Gay Rights Do Not Equal Cohabitation Rights in England
May 1, 2008 · By Shane Edwards
See, this is the problem with same-sex rights, and marriage and all that. You have physical, governmental, and tax benefits being passed to people on the basis of who touches who with what body parts. It just doesn’t make any sense.
When this debate first started, I pointed this out to people. Now, we have the exact case I was thinking of coming before courts in England. Two sisters, who have lived together for years and years, want to claim same-sex partner rights.
Do they love each other? Yes.
Are they loyal to each other? They are blood. Of course.
Do they share assets? Yes.
Gee. They look like a lesbian couple to me.
Oh wait. They don’t engage in cunnilingus. They’re out.
This is what I mean. It is stupid. Your preferred sex partner or act should not be the basis for governmental rights. There is something else that should be the criteria. Most who oppose same-sex marriage and the rights associated with marriage agree that the basis for this should at least be a lifelong agreement that has the potential for progeny. That these benefits are for the purpose of supporting children. Yes, technology has changed and improved to the point where good old fashioned coitus isn’t the only way to conceive a child, but it sure is by far the most common. If you happen to be unfortunate enough that you are infertile, well, most couples I know who are infertile actually do want kids, and would probably adopt or something. Those that don’t (and there are very very few truly infertile couples who are intent on never raising children) are no basis for legislation.
It is getting to the point now in society where sex is completely disconnected from marriage. This is sad, but inevitable in a society which has disconnected sex from procreation. But here’s the thing: couples who aren’t going to have kids don’t need special benefits! The benefits are there for people to care for and raise children. The original impetus behind these benefits and rights are because the government wanted to encourage people to reproduce, and give them the best chance to raise children successfully (ie. as productive, healthy citizens). At the time, procreation was tied much more tightly to marriage – in thinking about the mores of the people in those days, the fact that someone could have children and not be married, and not receive these benefits was incentive for people to make sure they were married before having kids! It seems to me it was assumed that the extended family of the parents of that child would have enough interest to influence the parents not to have sex in the first place, or make sure they have united to create the optimal space for raise a child.
Now that those two facts are the case in society (procreation disconnected from marriage, sex disconnected from procreation), the benefits should be strictly limited only to those who are having kids. And if they are not, then society should not be giving them benefits. I wonder how much money government would save if they were cut off that way. I wonder how few debates we would have about marriage then.
My opinion is that the homosexual lobby would never have pursued same sex marriage rights had there not been actual cash and services benefits at stake on the issue. From the writings I have seen, most homosexuals hate marriage, and have no use for it. How many marriages have been conducted in Canada for gay couples – that are actually citizens of Canada? If I recall the news report from last winter, it was a pretty small number.
You may have noted that they lost both their case and the subsequent appeal?
Most of us understand the concept of “marriage” to imply a monogamous sexual relationship, which was not the case in this instance.
You, of course, are free to define “marriage” in any way you wish, and add as many of your own personal criteria as you like (e.g., for the purpose of procreation). You can, if it amuses you, personally refuse to recognize same sex marriages, or marriages between older couples with no further interest in having children. Totally up to you. Irrelevant, in terms of the law and our changing social perception, but it’s certainly your prerogative.
I recommend that the recognition be entirely privatized and taken out of government responsibility. All of the government “benefits” of marriage should be abolished.
The “benefits” of having a child already exist: the child.
“Oh wait. They don’t engage in cunnilingus. They’re out.”
Ah, but what if they were sexually involved?
What logical ground would there be to deny them benefits (not that having sex with somebody automatically gives you government benefits has any logic)?
Umm…the fact that siblings can’t marry?
It’s pretty simple. A couple of sisters are trying to scam some money. The courts didn’t fall for it.
“Most who oppose same-sex marriage and the rights associated with marriage agree that the basis for this should at least be a lifelong agreement that has the potential for progeny.”
Indeed, but it does raise the question. Are the limits on marriage enough? It is clearly a nonsense to allow those too old to adopt or have children to marry. It would be simplicity itself to write a clause into the relevant legislation banning women from getting married after a certain age. Would this not be the first logical step to tackle? After all, homosexuals are currently able to adopt, but not the aged.
I have some readers who are advocating poly-relationships. Where do we draw the line?
Personally, I can’t see a moral distinction between two sisters having sex and two unrelated women. Can someone please show me how that can be a problem? i.e. On what basis could you argue that adult, consenting, same-sex sibling carnal relationships should continue to be illegal?
Great post.
[...] Update : Shane at the Politic has a somewhat related post – Gay rights do not equal cohabitation rights in England. [...]
I should have added that this also relates to the news out of Germany where several couples have challenged the incest laws. Because really, marriage is not about sex anymore, because sex is not related to babies. See how this disconnect besically short-circuits centuries of common law?
Not that this is a bad thing. But as long as we keep looking past the purposes of legislation and keep pandering to special interests, government is going to get more and more bloated and pathetic.
This is the pandora’s box that is getting opened due to this constant pandering to special intrest groups whos population is so miniscule that it really doesn’t have any effect on the rest of the population at all. Gay rights just happen to shout the loudest while the rest of the country is dealing with the important issues.
I am all for gay rights and they shopuld be treated as equals, no question about it. They can be as valuable as any other citizen and I happoen to agree that is there wasn’t mioney involved they wouldn’t have gotten out of bed.
Canada, like the rest of world is morally bankrupt and almost completely devoid of any ethical values that this once great country stood for…sad.
Qwerty, I hate to bring this back to reality, but two sisters (not gay) applied for “married” benefits, and were turned down.
This is a “gay rights” question…how, exactly?
…although, on second thoughts… let’s switch this around a little…
See, this is the problem with opposite sex rights, and marriage and all that. You have physical, governmental, and tax benefits being passed to people on the basis of who touches who with what body parts. It just doesn’t make any sense.
A brother and sister, who have lived together for years and years, want to claim opposite-sex partner rights.
Do they love each other? Yes.
Are they loyal to each other? They are blood. Of course.
Do they share assets? Yes.
Gee. They look like a heterosexual couple to me.
Oh wait. They don’t engage in coitus. They’re out.
This is what I mean. It is stupid.
Switching it around makes no difference, C. The point remains the same. When government is making decisions based on things as stupid and arbitrary as sexual preference to differentiate eligibility, then something needs to be done.
I have said it before: the one point of agreement I had with Trudeau is “the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. But same-sex marriage benefits have begun to force government into the bedroom, or render marriage benefits meaningless. What is the point of marriage if it is just two (or more) people cohabiting (or not) and relating sexually (or not) and agreeing to be related by contractual bonds (which are assumed in common-law cases by 6 months of cohabiting) for the purpose of collecting the benefits and legal rights of married people?
Because that’s where this is heading. If same-sex partners deserve the rights, why not partners without a sexual relationship? If same-sex partners without a sexual relationship, why not blood relatives? If blood relatives not relating sexually, why not sexually? If couples, why not threesomes? Foursomes? Unlimited-somes? How do you say no to anyone, once you attach rights to “feelings”?
“When government is making decisions based on things as stupid and arbitrary as sexual preference to differentiate eligibility, then something needs to be done.”
Ummm…sexual preference has nothing to do with this case. There’s no sexual relationship involved.
That seems to be escaping you, Shane.
As much as our sparring is entertaining, Dalton, once again it is you who prefers to skip the post in question and get right to the insults in the comments. My post made clear that sex does in fact have to do with this case – the lack thereof is the relevant point.
It’s okay though. I’ll keep letting you make a fool of yourself if you want to.
Shane, the point that you’re missing is that the same situation already existed with opposite sex marriages anyway. People of opposite sex were allowed to get married even if they did not intend to have sex, unless, of course, if they were related. The government was already in the bedrooms of the nation. Given that those who are related were not allowed to be married either before or after same sex marriage was legal, I can only assume that either you’re in favour of dissolving the state of marriage and the entitlements that go with it, or of allowing siblings of any gender combination to marry, or you simply don’t like the idea of same sex marriages, and are prepared to grasp at anything no matter how tangenital to the argument to try and cast aspersions against it. All of those are positions that one may take, but cloaking them in sophistry really isn’t the way to do it.
Sorry if that appeared insulting. Let me rephrase.
Marriage is a social construct, not a biological act or a law of nature. Like any social construct, it reflects the values of a given society at a specific time.
The incident you cite has nothing to do with marriage. The courts agreed. So did the appeals court.
Full stop.
Hold your horses, Dalton.
If marriage is like any social construct that reflects the values of a given society at a specific time, the incident Shane cites could arguably represent a transition in values which certain overlap values that have everything to do with marriage.
ERRATA: “…represent a transition in values which certainly overlap values…”
Sure. And a little girl performing a mock marriage ceremony between two plastic dolls “could arguably represent a transition in values which certain overlap values that have everything to do with marriage” – it might be the bellwether of a new era of legally sanctioned marriage between toys.
But probably not.
And in the case cited by Shane – probably not.
However, Dalton, there is no objective definition of marriage. You said: “Most of us understand the concept of “marriage†to imply a monogamous sexual relationship,” which is false. Nobody holds a monopoly on what should constitute a marriage — recognized by the state or not.
Thus, there is no moral defense of why a “married” couple should receive state-benefits that are denied to “non-married” couples. That is Shane’s point. He is examining the validity of ascribing state-benefits.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed your married dolls example. Very amusing but beside the point.
“However, Dalton, there is no objective definition of marriage.”
That’s correct.
‘“Most of us understand the concept of “marriage†to imply a monogamous sexual relationship,†which is false.”
Let me rephrase. Most inhabitants of North America understand the concept of marriage to imply a monogamous sexual relationship. Better?
“Nobody holds a monopoly on what should constitute a marriage — recognized by the state or not.”
Quite right. As I noted above, Shane is perfectly within his rights to decide that a “marriage” is only valid if entered into for the sake of reproduction, and to refuse to personally recognized any other “marriage”.
As to the rest of it, Shane appeared to be expressing another chorus of the old refrain: “SEE what gay marriage has led to?” (Before you indignatly rebut that, please read his first sentence).
My point is twofold:
a) This has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage or same sex rights.
b) This incident rebuts Shane’s slippery slope argument: as I’ve pointed out, both lower and appeals court laughed this proposal out of the house.
I have no interest in rebutting your observation of the “SEE what gay marriage has led to?†chorus — I find it very tiring myself — and I certainly must agree with your two points but your point b) is very weak. It only stands because the State takes control and monopolize over what “should” constitute a marriage. The State really has no moral authority in regulating the marriage business anymore. [I would argue that it never did before.]
“Most inhabitants of North America understand the concept of marriage to imply a monogamous sexual relationship. Better?”
That re-phrasing is only better for statistical reasons. Populations can change.
You probably know that many Muslims and a few weird people South of us are not in agreement with your generalization.
“You probably know that many Muslims and a few weird people South of us are not in agreement with your generalization.”
Certainly. Thus my use of the word “most”.
And yes, populations change, and the definition of “marriage” shifts as changing attitudes, demographics and cultural mixes change. For a long time the majority of the population of the terrirory now called Nunavut practiced a form of seasonal polygamy, as did Christians in Utah. Not so much any more.
Quick comment on the “SEE what SSM has brought us?”
I won’t deny that there is a dash mixed into the batter, but my principal point is to use this example to point a way forward out of this dog’s breakfast of civil unions for whatever reason. It is stupid to continue to cater to every little special interest group handing out tax breaks and benefits like they are candy and don’t actually cost every single taxpayer money. We need to get a grip, reduce this down to what the original legislation intended, and start dealing with it.
But…but…but…
Sisters seeking marital benefits for a non-marriage (under ANYONE’s definition) are hardly a “special interest group.”
And we DID get a grip. The courts said NO. The Appeals Court said NO. Everyone in this thread, except for those adopting faux-naive position for rhetorical purposes, are saying NO.
That’s the problem with slippery slope arguments. The slope isn’t always that slippery. And every slope eventually ends.
And I think based on the reasoning that has been done to authorize gay marriage, that this won’t stand up. The law marriage law is understood today there is no logical reason for them to withold what these two women desire.
Unless you simply want to judge based upon the sexual atcivities of the people in question.
“And I think based on the reasoning that has been done to authorize gay marriage, that this won’t stand up.”
I’m confused. What won’t stand up? Their request was denied, then denied again on appeal.
Just wandered by, and thought I would make a couple of comments. Bit after the fact I know.
They could have done this in Alberta. In 2002 Alberta passes the Adult Interdependent Relationship act. They were so scared to say the work gay (or I guess same sex in this case) that they spread it far and wide. The short version is this:
There are two key elements that define an adult interdependent relationship.
First, an adult interdependent partner is a person who is involved with another person in an unmarried relationship of interdependence where they:
share one another’s lives
are emotionally committed to one another, and
function as an economic and domestic unit.
Second, to be considered adult interdependent partners, one of the following must apply to the relationship. The adult interdependent partners must be:
living in an interdependent relationship for a minimum of three years
living in an interdependent relationship of some permanence where there is a child by birth or adoption, or
living in or intend to live in an interdependent relationship and have entered into a written adult interdependent partner agreement.
Note: Parties related by blood or adoption must enter into a partner agreement to become adult interdependent partners.
As a gay man, I have to agree with you that we probably would not have pursued marriage if there had not been actual cash and services benefits. Or rather not as actively. You are wrong when you say –most- homosexuals hate marriage. There is a vocal group, mostly in old leftist activist mold, with more in common with heterosexuals like former GG Adrian Clarkson and her husband JR Saul than most gays, that hate marriage.
They rest of us, the clean cut acceptable ones, who can be pointed out as “friends†to prove conservatives don’t hate gay. The non-scary ones who gentrify your neighbourhoods, (and to use a stereotype) do your hair and cloths. (sorry, just because I am a conservative doesn’t mean I don’t have some bitterness)
We want to get married, for the most part, (and I know as many straight men as gay who say they will never get married). When we were given the opportunity for our relationships to be validated and recognized we wanted it. The younger crowd is just as excited as their straight counterparts are about marriage.
But a lot of us are not rushing into it. I have no desire to pull a Britney. I would rather stay a bachelor than be a divorcé. And considering the straight divorce rate, including (especially?) with the soc con crowd, I don’t think conservatives have a lot of room to criticize.
Just my 0.02$, not adjusted for inflation. Forgive me if it seemed a bit rambly or disjointed.