Comments on: Hungary court overturns domestic partner law

By: truthsayer

truthsayer — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:33:48 +0000

Ahh yes! YAAAAAAWN! Eastern Europe pulls its same ol’ bigoted bullshite it’s been playing at for the past 2 thousand something years. [Screw] Eastern Europe! If they don’t want to play by the rules of the EU then they can get the [freak] out AND STAY OUT!!

By: Rhodanum

Rhodanum — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:32:39 +0000

It saddens me to see that this law was annulled so close to when it would come to effect (while the more cynical side of me cannot help but wonder why this happened just two weeks before the set date when the first civil partnerships would have been performed. It seems more like a case of ‘cold feet’ to me, regardless of the common-sense legal argument attached to it).

This is somewhat more personal to me since I live in Romania, Hungary’s eastern neighbor — a country that still does not entitle gay couples to any of the same rights as heterosexual ones (to our credit, though, we have fully inclusive anti-discrimination and hate-crime legislation — even if applying it is very difficult, given the deeply-ingrained homophobic attitudes and perceptions, within the general population). Hungary’s civil-partnerships law gave those of us around here some amount of hope — in the sense the it could have (had) some effect on the Romanian government, should it ever decide to set upon a similar course of action. This new development, however, is quite worrying, since legislators around here might use this very same argument, when activists and the civil society bring up the issue of same-sex domestic partnerships once more.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:09:48 +0000

Robert the only currency the whole world operates under and universally understands is yes, the “M” word Marriage.

Maybe in UK civil partnerships work but are UK or New Zealand civil partnerships recognized in the 5 soon to be 6 countries with gay marriage?(Norway passed gay marriage in 2008 and it goes into effect there in 2009)

Civil unions are not working in the USA. They are (upon examination) coming up short, a failed experiment. In the civil union state of New Jersey. People in civil unions have to explain their civil unions over and over again to everyone of importance and of ability to impact their lives for better or for worse from doctors to insurers and employers,
Civil unions in NJ are show that separate is not equal. NJ civil unions are likely to be soon replaced with gay marriage within a year or so in NJ. Again these important people say that marriage is the only “currency” they really understand.

Some people are even saying that were financially better off before they got a civil union in one of the currently 3 civil union states in USA (New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont. Connecticut civil union law became gay marriage law in that state)

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:38:56 +0000

The only country that confers every right and privilege of marriage without the name is the UK where they are called civil partnerships. A gay couple may even take the other’s name as well as adopt children. It is marriage without the name. Prior to the civil partnership law enacted in 2004, foreign born nationals were and still are entitled to join their British partner in the UK where they can work and enjoy a lot of other benefits even if they don’t form a civil partnership. We in the U.S. don’t even have any bi-national legislation for gay couples as opposed to straight couples who have an automatic right to it. I can live with an alternate name to marriage provided that straights too can enjoy the same privilege if they choose not to marry.

By: Kris

Kris — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:11:01 +0000

Well in Florida, we are definitely 2nd class citizens. We don’t get any of the domestic partnerships, marriages or civil rights as the person sitting next to us get. We are considered animals, sinful demons,witchcraft worshipping devils. Thanks Anita Bryant/BITCH. I have the rights of your cat, dog or fish. I’m not considered an equal being, but I can pay taxes, work my ass off to pay my bills, but I don’t get an equal say in your religious right winged life. Why don’t you just spit on us as we pass you by. UGGGHHHHH..frustrating.

By: LOrion

LOrion — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:26:27 +0000

Forget the name, and the context of the commitment ceremony e.g. civil vs religious…The important things are those 1,000+ laws that are different for married vs single people here in the US.
Maybe Jay can tell us if there are any legal differences in the Netherlands..eg property ownership, taxes, benefits, inheritance rights, adoption rights etc? If not then I agree with him.
But here each state has had to select each and every right that is available to a couple under our Civil Union or DP’s…
and Florida’s new Amendment specifically does not allow even those to any unmarried people..including your 70 year olds and there are a lot of those.

By: John in CA

John in CA — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:10:08 +0000

In a country with an established religion, it perhaps makes sense to separate secular partnerships from religious marriages. Since the church and the state are basically the same people you’re demanding equal treatment from.

But as used in the United States, a country that (supposedly) practices legal separation of church and state, it merely gives more ammunition to the religious right. Domestic partnerships are definitely viewed as unequal by Americans. And that’s entirely the point of these same-sex marriage bans isn’t it?

It marks gay and lesbian couples as, not merely different, but substantially inferior to heterosexual pairings. Moreover, it marks the few churches that do support same-sex marriage as morally inferior institutions. Only the Mormons, Baptists, and Catholics get to define what marriage is. As for you liberal UCC, Reform Judaism, and Episcopalian clerics… it is off to the back of the bus for you!

So much for “separation of church and state.” Typical American hypocriscy.

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:26:34 +0000

In the Netherlands, both hetero and homo couples can choose either marriage or domestic partnerships, and that seems to work fine. Many people do not want the religious assocations that come with the word “marriage” so choose domestic partnerships instead. If it is simply a matter of a word, and if both gays and straights have a choice of what they want, that seems excellent to me. What I don’t like is the “separate but (usually not) equal” arrangements, with heterosexuals getting the premium choice and gays the lesser one.

By: everett

everett — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:51:13 +0000

Personally, I’ve never understood why many European countries offer “domestic partnerships” to unmarried heterosexual couples. That does, in fact, seem to “diminish” the purpose of marriage for heterosexuals. However, I do think that (short of marriage, of course) that these “domestic partnerships” should only apply to those couples (homosexual) that lack the option to currently marry under the law.

Now I’m aware that a “marriage-like” benefit like “domestic partnerships” allow older couples (who might not want to lose benefits received from a first marriage such as a deceased spouse’s pension) to have many of the benefits of marriage without actually having marriage. However, I also think that this “diminishes” marriages in general as well. I, personally, don’t think some 70 year old heterosexual widow should be allowed to circumvent the law by trying to keep her late husband’s pension benefits while also cohabitating and benefiting from her current heterosexual relationship with a man that she could marry under current law.