Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Civil marriage of gay couples is legal in Denmark, and I believe in Sweeden too. Gay marriage has the form of a "Registered partnership", so it is not called a marriage (maybe to avoid offending religious people), and gives the same legal and fiscal rights as a heterosexual marriage. They take place at the city hall and the ceremony is very similar to a normal civil wedding. The Danish state church (luteran) still doesn't allow gay couples to marry in church, but some priests offer a benediction of the couples afterwards. This is not (I believe) officially sanctioned by the church leadership. I haven't added this to the article because I am not sure of everything. Seindal, Thursday, April 11, 2002

In the Netherlands, is gay marriage actually called "marriage" or are they also using a different term? AxelBoldt

huwelijk, the same word that's used for hetero marriage in the netherlands. Prior to 1 Arpil 2001 there was only some kind of "registered partnership" scheme.

I have added a section about Denmark to the article. It shouldn't cause the article to grow excessively, since gay marriage only exists in a handful of countries. If many countries introduce gay marriage, the article will have to be restructured. -- Seindal, Thursday, April 11, 2002

Can gay citizens from countries other than the Netherlands marry in the Netherlands? AxelBoldt

At least one partner must either have Netherlands nationality or reside in the country.

I will move the "registered partnerships" of Denmark and Germany to the civil union article. - user:Montrealais

I have moved material on gay marriage (which was duplicated within the article, anyway) from marriage. We need information on the gay marriage process in Belgium and Finland. - user:Montrealais

I moved Ed Poor's question to Talk:Civil_union. - user:Montrealais

Restricting marriage to straights doesn't preserve the traditional understanding of marriage - it's only argued to do so, which I've clarified. ("...but a guy can still get drunk in Vegas and marry a hooker at the Elvis chapel! The sanctity of marriage is saved!" - Lea Delaria) - user:Montrealais

I realize that it is a widespread and powerful convention, but can we please try to avoide the phrase "the traditional understanding of marriage" -- "traditional" usually refers to something hallowed by time, but the so-called "traditional understand of marriage" is scarcely a century old. Hardly traditional, in my book! Slrubenstein
Wouldn't the marriage statutes in the first 13 states go back closer to two centuries? Would it be more accurate to say either "traditional Christian understanding" or maybe even "traditional Judeo-Christian understand"?
I was not refering solely to marriage as between a man and a woman -- remember, in the 19th century many marriages were common-law, or arranged for economc purposes. I cannot speak to a "traditional" Christian understanding of marriage; as for a traiditional Jewish understanding, for most of Jewish history that would have included polygyny. Slrubenstein


Hey, it isn't my argument (that's for damn sure). That's just what they call it. Someone else called it that and I kept it, though rewriting the sentence. I certainly think it's a spurious concept, but that's what they call it. (An article describing anti-Semitism might say, "Some believe, blah blah blah, Jewish comspiracy" even though "Jewish conspiracy" is a spurious concept too.) - user:Montrealais

What is the objection to the word "traditional" in traditional understanding of marriage? Is it that calling something traditional is tantamount to endorsing it? That is, are we trying to avoid an NPOV violation here?

I thought I explained my objection above Slrubenstein

Or is anyone aware of a change in the understanding of marriage that took place in the late 1890s or early 1900s? That is, when and where has the idea of "one man, one woman" been popular? (I kinda thought it was the norm nearly at all times and in all places, with rather rare exceptions. I wish someone would write an article showing the scope of one man, one woman if it's prevalence is significantly less than I (and perhaps many other readers) have thought.

Well, you could try your friendly local encyclopedia. Polygamy says Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones.
also, just read the article on marriage Slrubenstein

The article reads: "However after a court case brought about by a gay couple it was concluded that restricting marriage to partners of mixed sex was in violation of the constitution, which forbids discrimination against homosexuals. Hence the marriage law was changed."

This description may confuse US-Americans, as their constitution seems to be 'the final word' on something, and laws have to conform to the constitution. In the Netherlands, the constitution has little legal standing, AFAIK; it is more like a list of intentions. Of course, it would be silly to have a list of intentions and then having law go against those intentions, but it is not impossible or illegal. A judge finding a law or situation unconstitutional is no more than a legal expert voicing his opinion. IANAL.--user:Branko