Re: Heterophobia in the UK
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: A heterosexual couple who is simply cohabiting, frex, can break up and go their separate ways at any time, whereas if they are legally married, they must go through the often messy process of obtaining a legal divorce, dividing up the property, etc. OTOH, because they are not married, frex, if one becomes ill the other is not considered family for visiting and decision-making purposes. I don't know exactly how the proposed law is written, but is it possible it would give them all the advantages of being married without some of the disadvantages, such as long-term commitment? Here in Australia, defacto couples of any gender have much the same rights. Not the same as married couples, but non-the-less do receive official recognition. There is provision for dividing up property when splitting up and for maintenance of children. In many situations they are also covered for workcover, superannuation benefits, etc. http://www.liv.asn.au/public/general/defacto/ __ The term domestic partner has now been introduced into the laws dealing with property disputes, compensation schemes, superannuation schemes, health, criminal law, consumers and business. As a result all de facto couples, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual have the same legal rights and liabilities. The only exceptions to this general rule are that only heterosexual couples can adopt a child, (in special circumstances an order may be made in favour of one person) and only a woman living with a man can have access to IVF procedures. De facto couples do not have the same rights and obligations as couples who are legally married. It is important for anyone living in a defacto relationship to seek legal advice to secure his or her position. ___ Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
On 30 Jun 2003 at 11:55, William T Goodall wrote: The moves will give next-of-kin rights in hospitals That alone leads me to back it. The current situation is farsical, and very nearly got a friend of mine killed (let's just say that her parents were NOT her legal next-of-kin) Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
However, the changes have been criticised by human rights campaigners who complain that heterosexual non-married couples are discriminated against. Heterosexual couples will not be eligible for the registration scheme, a decision attacked by veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. Mr Tatchell said: It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples, he said. Why? They can get legally married! I understand his point is that gay couples should also be permitted - which I agree with - but there's no discrimination against unmarried straight couples. Tom Beck ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
At 10:24 AM 6/30/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, the changes have been criticised by human rights campaigners who complain that heterosexual non-married couples are discriminated against. Heterosexual couples will not be eligible for the registration scheme, a decision attacked by veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. Mr Tatchell said: It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples, he said. Why? They can get legally married! To modify an old saying: Why buy the cow if you can get the government to give you the milk for free? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
To modify an old saying: Why buy the cow if you can get the government to give you the milk for free? I'm afraid I don't see your point. The complaint is that the UK government will, rather than permit actual legal same-sex marriage, permit gay couples certain privileges similar to marriage but without the formal name, which some gay spokesperson says discriminates against unmarried straight couples by not permitting them a similar legal arrangement in some way short of actual marriage. And my point is, unmarried straight couples have no such need because they can actually get married. If they choose not to, that's up to them, but at least they have the choice, which gays do not. Therefore, there is no possible discrimination. If you want to argue that gays should be given full legal marriage rights, I agree. What the UK government is proposing is, actually, still, discrimination against _gays_ not against straights, even if it would be slightly less discriminatory than it used to be. So what is your point? Tom Beck ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
But of course the BBC managed to find a straight couple to illustrate the issue: they have a child and live together and think the new law is a good thing; but they would like to be able to take advantage of it themselves since they don't want to get married. Why should straight people be forced to marry against their wishes to obtain legal rights and tax advantages that gay couples can obtain without having to get married? Gay couples are NOT PERMITTED to get married even if they wanted to. Let gays get legally married - and call it marriage - and then you might have a point. Straight couples at least CAN get married. If they choose not to, that's their decision. But gays who want to get married are prohibited. And why should unmarried couples get any of these rights and privileges? Marriage promotes stability, which is good for children, therefore good for society. If they want those rights and privileges, let them get married, since they, at least, are permitted to do so. Tom Beck ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
At 01:58 PM 6/30/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To modify an old saying: Why buy the cow if you can get the government to give you the milk for free? I'm afraid I don't see your point. The complaint is that the UK government will, rather than permit actual legal same-sex marriage, permit gay couples certain privileges similar to marriage but without the formal name, which some gay spokesperson says discriminates against unmarried straight couples by not permitting them a similar legal arrangement in some way short of actual marriage. And my point is, unmarried straight couples have no such need because they can actually get married. If they choose not to, that's up to them, but at least they have the choice, which gays do not. Therefore, there is no possible discrimination. If you want to argue that gays should be given full legal marriage rights, I agree. What the UK government is proposing is, actually, still, discrimination against _gays_ not against straights, even if it would be slightly less discriminatory than it used to be. So what is your point? Tom A heterosexual couple who is simply cohabiting, frex, can break up and go their separate ways at any time, whereas if they are legally married, they must go through the often messy process of obtaining a legal divorce, dividing up the property, etc. OTOH, because they are not married, frex, if one becomes ill the other is not considered family for visiting and decision-making purposes. I don't know exactly how the proposed law is written, but is it possible it would give them all the advantages of being married without some of the disadvantages, such as long-term commitment? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heterophobia in the UK
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 06:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To modify an old saying: Why buy the cow if you can get the government to give you the milk for free? I'm afraid I don't see your point. The complaint is that the UK government will, rather than permit actual legal same-sex marriage, permit gay couples certain privileges similar to marriage but without the formal name, which some gay spokesperson says discriminates against unmarried straight couples by not permitting them a similar legal arrangement in some way short of actual marriage. And my point is, unmarried straight couples have no such need because they can actually get married. If they choose not to, that's up to them, but at least they have the choice, which gays do not. Therefore, there is no possible discrimination. If you want to argue that gays should be given full legal marriage rights, I agree. What the UK government is proposing is, actually, still, discrimination against _gays_ not against straights, even if it would be slightly less discriminatory than it used to be. So what is your point? At 02:56 PM 6/30/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And why should unmarried couples get any of these rights and privileges? Marriage promotes stability, which is good for children, therefore good for society. If they want those rights and privileges, let them get married, since they, at least, are permitted to do so. As you have perhaps seen by now in another post, that is exactly what I was saying. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
