites a case it's certain to be an obscure one to us. It does sound like an interesting case you've got there. Please keep us informed about it.

While July was super hot, August seems to be nonstop rain and clouds, blech. Unfortunately my time is just much shorter these days because of trying to do a bunch of work. And it can come without warning, preventing me from coming back for weeks at a time. As my avatar and sig show, I'm reduced pretty much to a lurker, with short bursts of activity when time allows.I agree with what you said happens in that mode. You come back to find most people have already addressed anything you'd want to, or you don't have any time remaining.Enjoy the good weather. Now that you bring this up, why hasn't this been created for normal marriages IN ADDITION to things like prenups? Granted infidelity can be grounds for divorce, but what about agreements for extra damages should a partner stray? Hmmmm.I do think this could work. It'd be like any other contractual arrangement for fidelity of "service". While I'd be comfortable with the nihilist option, I'm seduced I suppose, I always like to look at what other people are comfortable with or desire. No matter what I'd like to see, it seems many people want to have relationships sanctioned by a state authority in some form, even for personal reasons (leaving their mark in public history perhaps?).In that case I'm more than willing to have a state fulfill that sort of function, but then be as neutral as possible about it so as to maximize the variability of relationships people would want. This may be how you feel about it as well. Note to anyone ending up in a dutch courtroom: speak dutch. If you speak anything else in the courtroom they are barred by law from responding in kind, even if everyone is highly fluent in your language. No one told me this and after I spoke in English the judge proceeded to ignore me, never really answering my question, or allowing me to do anything else despite the fact that it was my case and about my fate.I felt like I had shifted into some bizarre nightmare, until afterward my lawyer mentioned only dutch is allowed to be spoken (at least by the judges) in a dutch courtroom. If I had known I most certainly would have tried to stick to dutch.While I hope for the best, I can't say I find much to recommend about dutch "justice". When there's a decision I'll definitely mention something.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well the decision to my case came back unexpectedly. None of our plans took such a sudden and negative finding into consideration, as at the very least dutch wheels grind very slowly.The decided I should be tossed out on bureacratic technicalities regarding economics. That means they did not address if being an American changes how they would treat their own laws on partnerships v marriages.This has thrown my life into a bit of turmoil. In fact I figured I wouldn't be able to post much for quite a while, for both practical (I'd be moving) and emotional (I'd be a wreck) reasons. Without any sense of the dramatic, the decision has factually put me and my gf into a position where we'd have to separate, and essentially end our relationship (I don't want to go into all the practical details which explain this latter point). With a sense of the dramatic, we have been together for over 6.5 years with no separation beyond a few days here and there during that time. We are extremely close, and it would be devastating.We went into an emergency session last night and talked with our lawyer this morning and may have some rather expensive avenues around this current decision. It puts me in limbo for a while, but at least we can stay together and make plans for moving elsewhere in a timely fashion which will not wreck her career.For better or worse it also means I can keep typing here at EvC. Of course some freelance work activity may still kick me out from time to time as it has for the last several months.So things are really shitty, but we feel we have survived an axe swing which would have thrown me out totally unprepared, as well as breaking up our longterm stable relationship.Let me wrap this up by bringing this back somewhat to topic. While the dutch gov't did not decide whether they could treat their laws differently because I was an American, while contacting the US gov't in our emergency planning session last night I found out some interesting info.Apparently the US gov't does not see a difference between legal partnerships and marriages as long as the foreign nation gives them equal weight according to their law. That means that they already have in place a concept that different names does not necessarily mean different treatment, if the underlying legal bond is the same.Don't quote me on that if you go into a court case. Laws change and the US agents I have talked with may have been errant. Find out for yourself at the time of your case. All I am saying is that of right now Immigration and Tax agents of the US gov't treat them as identical.However, just as gays who get full marriages here cannot get recognition in the US same goes for gays who get partnerships. The key thing is that while a foreign nation may legally recognize all sorts of different relationships (differing contracts), the US does not recognize any legal contractual relationship involving anything but a single man and a single woman. This restriction comes from DOMA, and if DOMA is repealed my guess is the US would have to allow gay marriages and partnerships.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

holmes writes:

quote:

---

This restriction comes from DOMA, and if DOMA is repealed my guess is the US would have to allow gay marriages and partnerships.

---

Well that's the essential fact behind the push for a constitutional amendment, and I think you're right. Further, I think gay marriage is almost fait accompli in America. The only questions are when and how it will come about. My feeling is that it will come to us - probably in a decade or so - from other nations. I believe that Spain, Canada, et. al. will, at some point, begin putting pressure on the US to recognize their marriages, since our refusal to do so will eventually be seen by them as the slap in the face that it clearly is. In the same way that us gays don't like having self-rightous morons passing moral judgement on us, other nations who consider America to be a friend will begin to feel offended by our collective moral judgement against them.I'm sorry to hear that things aren't working out for you very well right now. I hope it gets better.

That is possible, though it might be that US officials do so by admitting them as "legal relationships", rather than count as marriage. Thus same rights but different name.It'll be interesting to see if the gay community will accept that solution. And I guess I should ask if you would? This logic is something I'd have agreed with, and is why my mind was sent reeling when opposing counsel argued that the Netherlands didn't have to recognize its OWN laws because I was an American. Thanks. We think we've found a solution that will at least work long enough for us to get out of here together. Ironically we left the US when we were living very well, in order to go to a land of greater freedom and tolerance. Turns out we should never have left. Despite all the crabbing, the US really does offer many more opportunities for success and access to foreigners.Repatriation may end up being a very appropriate term.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

It'll be interesting to see if the gay community will accept that solution. And I guess I should ask if you would?

---

If it seems to be a step in the direction of full equality then yeah, I'll accept it, at least for a time. If it seems that we're being asked to accept partnerships or relationships or whatever permanently in the stead of marriage then no, I most certainly will not accept it. I don't think many gay people would.

Wow, I've found a republican with a beating heart.