mikaela1988 PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:02 pm

The Law
Hi everyone,

I was looking at this little law book I've got on the law and unmarried couples, and it has a little section (2 pages) on lesbian and gay relationships, and it says that we bascially have no rightrs and curentley can't even go to see our partners in hospital if they're critically ill because we're not classed as family!
I just wondered if anyone knew about this stuff and could explain it a bit better?
What's anyone else's opinions on this?

_________________

I love MJNet PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 10:37 pm

The law regarding a same sex relationship is now changing to allow for more protection.

While it doesn't go as far as allowing us to marry, we will (From December last time I heard) be able to register our partnerships with the local authority and we will then be given the same rights as a married couple.

This will include being officially recognised as next of kin for example.

This is more than an unmarried couple will have (who currently are in much the same position in law) - but the difference is, they have the option to marry, and unless that law changes to allow same sex couples, we don't - hence the reason for the law.

I personally am pleased that at last we can have some protection and rights, but ultimately I would like to see us gaining rights in all areas.
So, its not perfect, but considering what we did have - its a damn sight better.

The Law also recently changed over adoption - allowing same sex couples to adopt. The law was also complete nonsense on that one, because it allowed a SINGLE homosexual to adopt (as you could as a straight person) but - you couldn't adopt if you had a partner? And of course, it meant you could then get involved in a relationship once the adoption was official!

Hope this helps explain it a little better for you.

_________________

mikaela1988 PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:00 pm

Thanks, that's great. You explain it much better! lol.

_________________

4us PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:10 pm

I'm not sure of the laws here but to think that you are not allowed to visit your partner in hospital if ill would be intolerable...having just had mine in hospital for major surgery I would have been devistated if not given my rights to see her........when she filled out her admission forms she put me down as her next of kin and partner and I was given ALL spousal rights and privaledges......we had actually been to a solicitor earlier and he had urged her to draw up a will giving me control if anything was to happen to her.........whilst she was confined to hospital I have to say I was treated with the respect of being part of a couple and both the doctors and nursing staff discussed all areas of her surgery and recouperation with me...we are slowly establishing ourselves as a couple in as many areas as we can and I was happy to know that her medical insurance now covers me in her family plan and classes me as her partner......

obviously there is a ways to go before we are afforded the same legal rights as married couples but if we all keep fighting for them then who knows...one day we may all be actually treated as equals and not segregated or judged for our choice of bedfellows!!!!!

_________________

NZ Bad Girl PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:41 pm

In NZ we recently got the Civil Union bill passed. Now Gay couples (and straight couples if they want) can have all the same legal rights as married couples. It's a start I suppose.

_________________

silverballnz PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:54 am

A start indeed NZBG but i think its going to be a bit of dead in water legislation. I heard the other night on the Out House that only 127 gay couples have bothered to get Cupped as the call it.
We wont be bothering we have no problem with rights in hospitals and such.
Cheers.

_________________

P2 PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:20 pm

Well, Belgium has legalised gay weddings about three years ago now and the federal Parliament is currently trying to pass a Bill concerning adoption. There's a lot of opposition though, mostly from the political right. Hope it gets through because as soon as the catholic party gets control of the Parliament again, it'll be off the table again for a couple of years

[ETA: These were posted separately on the old board but I felt it made more sense to combine them here. ekny 6/3/6]
-----------------
-----------------

mjnet PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:58 pm

Q&A: Civil partnership
By Dominic Casciani
BBC News community affairs



Germany introduced similar equality legislation in 2001
What is a civil partnership - and what does it mean for gay couples in the UK?
What is a civil partnership?

Civil partnerships are a legally recognised union between two people of the same sex. While this sounds fairly dry and technical, it is to all intents and purposes a right of marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

Couples who become partnered will have the right to exactly the same legal treatment across a range of matters as a married couple would expect.

Such as what?

All the key elements that come with marriage. The law accords civil partners equitable treatment for important financial matters, such as inheritance, pensions provision, life assurance and maintenance where children are involved.

It provides next of kin rights for couples, such as in their dealings with hospitals. Immigration and nationality rules take account of marriage when assessing someone's right to stay in the UK - that rule is extended to civil partners.

Why is it not called gay marriage?

On a technical level there are differences. A partnership is formed when the second of the two parties signs the partnership papers. This is not necessarily a public ceremony or even an event that happens at the same time as the first signature.

This flexibility means that couples can essentially become partnered in private, if they wish. In contrast, a marriage happens when the partners exchange spoken words and also sign the register.

Another important distinction is that marriage as a word has religious connotations, even if a ceremony is only civil. Marriages can be conducted by Church of England clergy without any civil preliminaries being required. Civil partnerships are only conducted by registrars.

There are some key similarities: couples need to give public notice of their intention to partner in the same way as a man and woman who are marrying. The record of the partnership is also an official public document kept by the General Registry Office in England and Wales (and its equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland).


There is, of course, a very large political reason why this is not officially gay marriage. Ministers are very careful to avoid using this kind of shorthand - it's almost certain that had they wanted to use such language in the legislation, the Act would have had a far harder time. They stress partnerships are an entirely new legal concept.

But beyond that are there any practical differences?

The government says that it wanted civil partnerships to provide as far as possible the same rights and responsibilities as for a married couple. Campaigners who advocated the change said they were more interested in getting parity for same-sex couples, which they achieved, than the terminology.

Clearly it's going to be a matter of personal taste. Among the first couples planning a partnership, some are referring it to "gay weddings" while others are not.

What does the government mean by responsibilities?

Civil partners will have duties in every way the same as married couples: Children within the family will need to be looked after; the second partner will be able to seek parental responsibility, similar to step-father/mother arrangements in heterosexual families.

A partner will be expected to provide reasonable maintenance and be part of the process of assessing a couple for benefits, if necessary. Crucially, the union does not end if someone walks away; civil partners will be required to go through a court-based dissolution which will address the same issues as any divorce settlement.

How many partnerships are predicted?

A range of major city councils have told the BBC that they have 1,200 bookings already and the government expects 4,500 by the end of 2006. Beyond that it is difficult to estimate, although ministers think between 11,000 and 22,000 by 2010.

Who opposes the law?

There are many people who still oppose the law, particularly some religious leaders and politicians.

At least two councils investigated whether or not they could have some kind of ban on civil partnerships, if only in preventing couples using their facilities. Both backed down amid the prospect of extremely expensive court battles that lawyers said they would lose.

Some registrars have signalled their opposition, according to newspapers, although they have a legal duty to conduct partnerships.

One religious group has however taken a different view. Rabbis with the Liberal Jewish tradition have said they will conduct services for gay couples. Figures from other religions have also already been involved in "blessings" for gay couples who have held "commitment ceremonies" before the law changed.

Are their implications for common law relationships?

At the moment, the so-called common law marriage actually has no legal force at all if things go wrong - and ministers are keen to point this out to couples who believe they do not need to marry to gain rights. The Law Commission is however looking at the entire field, given that so many people no longer marry.


______________

Gay marriage around the globe


mjnet PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:00 pm


Gay marriage has become an important political issue in the US
Northern European countries were the first to recognise same-sex unions - a trend that picked up in the 1990s and eventually crossed the Atlantic.
It became a polarising issue in the 2004 US elections, with voters in many states banning the practice.

The BBC News website looks at where same-sex unions have been given the go-ahead, and the often intense debates over them.


EUROPE
In a number of countries in Europe, the status of "registered partnership" has been established.

In 1989, Denmark became the first country to institute legislation granting registered same-sex partners the same rights as married couples. Church weddings are not allowed.

Norway, Sweden and Iceland all enacted similar legislation in 1996, and Finland followed suit six years later.


The Netherlands became the first country to offer full civil marriage rights to gay couples in 2001.

In neighbouring Belgium gay marriages were allowed in 2003.

In June 2005, Spanish MPs voted in favour of allowing gay couples to marry and adopt children. The bill is set to become law in July.

The lower house was able to overrule the Senate, which rejected the bill.

Germany has allowed same-sex couples to register for "life partnerships" since 2001. The law only gives couples the same inheritance and tenants' rights as heterosexual married couples.

France in 1999 introduced a civil contract called the Pacs, which gives some rights to cohabiting couples, regardless of sex. These do not include the full rights of marriage, notably over taxes, inheritance and adoption. In 2004, a mayor conducted the country's first gay marriage, but it was later nullified by a court.

In Luxembourg, a law on civil partnerships largely inspired by the French model was introduced in 2004.

In Britain, legislation due to come into force in December 2005 will give same-sex couples in registered partnerships similar rights to married couples, in areas such as pensions, property, social security, and housing.


THE UNITED STATES
Many states have passed amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Congress has failed to approve a similar amendment to the US constitution.

President George W Bush has made clear that he supports such an amendment but said that individual states would still be able to make their own arrangements on unions - which offer couples some of the same rights as marriage.


In 2000, Vermont became the first US state to offer homosexuals the right to join in civil unions, giving them the same benefits as married couples on matters such as life insurance, health care and child custody.

In April 2005, Connecticut became the second US state to allow same-sex civil unions - and the first to do so without orders from a court. But it specifically defined marriage as being the union of a man and a woman.

San Francisco started issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples in February 2004, after the new mayor defied state law and allowed gay weddings. The move was later annulled by the state Supreme Court. But in a victory for gay-rights advocates, in March 2005 a San Francisco judge ruled that the law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licences for gay couples in May 2004. State legislators have proposed a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages, but would allow civil unions. If the proposal passes further legal hurdles, it will go to the voters in a referendum in autumn 2006.

In Oregon, officials in the Portland area began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004, before an amendment to the state constitution banning such weddings was approved by voters in November. But Governor Ted Kulongoski said he would back a new law which would allow gay couples to form civil unions.



CANADA
In June 2005, Canada's parliament approved a bill to legalise same-sex marriage. It is expected to win Senate approval and become law by July, making Canada the third country after the Netherlands and Belgium to allow gay marriages. Gay marriage is already legal in eight of 10 provinces and one of Canada's three territories.


NEW ZEALAND
In December, 2004, New Zealand's parliament passed controversial legislation to recognise civil unions between gay couples.


AFRICA
Although homosexuality remains a taboo subject in many African societies, South Africa is a liberal country in terms of gay rights.

The post-apartheid constitution includes a clause making discrimination based on sexual identity illegal. Homosexual couples are allowed to adopt.

In November last year the country's highest court ruled in favour of a lesbian couple who wanted the legal definition of marriage changed to include same-sex unions.

The ruling does not yet legalise gay marriage but is being hailed by campaigners as a major step forward.

I think the NZ Civil Union Bill has suffered from some negative news reporting. It's a case of the glass half full or half empty? When the Bill was passed into law opponents were complaining it was the beginning of the undermining of heterosexual marriage and the family etc. Now they are saying passing the bill was a waste of time as a limited number of people had entered into Civil Union since it became available over a year ago.

But the fact is some people have chosen to get CUPed. At that includes both male-female and same-sex couples. Some heterosexual couples have chosen to get CUPed rather than married because they think marriage is a concept that carries a lot of undesirable baggage. One or two couples have changed from being married to getting CUPed.

For myself I've always had mixed feelings about same-sex marriage and/or civil
unions. It's not something I've ever been interested in myself. I've always thought a plus of being lesbian is that I didn't even have to think about the marriage thing. OTOH I can see it provides some legal support on important issues like immigration, health matters etc.

Like silverballnz I don't think I'll be likely to get CUPed... but I'm glad the option is available if necessary. Actually I thought the de facto union law already gave same-sex couples equal rights on things like property, illness issues etc. Now after living together after about 2-3 years all couples whatever their sexuality will be legally considered to be in a de facto (common law) union unless they sign something to opt out. I kind of object to the law deciding about my relationships like that. I think that law is largely to do with property issues. They brought in the defacto union bill so that they wouldn't have loads of individual couples suing each other for property after the relationship breaks up. I think there's something about entitlements to partner's property under the de facto bill.

And that really has a lot to do with my negative feelings about legalising gay marriage or civil unions. I think alot of it is about managing property rights under capitalism. Also in this context children are kind of treated like the property of their parents.

You would think a lot of the conservatives would be happy that many same-sex couples want to be signed up into that system rather than protesting they are undermining the family etc.

According to government stats a growing number of young New Zealnders are in defacto unions and less are getting married:

http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-serv...arriages-civil-
unions-divorces/marriages-civil-unions-divorces-yedec05-hotp.htm?page=para003
Master

"Men and women under 25 years of age, who were living in a de facto relationship in 2001 outnumbered those who were legally married."

"At 31 December 2005, civil union registrations totalled 278. These comprised 227 same-sex unions (113 male and 114 female), 49 opposite-sex unions and 2 transfers from marriage. "

Considering the country has a relatively small population (4 million) I don't think this shows the Civil Union law is dead in the water.

Wikipedia had some good info on same-sex marriages, civil unions and blessings. Here is one of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage