Scotland to approve same-sex weddings
May 13, 2002 6:36 PM   Subscribe

Scotland to approve same-sex weddings The symbolic registrations don't have "the same basis and rights in law as traditional marriages," but the country does give some tangible benefits to same-sex partners. Compare with the longer list offered to mixed-sex unmarried couples.
posted by mediareport (9 comments total)
[obligatory] Yabbut, when they gonna approve of sheep-sex weddings? [drum riff]

posted by five fresh fish at 9:13 PM on May 13, 2002

Personally, with no disrespect to my fellow homos, I really feel that there's only section of society served by same-sex marriages.

Divorce attorneys.

Why we want to emulate a heterosexual practice with such a dubious success rate is, and always has been, beyond me.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:43 PM on May 13, 2002

a heterosexual practice with such a dubious success rate

Don't knock it till you've tried it, WolfDaddy. Several times, if necessary, until you get it right. No, but surely you have the same right to reject marriage as straight people do. I'd have thought marriage for gays would always be an option worth having, since no one is forced to get married.

Also, it would greatly improve gay literature - plays and novels without marriage wouldn't be so much fun. I remember W.H.Auden saying the most boring long-term marriage was more interesting than the most passionate love affair. That's an exaggeration but there's something to it. The institutional weight of marriage, no matter how lightly you enter into it, adds interest.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:12 PM on May 13, 2002

No lame kilt or bagpipe jokes, eh? I'm surprised. And no "What's so shocking about same-sex weddings? I've been getting the same sex for 15 years now, once a week, ..." har-dee-har-har jokes?

Anyway, I understand why WolfDaddy is not enthusiastic about marriage. Because it is easier (legally, financially, socially, morally) to marry and divorce now, many more marriages are now seen exploding almost before they begin. In the old days, you got into it much more carefully and almost never got out, and your marital troubles followed you to the grave if you didn't send them to the grave first.

Maybe governments should recognize at least two or three varieties of standard marriage contract from which couples (or larger groups) would construct a combination that suits them:
• Love -- we are married for love (perhaps including sex). Call us a couple, an emotional unit. Give us mutual visiting rights, etc. (But it says nothing about money, kids, etc. In those terms, you are still legally strangers.)
• Church -- we declare, with this here holy man as our witness, that we are a unit in the eyes of some god or gods and promise to follow the strictures of some crazy shed full o' holy rollers down the street. This wouldn't be legally binding in any way that mattered, but it would please your church.
• Kids -- if we create or adopt them, who gets them should we part? who has to do what for the kids while they're still living with us?
• Wealth -- how (itemized) will our worldly goods be divided should we part or one of us should die?
• Housekeeping -- we live together, which means that we work together. This is how we will divide the work.
• Cat Box Cleaning -- a more specialized contract but one that is dear to my heart.
posted by pracowity at 2:48 AM on May 14, 2002

lol Interesting perspective, WolfDaddy...I find myself in total agreement with you, albeit from the other side of the fence.

::: thinks Miguel is WAY brainwashed :::
posted by rushmc at 7:03 AM on May 14, 2002

Three words: Hospital Visitation Rights

Cray, has that situation actually happened to you? I have worked in the healthcare industry, and despite media portrayals, caregivers are usually compassionate people.

I've had my best friend, not my lover but he is male, go with me to doctor's appointments, a CAT scan, and one outpatient surgical procedure with no questions asked.

If the admissions staff doesn't let you in, call your family doctor to have him or her raise hell with the staff. That usually does the trick. And you win more flies with honey than calling them homophobes. :)
posted by WolfDaddy at 8:37 AM on May 14, 2002

C'mon WolfDaddy, obviously relying on the generosity of the staff in a hospital is different than having your rights as next-of-kin spelled out in statute. What about immigration? What about inheritance? That stuff isn't going to be affected by "compassion" (what, is an officer going to wink and rubberstamp your passport or will?), it requires a rewrite of the law. And every measure like this is an important step.
posted by bcwinters at 9:42 AM on May 14, 2002

bcwinters, I was only addressing the particular issue raised by CrayDrygu, which is raised often enough to make me want to present a different perspective.

I'm not saying that the 'rights' given to married heterosexuals are unworthy of desire by their homosexual counterparts, I am saying that marriage as it stands today is far too easy to enter and leave for the sake of convenience and any 'rights' thus accorded lose a bit of their lustre for me.

And let's not forget that some areas have community property laws ...
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:01 AM on May 14, 2002

Three words: Hospital Visitation Rights

Two words: Immigration Rights.
posted by Tholian at 6:37 PM on May 16, 2002

« Older Interested in video game emulators?   |   More songs from Eugene, the marvelous crooning... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments