same sex marriage

Please, if this has been done to death point me to the relevant postings.

I have been asked if I would like to get married. Ordinarily I would not consider this a good idea, I dont think much about the institution of marriage, but this is tempting for me now for other reasons.

My question is this, if you are for example married to a person from the EEC e.g. the Netherlands, will your rights as a married person be extended to the country you are living in outside the Netherlands lets say in Asia. Is your marriage recognised as legal outside of the EEC ? If something happens to your partner will you still have access to their will (lodged in a foreign country) lets say, even if you dont live in the Netherlands. Now here I also mean assets like houses outside the Netherlands and bank deposits etc. Will this include assets not mentioned in the will like shares or insurance policies . Will the respective embassy come to your aid and force the host country to recognise you as the legal spouse? Or is this automatic ? Or is this a non starter ? And should things like the will, even though the assets are not in the Netherlands be lodged in the Netherlands with a lawyer there, because only they recognise your marriage ??? This is less to do with wills but more to do with marriage rights outside the home country.
Lets say you move every few years, will same sex marriage makes you the heir apparent no matter where you are living at the time, and would the embassy enforce it ?
Sorry if I repeat myself just trying to order my thoghts on this one.

Any web sites that might deal with this, even in part, would be well received.

Thanks





:drunken: :drunken: :drunken:

[Aunty]

As I understand it the answer to your questions are no, no, no, no and NO.

Unless a treaty says otherwise, a country's law ends at its borders. (US citizens take note) So although you may be legally married to your man under Dutch law, that will not necessarily be recognized outside of the Netherlands, unless another jurisdiction's law also specifically recognizes same-sex marriage. I don't know what the terms of the EU treaty are in relation to member States recognizing the laws of other member States, but in the US, the Constitution contains this provision, where one State is required to recognize the law of another State. In the area of same sex marriage, at the moment it's a right royal mess. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will have to give a ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage as some States have it and others have outlawed it on their books.

But in terms of Thailand and other parts of Asia, although you may well be a happily married man to you husband, legally, it don't matter shit and your relationship carries no legal weight.

But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh and would I ever get married? NO! I vant to be alone.

1.] Imagine you are married.
2.] Imagine the worst things that could possibly happen.
3.] Now; ask yourself if you want to be married.
4.] If the answer is, yes; go back to question number 1.

Still in the loop?...Consult a lawyer, perhaps; a divorce lawyer.

Thanks Edith, very helpful. But this possible marriage is not a marriage like one of those marriages its more one of convenience, and its sounding quite convenient if I understand Aunty. Only I am still not clear about a few things Aunty. It seems not much is clear any-way, till precedents have been set. I am not keen to try and set these, however that could be a minor detail.

What for example is stopping the Dutchman (hypothetical one) from going back to the Hague and filling a suit claiming he is the rightful heir, should he have trouble in lets say Shanghai ? The Dutch then would have to act on his behalf, surely. Have every-thing frozen and then fight it out in the international court in the Hague? If this sounds simplistic its because it is. Any idea? :idea:

Same sex marriage is a cause promoted by the Uncle Toms of the gay world who believe that social acceptability is something that is desirable for/by gay people, and what could be more mainstream than "marriage"? If you want to be assimilated, fine - but leave me out of it. And the answer to the first question is "Yes, it has been done to death" and the answer to the second is "There's now quite a good Search engine on this Forum; do your own dirty work"

Homintern thanks for paraphrasing my first sentence, but even I can read my own typing. We are way down the line from the uncle Toms, we are sensible enough to want to use the conventions of marriage to our own ends,as gays that is.

Homintern thanks for paraphrasing my first sentence, but even I can read my own typing. We are way down the line from the uncle Toms, we are sensible enough to want to use the conventions of marriage to our own ends,as gays that is.Please don't include me, nor countless others like me, in your rich fantasy life of social acceptance. I'm all for economic equality and the right to dispose of one's property as one sees fit, but to adopt a patriarchal institution that has to do with the legitimacy of an heir's claim to family property and believe it serves "our" ends, is simply a perversion (and we are all perverts so why should I be surprised) of what marriage is about. My view is that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer sets out its aims admirably (and they are not mine, apart from a vague nod in the direction of the third reason)
the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. However I happen to think the relationships that Westerners generally have with Thais is that the Westerner is a patron and the Thai is a "kept boy" - a quite admirable institution and one of which I heartily approve - but it's not marriage even within the narrow definition of the third purpose of the BCP, and it never will be

Homintern you are all over the place. Let me get this clear. You disagree with the the "patriarchal institution of marriage" but to use it for our own ends is "a perversion of what marriage is all about" me smells some glaring inconsistencies.

You are a little obsessed with "social acceptance" I thought this was about finances? The western male relationship with the Thai male gay for pay, has very little to do with it. But yes its not widely seen as socially acceptable. Is this where your gripe finds its nest of vipers. Step out of the closet man, and show yourself, its better to be controversial than just despised.

Heavy man.

Why we should accept the views of the emerging new world centre of homophobia, the Anglican Church, as the validator of our unions is a mystery to me.

Whilst the Colonel, may define seeking gay marriage solely in terms of seeking an improbable broad social acceptance and you, Cedric, may seek to discuss only financial aspects you are both talking about different things. In the UK, the Civil Partnership is constructed by Parliament to carefully only protect financial aspects and Registrars are being very careful not to offend Religous sensibilities as offending such may be a criminal offence, thanks t othe same Parliament.

As to whether the Dutch can make any effective representations in the Middle Kingdom, firstly, they don't have a good track record there and secondly they probably don't have the will, so the question is hypothetical in the extreme.

[cottmann]

Heavy man.

Why we should accept the views of the emerging new world centre of homophobia, the Anglican Church, as the validator of our unions is a mystery to me.

If the Anglican and other churches had been consistent in their position on marriage, they might have a leg to stand on, methinks, but as usual they are forging ahead in distorting history and culture to serve their own ends.

It is interesting to me that for the first 1,000 years of so of its existence, the Christian/Catholic church played little role in marriage. Marriage - or holy matrimony - did not become a sacrament in the Catholic Church, as well as other Orthodoxies, till the 12th Century C.E. The Protestant Reformation reformulated marriage as a life-long covenant. Indeed, it was not till the 1500s, where there appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony, that the Council of Trent, so disturbed by this situation, decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses.

During the 1720s, the Rev. John Church - an Anglican vicar - celebrated many so-called "Molly" weddings in London, and John Boswell has suggested that the "Adelphopoiia" liturgy, used in Eastern Orthodox churches, was for centuries used as a public liturgy to celebrate erotic relationships between people of the same sex. Of course, his views are opposed by the usual gaggle of clergy, etc.

Moreover, the word "marry" actually comes from the Latin term for "a husband" (maritus), which comes from the Latin word for "a man" or "male" (mas, maris). Katherine Barber, the top editor of the тАЬCanadian Oxford Dictionary,тАЭ pointed out that the word тАЬmarriage,тАЭ when traced back to its Latin origins, does not actually specify a man and a woman. In fact, the word, тАЬmarry,тАЭ properly means, тАЬto provide with a husbandтАЭ and the notion of "marriage" therefore doesn't seem to refer to "wives." Those who object to male-to-male marriages might usefully ponder on this.

And for a church founded to justify divorce to stand on the sanctity of marriage is hypocrisy of the highest order!

Just my two-bits worth!

Well said both of you. As I am not religious or particularly conservative, marriage is just a legal document to me and many others. As I said in my first sentence marriage wouldn't ordinarily cross my mind. For a lot of people its mostly just for convenience; children, insurance,domicile, tax... etc etc.
Though this is my situation I also dont actively frown on those who marry for love, its the ceremony the party the colour, good for them. Marriage is increasingly popular in Euroland these days. And so is divorce. But mainstream religion is increasingly unpopular.

And for a church founded to justify divorce to stand on the sanctity of marriage is hypocrisy of the highest order!

Beaut!

[Aunty]

Thanks Edith, very helpful. But this possible marriage is not a marriage like one of those marriages its more one of convenience, and its sounding quite convenient if I understand Aunty. Only I am still not clear about a few things Aunty. It seems not much is clear any-way, till precedents have been set. I am not keen to try and set these, however that could be a minor detail.

What for example is stopping the Dutchman (hypothetical one) from going back to the Hague and filling a suit claiming he is the rightful heir, should he have trouble in lets say Shanghai ? The Dutch then would have to act on his behalf, surely. Have every-thing frozen and then fight it out in the international court in the Hague? If this sounds simplistic its because it is. Any idea? :idea:

It seems not much is clear any-way, till precedents have been set. I am not keen to try and set these, however that could be a minor detail.

I think you're right. If you're just looking to secure your 'property rights' in relation to a partnership (sexual or otherwise) I think there are a number of other legal instruments that you could use to secure these in the event of the relationship ending. (Even by death) and where marriage is not a legal option. Go and see a good lawyer, and make sure you do. Leave no stone unturned!

In terms of going to the Hague, I don't think the International Court at the Hague covers what are really matters of Civil law. Don't they just cover International Treaties and disputes between countries?

In terms of the scenario you map out above, well unless your Dutchman has been back to Holland and married his partner there, then there is no legal marriage to enforce. And if the assets of the marriage are all outside of Holland, then there is little that the Dutch courts can do to force the Chinese to make the property, bank accounts, business etc, available to the surviving partner as the Dutch courts have no jurisdiction over China. They could certainly give a ruling, but it would have no practical effect particularly if it conflicted with Chinese law or there were competing claims within China for the estate. The estate would be distributed in accordance with the Will and with Chinese law.

It would be best to be named in the Will as the business partner who gets it all and also make sure that any joint property is actually registered as joint property. That is you have joint title to it.

In case of marriage to a citizen of the Netherlands the partner could inherit property up to a value of тВм 467.848 without having to pay taxes on it. If this is real estate in another country which has no same sex-marriages or same-sex civil partnerships this will probably be taxed according to the laws of that country. For example houses in France would be taxed as if the were inherited by a non-family person even if the person was married(a same-sex marriage that is). In such case it might be best to own the house through a limited company. The shares could probably be transferred without paying taxes. Marriage would give pension rights (widows pension) to the longest living partner (if the deceased person had pension rights of course).
The number of European countries with same-sex marriages or same-sex civil partnerships is increasing: the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Czech Republic, Great Britain, Denmark. In those countries properties will probably not be taxed. Most of these countries have tax treaties against double taxing.
In case of properties in more exotic places things might get complicated but it would normally only mean that the inherited properties would be taxed. You could leave your belongings to a complete stranger. That would normally also be accepted but taxed.

Thanks Aunty and Varlam.
It is a night-mare on Elm street. Finding good lawyers in "exotic" country's is very difficult. Never mind a gay friendly one. There are corporate lawyers a plenty but for the rest its like trying to find a reputable dentist, and they will all take your money. He she they or it have to be a international lawyer confident in both the home country and that of domicile ......etc.

Getting married by the Consulate General might be possible outside your country of nationality? Taking on possible liabilities by forming some kind of business partnership might also cause some damage, then again it might have its advantages. You have given me a lot to think about. I get the feeling sadly I am going to have to become very familiar with law, to take even a vague assessment of my situation.

Here's hoping that soon enough HK will be the first Asian "city" to recognise same sex civil partnerships. No matter what our closet Bishop has to say about it or our dearest homintern. Outrageous as it sounds it could be a real possibility. There is even speak of a "white paper" out here.

Let me get this clear. You disagree with the the "patriarchal institution of marriage" but to use it for our own ends is "a perversion of what marriage is all about"

Correct. Gays do not get married. Marriage is about ensuring that the male heir to a property has a legitimate claim because his parents were legitimately married. If a couple who know they are going to be childless get married it is for social acceptance; there is no other logical reason. They can support each other emotionally whether married or not. Where children are concerned there is oodles of sociological research (just ask NorthStar) about the optimal environment being provided by a stable couple - the BCP was right all along (no surprises there). Equally a stable couple generally means one where known infidelity is zero ("forsaking all other") - or you think otherwise?


I thought this was about finances?
As I said
I'm all for economic equality and the right to dispose of one's property as one sees fit


The western male relationship with the Thai male gay for pay, has very little to do with it. But yes its not widely seen as socially acceptable
Indeed - and why should we care? I'm happy to be both out of the closet and defiant. Undoubtedly that also means despised - it always does, no matter the context, gay or straight or anything else. Most people loathe, hate, fear and despise any sort of social nonconformity - it is so threatening

Most people loathe, hate, fear and despise any sort of social nonconformity - it is so threatening

Are you sure? I thought the majority were "vaguely uncomfortable", except for those with teenage daughters, and that passes.

I've been married soooo many times!...my black-leather-wash-and-wear-wedding drag: cap, front-less-backless chaps and a harness...wore out!
It's all in the mind, anyway--And I was never one to mind. As I'd leave the Badlands bar, with a trick, someone would shout, "Forever hold his piece!"
The crowd would shout, "Amen." Or, "Ahhh...MEN!" someone'd throw--God knows where they'd been--a grapefruit or potato at us--And we'uns was hitched--With less energy than jumping the broom stick and more delicacy than hanging the bloody sheets out the window in the morning--Though there were plenty of those...but the blood had to do with 'altitude,' kow jai?

Most people loathe, hate, fear and despise any sort of social nonconformity - it is so threateningAre you sure? I thought the majority were "vaguely uncomfortable", except for those with teenage daughters, and that passes.
I suggest you get outside London (or even to some of the less desirable suburbs of London) for a reality check. Interestingly I read in a recent copy of the Evening Standard that someone kindly gave me that London's top gay cop has written a book, and one of the points he makes is that whenever he has a police story to tell (eg. the London bombings) the popular press turn it into a story about him. He believes they are homophobic, and since they are the "popular" press we can reasonably infer they tell stories they believe will help sell their newspapers. And a "vaguely uncomfortable" society does not need "hate crime" laws