Will it help or hurt them?

[Tarzan]

As I was reading the newspaper about the lesbian couple who had their hall booking cancelled, it got me to wondering about the laws in this country and how it affects couples of the same sex. From my research, I found that the law treats heterosexual married couples slightly different than  heterosexual couples who live common-law in the case of a breakdown in the couple's relationship. Then it would seem logical that the law would also treat couples of the same sex differently than a married couple.

In view of the sometimes antiquated thinking of the makers of our laws, I wonder if couples of the same sex would actually be better off if they are not allowed to get married! Considering the troubles that married couples find themselves in when their relationships end, would the fact that a couple of the same sex is not legally considered married protect them from the same pitfalls that heterosexual couples face? I mean, since the couple is not recognised by law to exist as a couple, will that exempt them from the hassles a legally married couple faces?

What about income tax? A family with a single wage earner is currently taxed the hardest. Since same-sex relationships are not recognised by law, then only each individual's wage should be considered by the tax department. In the case of only one wage earner, I would expect that the wage earner is taxed as single, while the non-earning partner would be eligible for all the benefits of someone who has absolutely no money (social assistance). I'm sure this is not the case, but it should be!

I'll bet there are far more gays and lesbians around than most folks think there are. This looks like a hot political issue for the upcoming election, and I believe it deserves a lot of thought and discussion.

We can start that process right here! Come on folks; tell the world your thoughts on this subject.

[Softy]

This post was copied from another web site with the permission of the author because the author was not interested in signing up here in order to post this response herself. The response is directed at the above post, however.

So, because the laws are unequal we should keep it that way? Change always takes time, it's (almost) always hard and lots of people get pissed off.

Just because social inequalities prevail does not mean that we should keep the laws that protect that. That's an ideological doctrine and just ASKS to maintain and protect the heterosexist and homophobic ways of thinking that prevail in this country.

Same-sex marriage (I also hate the term "same sex" because it idealizes the whole concept of gender binaries which I reject who heartedly and believe that gender is not categorizable, although we lack gender-neutral language at the moment) opens the doors to allowing changes in oppressive law that affect ALL people. Social inequalities are based on power and exist to continue to categorize minorities into positions of less power. When we stop doing that, we begin the process of eliminating patriarchal (sp?) power hierarchies. Marriage as it remains defined by 3 provinces and territories is based on promoting social ideals that are no longer congruent with the social reality that exists (what with the divorce rate at 60%, don't tell me that marriage protects the children because it doesn't. Families of every shape, size, mix, colour, religion, whatever provide the basis of support for children, and these are to be protected, not the gender of the parents. It seems so trivial when there are more important issues to deal with, such as providing accessible child care, good parenting resources and supporting those who need more help in raising their children, such as single parents or parents with a disabled child).

By disallowing the same sex marriage bill to pass, what minority rights will be shot down next? I could give a rats ass what the majority thinks. That majority does not make decisions in my life. Being part of the minority, having someone else (the big large straight majority) decide my rights is infuriating. It's like having everyone wearing a tie in your office vote on whether you're allowed to eat lunch that day or not. It's rediculous. The majority is not who the bill is trying to protect. It's the minority. I think Stephen Harper needs to get the stick out of his ass and stop being a big idiot who continues to keep his head in the sand.

All these groups rambling about how we need to "PROTECT MARRIAGE FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN" is bull-sh**. If protecting marriage was going to help children, then so be it, but marriage does NOT protect children infinetly. I have friends who were abused by their married parents and are completely f****d up. I have friends who were raised by a single parent and are incredibly compassionate, warm friendly people.

Ok, now I'm just rambling, but that's what I think about you're comment!

To which someone else responded (also copied with their permission):

Just for the purpose of debate (I want to understand), and not wishing to stir up a hornets nest, why is “marriage” so important to gays.
Two individuals either do or don’t make a commitment to each other. Call it what you like, but marriage refers to the union of man and woman. If we’re trying to change that definition, where should we stop? Some people love their pets more than anything else in the world and are utterly devoted to them.…..
Make your personal commitment to your partner and honour it – forget about a name for that union!
The preceding point of view seems predominantly about fighting for rights and equal recognition.
Unless I’m very much mistaken gays have the same rights as anyone else (and why not). Marriage is a word. Fidelity, honesty, commitment, love, and caring are the important actions.

To which the following reply was then posted:

For me it's just about being seen as an equal in the eyes of the law (which I do believe it was Paul) says that it doesn't do at the moment. A large percent (I want to say 30%, but I'm not 100% sure) of streets kids either ran away or were kicked out for being gay/transgendered. There was a point to my last comment, but I omitted it and now I don't remember what I was going to say. Marriage is essentially a financial institution, you don't have to care about the person to marry them.

It's not just about queer people wanting to have the same rights as everyone else, it's about standing up for minority rights. If this doesn't pass, which minority rights will be outright rejected next because they don't uphold the ideal of the majority? I think that if it doesn't pass, that vouching for minority rights will take a huge slide backwards, and that doesn't benefit anyone.

Pets and people are two completely different things. I can't see how they are comparable. There's this great explosion that if gay people are suddenly allowed to get married, then next people will be marrying their children/members of their families, or animals or inanimate objects, etc. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see how that is comparable.

Let me attempt to reiterate this back into a motorcycle perspective! Riders are in the minority, correct? So, why should the vast car-driving majority decide whether we are allowed to ride or not? It's a personal decision to ride or not to ride based on various factors (being able to afford it, personal commitment to learning to ride properly, getting the right training, blah blah blah). I'm not saying that just because I think gay marriage should be legalized that I personally want to get married, but I do think that the option should be there.

To which Tarzan responded:

I think you may have misunderstood my comment though, as I am not making any opinions about rights as such, but just that as the law currently stands, you are more protected than a heterosexual couple. Not protecting the children, but protecting each other from abusive mates. I was asking if this could work in your favour.

To which she then replied:

I think I ended up on a rant about equality just cause that's where my thought process ended up...

and I definetly don't think we're more protected than straight people... not at all, not even close...