?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Gay Parenting 101: Tools to Protect Gay and Lesbian Families - Part 1, Second Parent Adoption - Mo's Journal
August 9th, 2006
01:43 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Gay Parenting 101: Tools to Protect Gay and Lesbian Families - Part 1, Second Parent Adoption

(24 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:mofic
Date:August 10th, 2006 02:21 am (UTC)
(Link)
I don't know about the rest of Canada, but here in Quebec the low marriage rate apparently mostly has to do with backlash against the Roman Catholic church.

Quebec has the lowest marriage rate in Canada, so that may be part of it, but it does have civil marriage. I've always thought that the low marriage rate in Quebec comes from women not being allowed to change their names upon marriage - the marriage rate dropped precipitously when the law was passed. It's as if that was the last real benefit of marriage (if you view it as a benefit) - a free name change.

I would like to hear your explanation for your marriage, although I don't think you need to justify it.
[User Picture]
From:shadowscast
Date:August 10th, 2006 02:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah, the name thing in Quebec is weird. I'd never heard that cited as a reason people didn't get married, though. Interesting thought.

Anyway, I'm quite sure the backlash-against-the-church thing was a big part of it, as I've heard from many difference sources that it was part of the Quiet Revolution.

Btw, I think I need clarification on one point: by "civil marriage" do you mean "common law marriage" or "marriage performed by a civil rather than religious authority figure"?

I would like to hear your explanation for your marriage, although I don't think you need to justify it.

Maybe I'll do a post on it!
[User Picture]
From:mofic
Date:August 10th, 2006 02:39 am (UTC)
(Link)
Btw, I think I need clarification on one point: by "civil marriage" do you mean "common law marriage" or "marriage performed by a civil rather than religious authority figure"?

I mean marriage where nobody fights about it :-).

Seriously, civil marriage is marriage by the state, as opposed to a religion. Marriage is a religious institution, a legal institution and a social institution. Here in the US, we have same sex civil marriage only in Massachusetts (and without most of the rights of civil marriage for heterosexuals). But we have religious marriage throughout the country - for those religions that permit it. But religious marriages of heterosexuals get state approval, because the clergy is authorized to perform the marriage and sign the marriage license. It's just not a requirement that there be a religious ceremony.

Israel, by contrast, has no civil marriage. It's religious marriage or nothing. And for Jewish marriage, it's Orthodox or nothing. But they recognise civil marriages contracted in other countries.
[User Picture]
From:shadowscast
Date:August 10th, 2006 03:19 am (UTC)
(Link)
Oh! Okay.

So Dave and I had a civil marriage, for example (as we were married by a Justice of the Peace rather than a clergyperson).

Yeah. There's no legal difference between civil and religious marriages here, as far as I know. Basically, there's only one type of marriage, and you can have a religious ceremony around the signing of the certificate if you want to but it doesn't make a difference to the government.
[User Picture]
From:mofic
Date:August 10th, 2006 10:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
Yes, that's the same here. And civil same-sex marriage doesn't compel any religion to perform same-sex marriages any more than allowing civil marriage after divorce compels the Catholic Church to do so. That's why religious arguments against marriage equality are bullshit - it's all about civil marriages, not religious ones. My shul has marriage equality - we do both opposite sex and same-sex marriages as kiddushin (Jewish marriage). But only if it's opposite sex is there a government issued marriage license for the rabbi to sign.

But, anyway, my point in bringing up civil marriage (which was lost, I think) is that if people in Quebec are angry at the Catholic Church they don't need to get married by the church. If they value marriage as a concept but don't want a church-sanctioned one, there's always civil marriage. Which brings me back to marriage not conferring rights in Canada that you can't get otherwise. So if you don't want church imprimatur on your relationship, then there has to be something else about the ceremonial aspect or the communal aspect or the government aspect that appeals to you, I guess, in order to want a marriage. And when you write your post about why you and Dave got married, I'll find out which it was for you!
[User Picture]
From:shadowscast
Date:August 10th, 2006 04:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh! I think you're not quite understanding the backlash-against-the-Church thing. Marriage is something the Church said you had to do, so now a lot of people won't—civil ceremony or not.

Having a civil rather than religious ceremony was something that was very important to us, though. My parents wanted us to get married in their church (for, among other reasons, the practical one that it was a building we could rent very cheaply!) but Dave and I consulted with the minister and discovered it would not be possible for him to perform a completely non-religious ceremony—so we went with a Justice of the Peace in a different location, instead.
[User Picture]
From:mofic
Date:August 10th, 2006 04:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh! I think you're not quite understanding the backlash-against-the-Church thing. Marriage is something the Church said you had to do, so now a lot of people won't—civil ceremony or not.

I guess that makes sense. Although having a marriage that the Church won't recognize seems just as much sticking it to them to me as not doing it at all. Different strokes and all that. And, coming back to the whole legal climate thing, since common law couples in Canada have the same rights as married ones, marriage doesn't really buy you much unless the ceremony and party and gifts and social aspects are meaningful to you.
[User Picture]
From:shadowscast
Date:August 10th, 2006 04:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Afaik, common-law couples in Canada don't have quite all the same rights as married ones—for instance, the Nova Scotia gov website says "Filing a domestic partners declaration provides the partners with many of the same rights and obligations that married couples have under a number of Nova Scotia statutes," [emphasis mine]. It's something that varies by province, and honestly I'm not even sure what the situation in Quebec is (their website was less helpful!).
[User Picture]
From:mofic
Date:August 10th, 2006 04:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Do you know what rights common law couples don't have? I thought that was the anti-same-sex marriage argument before the Supreme Court, that same-sex couples already have all the *rights* and that the ceremonial aspects are rightly reserved for opposite sex couples because of religion and tradition and blah blah. But that the Supreme Court rejected that saying that having one's relationship recognized as on equal footing with other married couples *is* a right. But it's a long time since I read all this stuff and I could be misremembering. I do know that a whole lot of stuff that we can only get through marriage in this country comes with common law in Canada.
[User Picture]
From:shadowscast
Date:August 10th, 2006 04:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
No, I'm not sure what the actual differences are (and I've just been trying to find out online without success).

About the only thing I know for sure is that income taxes are identical for legally married and common-law spouses here.

If I remember the situation correctly, back when the same-sex marriage challenges were happening, the government proposed to create a legal status which would be identical to marriage in every way, but not called "marriage" (a rose by any other name?). But the courts basically said "not good enough," and we got real same-sex marriage.
Mofic Powered by LiveJournal.com