Today President Obama declared in an interview that he supports gay marriage. Good for him for being honest. I suspect that this was his belief all along but he didn't want to offend some southern voters and was deliberately vague as a result. In practical terms his declaration will probably not change any laws. That would require Congress to act and that doesn't seem likely.
What Obama's declaration does do is shine a not so bright light on the issue of same sex marriage.
Various jurisdictions give different levels of recognition to same sex marriage but their traditional definition of marriage as applied in the traditional sense is remarkably consistent.....and remarkably weird to have written into law.
In the Province of Ontario a marriage can be "annulled" under certain conditions. When it is annulled, it is deemed to have been legally invalid and to have never existed. This is different from a divorce which merely dissolves a valid marriage from the date of the divorce.
Looking at some of the grounds for annulment gives a clear view of what makes a marriage valid and what makes a marriage invalid.
Ontariodivorces.com details the state of the law regarding annulment under the grounds of non-consummation.
The premise of annulment due to non-consummation is that the marriage is not legally complete until it has been consummated with sexual relations at least once. Yes you read that right.....the law says that a marriage is not legally complete until you have had sex.
Can you imagine if this ended up as a matter of dispute in court?
Man: "Your honour, ah did not have sexual relations with that woman. Our marriage is void."
Woman: "Your honour we did have sex and i can prove we had sex."
Man: "That was before we got married your honour. It has no legal significance. We didn't have sex after marriage even once so the marriage is not valid."
The judge would be faced with the requirement to make a ruling based on the evidence as to whether they had sex before but not after walking down the aisle.....or whether they did indeed continue to have sex after the marriage ceremony....AT LEAST ONCE!!!
I find it bizarre that such a medieval way of thinking is actually enshrined in our laws. In my opinion all marriage laws should be repealed and replaced with a new section of contract law under which economic resources are combined and separated. Children? Well children can and do come into the world without a marriage of any sort between the parents and there are laws governing their welfare.
Rights of survivorship and other employment benefits can be negotiated separately. Churches can continue to define marriage as they see fit. Their definitions don't always square with the legal definition anyways...ie the Catholic church does not recognize divorces as valid and as such divorcees cannot be married under their definition.
So I guess bottom line is that I am opposed to same sex marriage being enshrined in law but equality advocates need not fear....i oppose heterosexual marriages being enshrined in law as well. Conservatives should be very happy with this approach as it gets the Government out of the business of regulating something they have no business regulating. Equality advocates should be happy that there is equal treatment.
Personally i'm of the view that if you want to call someone a spouse go crazy. Many unmarried people do it anyways...who cares if some gay men/women do the same?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment