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:

Similar Threads:

• Gay Marriage

[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!