Beyond the straight and narrow

[Graeme]

From The Age newspaper here in Melbourne:

Beyond the straight and narrow.

I HAD been expecting it - it would have been naive of me not to - but when it happened, it sent me reeling.

I was reading a bedtime story to Corin, my seven-year-old son, when he came out with it, no warning, no context, just a bald statement: ''When I say I have two mums at school, some kids tease me.''

It came like a blow to the stomach and it took my breath away. Corin, and his two younger sisters, were conceived using an anonymous, identity-release donor through IVF, a path we took because it provided clear legal certainty in relation to parentage: we are the parents, the donor is not. But it also ensured that, when the time came, we would be able to provide information to our kids about their genetic background, something we knew from the experience of adopted children was important.

Read more at the link above.

[Trab]

A very good article. I'm glad Canada ended up being reasonable, although at the time of the law being voted on, it was anything but a sure thing.

[Guest BTDT]

It is a shame that in the original article comments there were some people who still think that marriage is still between a man and a woman. It was not too many years ago that people thought the races should not mix as it was decreed by almight God himslef. Or is it herself. I have always wondered if God created us in his image why he created sex. Does that mean that God is of one sex and there is another God of the other sex.

Anyway, back to the topic. The problem is that this is a legal dilemma that really has no answer if you try to follow the one man and one woman theory of marriage. There are some countries that recognize the right of some kings or citizens to have more than one wife. When they visit the United States of America (US), their marriages are not invalidated. BY INTERNATIONAL TREATY OBLIGATIONS most countries will recognize the valid marriages of other member countries which have signed the specific treaties of the Hague Conventions.

The most notible exception is the US. they will recognize the plural marriages and even childhood marriages, but not the same sex marriages. The DOMA is patently unconstitutional. We have constitutional amendments which prohibit slavery after the American Civil War. Yet, before the war we had free states and slave states. The Dred Scott decision recognized that even if you brought your slave into a free state, he remained your property and was not automatically freed. The free state had to recognize the property right of the other state.

this is a really poor example to illustrate the point, but it is legal precedent and there are lines of cases which show the trend that one state must recognize the valid acts, etc. from other states. this is under Article 4 of the US Constitution. In 2003 the US Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas came out with the leading case that declared that all sodomy statutes were unconstitutional between consenting adults of any sex in private was a violation of due process and the 14th amendment.

I suspect that Australia and I know that the US has signed the Hague Conventions. VALID MARRIAGES TRANSACTED ANYWHERE MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY ALL SIGNING COUNTRIES. NO COUNTRY CAN PASS BLANKET LEGISLATION NOT TO RECOGNIZE THE MARRIAGES. This is significant as then all of our treaty obligations are subject to be attacked in other countries.

It is also significant because ALL VALID MARRIAGES ARE VALID EVERYWHERE. People do not travel from one country to another and suddenly their marriage is not valid. Does that mean that if Canada has joint passports for married couples that the US will not let them enter. Or if they have minor children who can travel with parents that they can not travel on their nonbiological parent's passport or what? There is a difference between a marriage being valid and a member country choosing not to recognize it.

Have hope and faith. In the US there is a case in Federal Court in California that will be decided in a few short months that may clear up the problem for the US. It will be appealed no matter who wins, but it will make its way to the US Supreme Court and we will see what the Supremes have to say about this issue. As the US goes, so will eventually go the world.

And for the bigots who think that they want to go back to traditional marriage, they should know that traditional marriage was before Christinity and even Judaism the church did not get involved nor did the state. It was up to the people and they married who they wanted to marry. there were same sex marriages in Rome before the birth of Jesus Christ. Therefore, same sex marriages are a tradition older than Christianity. The only reason we need state and counrty recognization of same sex marriages is for all the rights the states confer on married individuals.

As to how they should fill out forms when they go back to their country which does not recognize their marriage, they should check the married box. Their country may not recognize their marriage, but they are still married. When the bigoted laws and opinions catch up with reality, their marriage will be validated effective the date of their marriage, not when the country decided to adopt a civilized attitude and pull their head out of their elimination holes. Take care.

[Cole Parker]

Welcome, BTDT. Glad to have you here. Informed opinions are what we're all about. Uninformed ones, too, of courese, as Wibby will put in his oar.

Cole