Cute article - Udon Thani gay *wedding*

[netrix]

UDON THANI - Two gay partners tie the knot in a Thai wedding ceremony in the presence of the mayor of Udon Thani province on Saturday night. (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/748784-udon-thani-mayor-blesses-gay-newlyweds/)

http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.thaivisa.com/en.khaosod.co.th/online/photos/2014/08/x14071378061407139253l.jpg.pagespeed.ic.tmFCCeNYVg .webp

[bkkguy]

"I thought, I will call whoever dressed as man the groom and woman the bride, but they end up dressing in the same way!" the mayor said to the laughter of the guests, "I had to ask my deputy to know which one is the bride and which one is the groom."

its a good thing Thai gays are not expected to conform to society role models in return for what the article refers to as "Thailand['s] ... relatively high tolerance toward gays, lesbians, and transgenders"

bkkguy

[LoveThailand]

I think there IS a high level of tolerance and acceptance. Politicos would never do anything that threatens their image vis-a-vis prevailing societal attitudes. And here a mayor was there and congratulating the newly weds. I am happy for Thais.

[Nirish guy]

Congratulations to the (non) newly weds and well done to the Mayor for attending, even though both he and the article writer were still ignorant enough to talk about the "bride and groom" and how the groom would "obviously" be "the one not dressed as the woman", still a ways to go in terms of education there I think bit I guess it's a start.

The one thing that struck me on my last trip was that on three different occasions I was involved in conversations with both Thai guys and also one farang ( seperately) who told me about attending a gay friends wedding in Issan recently and after my gently pointing out that the couple weren't "actually" married I was assured by all three people that they absolutely were as the head of the village had attended and officiated and "everything".

I then explained the legal difference between a blessing and a legally constituted marriage and STILL I was assured that no the head mans attendance made it all above board and legal on behalf of the State etc and I had to go to the length of goggling an article for them to show that marriage equality hasn't yet reached Thailand and even the farang was hard to convince as he had both attended the "wedding" and seen it all for himself so knew how "offical" it was.

So, it seems unintentionally or not perhaps the the Thai (non) Government are managing to dodge the whole issue for a while as people seem to be happy with this in between fake solution.

Personally I'm not so sure as to whether it's a good thing or not as on one hand it maybe allows the Thai public at large to get used to the idea of marriage equality being acceptable and perhaps it may help after a suitable time in allowing legislation to be passed making gay marriage lawful BUT for now it of course then also allows the straights their comforting cop out of being able to always throw back at us "ah but it's not actually marriage of course". So I wonder are these ceremonies complete with town officials involved (rather than just Monks) actually perhaps holding back progress on "actual" marriage equality legislation being introduced in Thailand and if so then maybe gay people shouldn't be so quick to be hoodwinked into allowing such fake ceremonies to be passed off by "the town offical" as "marriage" and perhaps they should be asking their political representatives to correct the issue once and for all - I'm not sure, what do you think ?

[corky]

I'm not sure, what do you think ?
I think I would first like to see the video of the consummation of the marriage and then make up my mind. :ymparty:

[francois]

. So I wonder are these ceremonies complete with town officials involved (rather than just Monks) ?

My bf attended a wedding recently and I asked if the ceremony was performed by Monks. His answer was No. From that I assumed that weddings are a legal ceremony and not a religious one. But others may have better info?

[Nirish guy]

That was my very point Francois that the very presence of the Mayor / Village Elder / Head etc is that it does "appear" to be giving some form of official credence to the whole ceremony whereas in fact there is none and it may be nothing more than the local head of the village or Mayor being asked ( or paid!) to come along and in effect bless or wish the couple well after asking them to "do you take this man etc and then saying well in that case I and we in this community certainly bless this union" sort of thing - i.e it means NOTHING other than we're happy for you to be in love, but somehow in the three different conversations that I'd had with guys over the last few weeks the mere presence of "an official" gave the guests, if not the grooms themselves, a feeling that they WERE actually officially "married" in the eyes of the State and that's a dangerous thing as of course a) they're not and b) these unintentionally fake ceremonies may actually slow the possibility of REAL marriage equality law being passed as its felt that they are just not necessary as everyone, including the gays seem happy enough with how things stand at present and so it's probably (unintentionally but still) buying the Government time in addressing the issue as just like in the UK Civil partnerships were seen as a soft way of buying off gays in the search for marriage equality until enough of us said NO, it's the real thing for us now please and enough of the bullshit.

So, whilst it's nice that the guys are together it would be good if Gay rights organisations in Thailand clarified with the Government the use of these "Officials" at ceremonies so that at the least the guys getting "married" would be fully aware of their actual marital status after such a ceremony takes place (or lack of it more to the point perhaps) and others can then fight on for ACTUAL marriage equality law to be brought forward more quickly perhaps to avoid these "sham" weddings.

[bobsaigon2]

Nirish is correct. Still no same-sex unions of any legal standing in Thailand. I know because I had a non-wedding wedding a few years ago in Issan. In this part of the world, the same-sex couple would have to go to New Zealand to be legally joined in marriage, or some states in Australia for a civil union/partnership arrangement. A couple of months ago, one poster said that UK citizens could be married at their embassy here in SE Asia, but I don't know if that includes same-sex couples when one of them does not have a British passport. Vietnam now allows same-sex engagement celebrations and "wedding" receptions but the couple is still not married legally. The American Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City has issued several fianc├йe visas in same-sex cases, allowing the local Vietnamese applicant to join his/her sponsoring partner in the US for the purpose of marriage there.

[lego]

Still, I think Thais can be forgiven for considering such a wedding ceremony just as "legit" as any other one they've witnessed, for the following reason:

The procedure to formally register a marriage at the local district office isn't exactly ceremonious, with few people being in attendance compared to the blessing ceremony which is usually quite elaborate. In fact, many straight Thai couples never formally register their marriage either, and simply live as a "common law couple" after their wedding reception/blessing/party (not that they seem to care much about that distinction or in fact the law in general, anyway).

I think "real" marriage or that whole marriage equality discussion is more an obsession of foreigners; for most Thais what has been reported from Udon is probably as real as could be.

[Nirish guy]

Except of course us obsessive foreigners KNOW it isn't real and they unfortunately will find that out when it comes to legal matters and next of kin issues and the likes so if they don't "know" ( which I'm not so sure about) then it is surely our moral duty to TELL them so that they to can seek the equality in law and life that their fellow gay obsessive foreigners are slowly but surely achieving and not let them be fobbed off by the State, intentionally or otherwise - no ?

As the State of course are VERY clear and there is NO ambiguity when they tell them that they can think and feel and live as they choose BUT they are NOT married in ANY shape or form and will recieve non of the rights and privileges offered to a married person from their Goverment when the time comes that it may actually matter to them.

"I thought, I will call whoever dressed as man the groom and woman the bride, but they end up dressing in the same way!" the mayor said to the laughter of the guests, "I had to ask my deputy to know which one is the bride and which one is the groom."

its a good thing Thai gays are not expected to conform to society role models in return for what the article refers to as "Thailand['s] ... relatively high tolerance toward gays, lesbians, and transgenders"

bkkguyThe emphasis is, surely, on the wrong word. I would have said "Thailand['s] ... relatively high tolerance toward gays, lesbians, and transgenders"

[bkkguy]

The emphasis is, surely, on the wrong word. I would have said "Thailand['s] ... relatively high tolerance toward gays, lesbians, and transgenders"

many western gays seem to be under the impression that Thailand is a gay paradise and there is a high level of acceptance of gays, lesbians and transgenders. my point was that most local gays, and the straight press, at best talk of tolerance

bkkguy

[lego]

As the State of course are VERY clear and there is NO ambiguity when they tell them that they can think and feel and live as they choose BUT they are NOT married in ANY shape or form and will recieve non of the rights and privileges offered to a married person from their Goverment when the time comes that it may actually matter to them.
That's a very Western expectation; I don't think that many Thais have very high expectations from their government regarding their rights and privileges, married or not. And rightly so, for usually they cannot expect anything much at all. For example, if a straight and legally married guy abandons his family and leaves his wife and children to fend for themselves, YOU would expect the authorities to go after him to make sure that he pays child support, at the very least. But that simply doesn't happen in Thailand. Inheritance, if there's a dispute between widow(er) and in-laws, the party with the better connections wins. Next of kin rights at the hospital, just say who you are and they won't bother checking anyway. This list goes on and on.

That said, note that my point was that "Thais can be forgiven" for being mistaken about these ceremonies, for the reason I've mentioned. I didn't say that you shouldn't try to convince them otherwise. You'll probably be accused of thinking too much and not understanding Thailand, but hey, it's an heroic act.

[githailand]

You are correct. What this article refers to is, in effect, a village wedding. Straight couples get that all of the time. Thais are not as hung up on the 'legality' of marriage as the rest of us, so many naturally assume that a village wedding is legit. My bf and I went to a straight wedding not to long ago in Khon Kaen between an American guy and Thai woman. It was, in every sense of the world (just not legal word) a Western wedding, yet on paper in Thailand, it was a village wedding. So, when they went to register the wedding at the American embassy last month, it was rejected. Simple fix - they had to go to the actual government office in Khon Kaen and get the wedding license. Now, if they had never attempted to get her an American visa, they likely would have never known that, yet they would still consider each other husband and wife. So, why all this dribble about the legality of the Udon Thani gay wedding? Those two guys obviously are in love and want the world to know. That is what a marriage is. We Westerners are the ones that have warped it into a legal definition, which is sad.

That's my two cents worth. By the way - my bf and I are getting married in America next year - woo hoo!

Cheers!


Still, I think Thais can be forgiven for considering such a wedding ceremony just as "legit" as any other one they've witnessed, for the following reason:

The procedure to formally register a marriage at the local district office isn't exactly ceremonious, with few people being in attendance compared to the blessing ceremony which is usually quite elaborate. In fact, many straight Thai couples never formally register their marriage either, and simply live as a "common law couple" after their wedding reception/blessing/party (not that they seem to care much about that distinction or in fact the law in general, anyway).

I think "real" marriage or that whole marriage equality discussion is more an obsession of foreigners; for most Thais what has been reported from Udon is probably as real as could be.

[Nirish guy]

If you really think it's a load of legal drivel or whatever then why bother "marrying" your BF at all, you can both live together and have all the same rights "apparently" ( although I dispute that) so if the legal "marriage" part is so pointless then why bother as as you of course already know you won't be "married" you'll simply be living with your boyfriend.

Just of course like a straight guy who lives with his girlfriend and after a village blessing he isn't married either BUT the difference is that he can pop into the local city office and register his "marriage" / blessing / whatever you want to call it and then WILL be married in every sense of the word both legal and practical, whereas you can't - ever - and THERE is the difference and the inequality that IS IMHO worth fighting and not just for your right to call yourself married but for the rights of gay person to be up held both now and for future generations, as accepting the status Quo is not in my opinion "thinking to much" but it's a small way of each gay person simply demanding (not asking) to be recognised as an equal citizen in their own Country, whether that be in Thailand as in this case or in any other Country for that matter.

But of course if you're happy to just live with your BF and call yourselves married knowing that you actually aren't ( and I accept in Thailand that on a daily basis that might not actually matter that much - until it does perhaps !) when that is of course totally up to you but in my mind it doesn't change the need for equality to be demanded from the State over such matters by us all.

[joe552]

I'm not likely to ever get married or have a civil partnership, so this debate has been largely academic for me. But I have to agree with NIrish guy in this situation. These guys are not legally married, have no inheritance rights, no rights if one of them gets ill to direct medical treatment, etc. etc. I'm sure it's a nice day out to have family and friends at a village ceremony, but without legal backup, it doesn't mean that much. Next year in Ireland we'll have a referendum on same-sex marriage, which if passed, will allow gay couples to have a civil marriage which is exactly equivalent to heterosexual couples. I think that's the "right" that NIrish is advocating.

Yeah well in enlightened countries like Austalia and Kiwiland you don't even need a formal civil partnership to "enjoy" the cares of what used to be only for the married folks. Shack up and according to the law your married so all this nonsense about civil partnership and marriage is stricy last millenium. I guess if your from a backward country then its important.

[Nirish guy]

Well now even this backward country here in the UK the same thing could be claimed in that if you're living with your girlfriend or even boyfriend then when it comes to splitting a family home after separation etc then under common law the property etc is decided in effect in the same basic way that it would be if you were married, however whilst I understand that your law states that if living with someone in relationship you have SOME of the same legal rights and privileges in all areas of life such as property, healthcare, pension provision etc it doesn't cover everything ie ( from Wikipedia)

"Such reforms ( in Australia) however, do not completely equalise treatment for same-sex couples, who for instance, do not have the same rights and entitlements as married heterosexual couples do with respect to workers' compensation death benefits, pensions for the partners of Defence Force veterans and access to carer's leave.[4] Despite large equality of rights, Australia does not have a national registered partnership, civil union or same-sex relationship scheme."

And of course all of the above aside you still simply can't get "married" should you choose to as that's still against the law and THATS where the equality issue comes in ( although I'm guessing that's going I change soon hopefully) so while you might want to relax and put your slippers thinking "job done here" you're not quite as forward thinking in terms of equality just yet as you might like to think perhaps and as we DO of course now have total marriage equality here in (most) of the UK, SOME might actually say that it's yourselves still being a bit backward there in being fobbed off with "some" ( but not all ) of the same rights as married people being given to you but you still of course can't get married as oh no, THATS only for the straights and you gays should remember your place, you've got enough rights for now now go away and stop asking to be treated equally as we've already said no to you in a vote before ! Yes, very forward thinking indeed - of them - to play you along so nicely, whereas to silly me here in this backward Country simple and basic equality for all citizens whether straight OR gay is THE important point.

... it doesn't cover everything ie ( from Wikipedia).According to my Aussie friends Wikipedia is out of date. Their former national government comprehensively reformed 84 separate Acts of Parliament to ensure that all discrimination against same sex couples was completely removed.

As for "marriage equality" I've previously said that having an institution called "marriage" simply encourages discrimination between relationships - marriage being perceived as a gold standard, everything else as not quite good enough. As a group of people who have been subject to discrimination ourselves is this form of discrimination really something we should be encouraging, let alone supporting? I certainly won't.

You then get additional forms of discrimination against bisexuals and polygamists. If someone is truly bisexual why should we deny them the "right" to be married to a person of the same sex and the opposite sex at the same time? There will already be polygamous relationships among our Moslem compatriots. Why should we discriminate against their cultural norms in this regard? Polygamy is not illegal in Burma, and in Thailand the role of "minor wife" is much remarked.

Since you are so keen on Wikipedia, may I quote from their stub on Polygamy: "The United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand permit some benefits for spouses of polygamous marriages performed in other countries. India and Sri Lanka allow polygamous marriages only among Muslim citizens. Many Indians have converted to Islam in order to bypass such legal restrictions". I recall that a few years ago there was an article here in the UK about a Home Office internal manual that set out how applications from polygamous relationships were to be handled; despite Wikipedia's assertions polygamous relationships formed abroad were not favoured over those that were formed while in the UK.

Finally is a homosexual relationship the same sort of relationship as a heterosexual one? It was recently reported that a survey of gay couples (http://www.hivplusmag.com/sex-dating/2014/05/31/majority-gay-couples-have-arrangements-outside-sex) had found that more than 60% of those relationships had firm understandings of what, when and how sexual activity could take place outside the coupling. I'd be very surprised if a tenth - 6% - of heterosexual couples have such an understanding. As we know from the tabloids, heterosexuals feel very strongly about infidelity. "Cheating Husband" is a popular headline, and some brave editors even venture into the multi-syllabic with "Philandering". Investigation of (married) Rebecca Brooks' sex life was a highlight of the recent "phone hacking" trial.

I see some ignorant poster was asserting that marriage is simply a legalistic hang-up of Westerners. Try telling that to Moslems or Hindus, to name but two non-Western groups, who have strong traditions about marriage as a binding contract.

[lego]

These guys are not legally married, have no inheritance rights, no rights if one of them gets ill to direct medical treatment, etc. etc.
You've picked the worst possible examples. You can have both a regular and a living will in Thailand, covering both inheritance and medical treatment. As I've mentioned, if any will stands against opposing wishes of the in-laws is another question, but a married straight spouse would have exactly the same problem if the in-laws are powerful people. However, there are in fact valid examples to prove your point, let's say visa issues. As a foreign spouse of a Thai national, you might qualify for a visa extension based on marriage. As a gay partner, you currently don't. That doesn't apply to these love birds from Udon though, they might well live happily ever after.

[LoveThailand]

I can agree that the right to marry will become irrelevant/unimportant to gays but only after thousands of legal implications of (heterosexual) marriage will be abandoned in legislation or unmarried gay couples will enjoy same rights as married heteros. Before that happens, I think it is a very important right to fight for.

[blazer]

Marriage is not necessarily all that it is cracked up to be.

In many countries, marriage rites are most often performed as a religious ceremony. But if it is a legal marriage, in countries where legal marriages are allowed be
ween consenting parties, comes with it a bundle of legal rights, governed by law of that country or state.

In some jurisdictions, this can mean immediate entitlement to half your possessions. And expensive legal fees and litigation if there is a break up or even a dispute of assets.

I applaud gay legal rights to marriage. But I would always caution anyone to be careful what you wish for.

Marriage is not a panacea for committed couples by any means.

And I would suggest that marriage does not offer any moral high ground over those in non-marital relationships.

[bkkguy]

rights and entitlements ... with respect to workers' compensation death benefits, pensions for the partners of Defence Force veterans and access to carer's leave.

do a quick survey amongst you friends Nirish - how many Thai couples (regardless of gender of partners) do you think would be rushing to the local administrative office to register their marriage to claim these "rights and entitlements"? While Thailand is not such a nanny state and welfare state as many of our home countries priorities here may be a bit different and I don't think it is still the white man's burden to "enlighten" local gays as to what they are missing out on - from some of the discussion I saw when gay marriage/civil partnership last became an issue here the local gay rights groups have some very good ideas about what they are trying to achieve and how they are going to achieve it and they, and local gays, don't need us stamping our feet claiming they are poor innocents being hoodwinked


having an institution called "marriage" simply encourages discrimination between relationships - marriage being perceived as a gold standard, everything else as not quite good enough. As a group of people who have been subject to discrimination ourselves is this form of discrimination really something we should be encouraging, let alone supporting? I certainly won't.


I too have never understood why so many gays are so obsessed with this predominantly religious "gold standard" of relationships - equal rights in relationships are legal issues not "marriage" issues

bkkguy

[LoveThailand]

Marriage is many countries is the only civil union type recognized by the sate - and has nothing to do with religion. It is registered by the state.

[Smiles]

" ... I don't think it is still the white man's burden to "enlighten" local gays as to what they are missing out on - from some of the discussion I saw when gay marriage/civil partnership last became an issue here the local gay rights groups have some very good ideas about what they are trying to achieve and how they are going to achieve it and they, and local gays, don't need us stamping our feet claiming they are poor innocents being hoodwinked... "
Nicely put.
One of the reasons (of many!) I live in Thailand ~ as opposed to retiring to a white picket fence ~ was to be immersed in a culture, and cultural attitudes, which are wildly different than the one in which I had previously led a pretty good life. A side corollary of that decision is that I am always deliciously bemused by the over-heard ever-ongoing spectacle of the classic bar stool farangitizing and saviorizing ~ in theory of course, often heated ~ of Thais and Thailand in general, on every level.
This latest Thai version of the 'Gay Marriage' agoniste conversation is just one more example.

[Nirish guy]

......I am always deliciously bemused by the over-heard ever-ongoing spectacle of the classic bar stool farangitizing and saviorizing ~ in theory of course, often heated ~ of Thais and Thailand in general, on every level. This latest Thai version of the 'Gay Marriage' agoniste conversation is just one more example.


On some topics perhaps but I think there's world of difference in the bar stool saviourizing that you describe and are suggesting is happening here and gay people on a World wide forum on the internet discussing the subject of Marriage Equality in Thailand, or any other Countries for that matter but for now as it's on this board it just happens to be Thailand, especially when the Thai Government have made it very clear that no law exists to enable or allow Gay people to marry and we are then discussing that topic in the context of the legal validity or even necessity of gay marriages in the context of equality when many of us have attended or are aware of such (non) weddings taking place and your bemusement at such a topic is perhaps misplaced as by your logic really no topic then should be up for discussion about Thailand by non Thais or people living outside of the Country as we just don't understand etc - Thai culture I absolutely hold my hands up to that one in many many aspects but basic legal rights and equality in a Country - ANY Country is surely something everyone can comment and have an opinion on.

[Smiles]

Obviously this observation is off-topic ... and the conversation on this thread is very interesting.

But: do you, Nirish, have something against sentences and periods? Or is Jack Kerouac one of your heroes?
All of your posts are just plain daunting ...and I'm not for the most part talking about content, but your apparent crusade to ensure your contributions - always welcome - are unreadable.

Back to gettin' hitched in Thailand ......

I wrote above at being 'deliciously amused', not censorious. Where you get the notion that I would suggest 'discussion-not-allowed' is mystifying.

[Nirish guy]

Sorry for the delay in my reply I was otherwise engaged.

Firstly - sigh smiles how many times do we have to have this same conversation over how many years now ......mobile phone, a much ( MUCH) lower level of interest in punctuation on an Internet forum than you (and others probably) would like, but hey it is what it is and I'm guessing isn't going to change and the fact that we and other posters have this and many other conversations means it must be readable enough so that'll do for me, sorry if not for you, I guess we all have to live with some disappointments in life eh :-( Hope that sad smily was ok as I know you dint like those too.

Re your last about why I would think you weren't amused about farang having bar stool chats about things Thailand etc was that you actually said you were BEmused not Amused, which to me are two very differnt things and the first implies you sit scratching your head when listening to farang "farangitizing and saviourizing" ( and you say my posts are unreadable sometimes lol) when they talk about Thailand, implying they really shouldn't as they don't know what they're talking about, perhaps this wasn't what you meant and I have misunderstood but you did say BEmused not Amused. I hope that clears up why I took that meaning from your words.