Spanish MPs approve gay marriages

[wakeme2008]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4636133.stm

Spanish MPs approve gay marriages
Spain's lower house of parliament has voted in favour of allowing gay couples to marry and adopt children.

The controversial decision overrules last week's rejection of the bill by the upper house, the Senate.

The bill will become law in a month's time, making Spain Europe's third nation after the Netherlands and Belgium to allow same sex marriages.

..more at link....

PS the org. post was a dupe... LOL it was about the copter in Afgan.. But everybody else saw the Spain issue.

[Moderator]

1. Not so sure this is a duplicate

the other post says "set to vote on" This one is reporting the positive vote. If you read this , go ahead and edit you subject line ( unless I have missed something :shrug: )


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4636133.stm

[Robbien]

2. "puts same-sex and heterosexual marriages on the same legal footing"

All right Spain.

:yourock:

[myrmenki]

8. church doesn't recognise heterosexual marriage

in Spain. They say that marriage needs to be the catholic holy sacrament of marriage, and (the legally binding) marriage by town councils etc., introduced after Franco, is no marriage.

[Occulus]

18. On that score, the church can go fuck itself.

And I mean that with all due respect, of course.

[K8-EEE]

19. The Church Doesn't Recognize Divorce Either

Which is why there are no divorced Catholics (sarcasm.)

The Church can do what they want -- it's equal rights under the law and separation between Church and State that make for a free society.

[myrmenki]

22. Well, in more polite words

that was what Jordi Pujol, then head of the Catalan government, told the church when Cataluña introduced civil union for homosexuals in 1998. (The Catalan Autonomous Region is independent from Spain in most of its civil legislature).

And believe me, Pujol is conservative. It was sweet to see how angry he got with the church. :evilgrin:

The fact that the church doesn't even recognise heterosexual marriage yet (and divorces etc.) certainly backfired with Spanish (and Catalan) politicians!

[Xipe Totec]

3. AP: Spain Legalizes Same-Sex Marriages

"We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality," he told the chamber.

Zapatero said the reform of Spanish legal code simply adds one dry paragraph of legalese but means much more.

He called it "a small change in wording that means an immense change in the lives of thousands of citizens. We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050630/ap_on_re_eu/spain_gay_marriage

[SKKY]

4. I don't care much for Zapatero, but he's done a great thing here...

[xchrom]

5. what can you say?

:woohoo:

[Xipe Totec]

6. I Love Zapatero's Deliberate Digs at Bush

They did it for freedom and equality.

They are not legislating for remote unknown people.

[Robbien]

7. Yep, he is all right. Zapatero is also supportive of Venezuela

and the Chavista movement. Another freedom and equality movement.

[WillyT]

9. Cover Of MSNBC - (4:33am\PDT - 6\30)

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

Go Spain!!!

:yourock:

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

10. I hardly recognize the Church anymore.

>>Late last year, the spokesman for the Spanish Bishops Conference, Antonio Martinez Camino said that allowing gay marriage was like “imposing a virus on society — something false that will have negative consequences for social life.”<<

I'm at a loss for words to express my outrage at such a statement.

The harder Church authorities work to suppress gay marriage by using tactics like homophobia and fear of people with AIDS (in his "virus" word choice), the less I recognize the religion in which I was raised.

:mad:

[enkidu2]

11. i have

been puzzling over why europe seems to be reaching adulthood in a way that no other countries in the world have been able to (leastwise america). Was it the trauma of the world wars, of fascism, of insane amounts of ideologically driven murders? how can we in this country get there?

[Seabiscuit]

14. Don't forget Canada...

Canada was the third country to legalize same sex marriages, earlier this week, following the Netherlands and Belgium, and followed by Spain, today, which is the fourth country to do so.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SPAIN_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=CADIU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It's spreading in the more civilized world. Maybe someday, someday it will reach the shores of the more socially backwards lands in 'Amurka.

Strange how those most vigorously opposed to same sex marriage have probably never knowingly met a gay person in their entire lives. Gay people are not notions, they're real flesh and blood people just like the rest of us. They fall in love and want to marry, just like the rest of us. They raise children just like the rest of us. They pay taxes just like the rest of us. Who are we to objectify and vilify them and steal their civil rights away?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

16. One of the first questions I ask homophobes: "how many gay friends do you

have?"

Naturally, the answer is almost always zero. People who spout out about why we should restrict gays' civil liberties almost NEVER have people in their lives personally whom they believe such actions would affect.

[customerserviceguy]

20. If you were gay or lesbian

would you let some fundy homophobes know about it? I doubt it, because it's hard to fight some battles with an army of one. But there is strength in numbers.

If this country is going to change, then gay and lesbian people need to have a national "Coming Out Day", or something like that. Let the narrow-minded reel for a week or so, when they find out that their neighbors, co-workers, family members, and merchants are "different". Let them also blink their collective eyes in disbelief when they see the rest of us who are straight but not narrow, embracing our newly-out brothers and sisters.

Can anyone think of a better way to drag the US into the 21st Century on this issue?

[iverglas]

21. a teeny correction

and you're certainly not the only one mis-stating this situation.

Canada was the third country to legalize same sex marriages, earlier this week, following the Netherlands and Belgium, and followed by Spain, today, which is the fourth country to do so.

There are two problems with this.

The first is that in a federal state, with divided jurisdictions over different matters, it may not be possible for the country to do something. "Canada" could not make all its municipalities bilingual, for instance, because municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction.

"The solemnization of marriage in the province" is under provincial jurisdiction, under the 1867 bit of Canada's constitution. "Marriage and divorce" are under federal jurisdiction.

There actually was never a law that made it illegal for same-sex couples to marry -- either by any definition of "marriage", federally, or by any rule regarding the issuance of marriage licences and performance of marriages, provincially.

There were a couple of judicial decisions a number of years ago holding that same-sex couples could not require provincial authorities to issue marriage licences; that's all.

The Canadian court cases, beginning in 2002, held that it was unconstitutional for provincial and territorial authorities to refuse to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples. Like any other unconstitutional practice, it was unconstitutional even before the courts said it was. ;)

But the bottom line is: a Canadian jurisdiction was the first in the world to "solemnize" (perform) valid same-sex marriages.

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/evolution/timeline.htm

2003 ... The Court of Appeal for Ontario decision (June10) changed the common-law definition of marriage, effective immediately and the January 14, 2001 marriages were declared legal and the government was ordered to register the marriages.

Those 2001 marriages were "legal" when they took place! As has been every same-sex marriage that has taken place since then.

"Canada" couldn't "legalize" them, because it had no jurisdiction to do so. (And note that the provincial courts had the authority to interpret and apply, or strike down, any federal jurisdiction on marriage that existed, as well, but they did not find that federal legislation prohibited same-sex marriages.)

The Netherlands wasn't first, and Belgium wasn't second, even though http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/bel013003.htm
and
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/nthl010301.htm
say they were:

On April 1, 2001, The Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize marriage for gays and lesbians.

On January 30, 2003, Belgium became the second country to open marriage to same-sex couples (marriages are expected to begin June 16, 2003 in the city of Ghent).

[onager]

28. Well, that's easy

Those countries aren't held in thrall to a religiously insane but LOUD minority who act as a brake on the wheels of progress.

[Barkley]

12. What's up these Europeans...

before you know it they'll have universal healthcare too...

[tuvor]

13. Great news! Kick and recomended.

[Spazito]

15. WTG Spain!

*

[ashling]

17. Spanish parliament passes gay marriage bill

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition
Last Updated Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:29:00 EDT
CBC News
Just two days after Canadian members of Parliament passed same-sex marriage legislation, Spanish lawmakers have voted to allow gays and lesbians to legally marry.

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/06/30/spain-marriage050630.html

[ruggerson]

23. Kick

Best news of the day.

[many a good man]

24. There's a deep well of anti-clericism in Spain

Stems from the religion-based fascism they suffered under during the Franco years. Priests violated the sanctity and confidentiality of the confessional to turn in Republicanos (liberals) who were later executed. Franco banned (and overturned) all civil marriages the minute he assumed power (aided by Hitler).

Spaniards still have an abiding devotion to Catholicism -- the part that emphasizes the teachings of Jesus. They reject the hateful teachings that cause needless suffering and death and anything that pulls apart families. The lines are drawn very clearly on this issue. However, they are still very much law and order-- better not be any San Fran-style gay pride parades or the majority will turn their backs!

[Endangered Specie]

25. Congratulations to Spain for joining the 21st century...

Thats four:

Netherlands
Belguim
Canada
Spain

personally, Ida thought alot of other countries would have done this before SPAIN did! :crazy:

[wli]

26. not the end of the work

Gender-specific language in relation to government benefits and other affairs is typically broadly dispersed across the various provisions of legal codes. I expect that a decision like this is a very high-profile and innately meaningful beginning to equality of sexual orientation, as by and large the relevant statutes etc. are very likely to be reinterpreted properly when applied after such a decision (and probably re-worded later). Still, localized dissent to the national policy may result in hostile interpretations of regulations worded in such manners, which is the incentive to "sweep" the legal code for them in a manner analogous to how changes in software with far-reaching and pervasive effects are carried out (deliberate misinterpretation of laws is not how to carry out lawful dissent).

Of course, the United States, far from being a leader with respect to freedom and equality, is unfortunately rather more likely to pass an explicitly reactionary policy in this matter. Given the minority status of those directly benefiting from these kinds of reforms, it's likely to be necessary for broad displays of solidarity (e.g. large straight support contingents in gay pride parades) to be carried out to demonstrate the urgent need for the US to respect human rights. The example set in Sao Paulo is likely something we in the US should follow.

[iverglas]

27. that job's already been done!

I expect that a decision like this is a very high-profile and innately meaningful beginning to equality of sexual orientation, as by and large the relevant statutes etc. are very likely to be reinterpreted properly when applied after such a decision (and probably re-worded later).

It was those decisions -- interpretations of existing legislation, and also political decisions like the decision to include same-sex couples in public pension benefits -- that *led to* the recognition of same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court of Canada long ago held that the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in s. 15 of the Canadian constitution (race, religion, sex, etc.) was not an exhaustive list, and was merely illustrative. And it fairly promptly recognized sexual orientation as a constitutionally prohibited ground of discrimination.

In 1998, in Vriend v. Alberta (haha, take that, Alberta)
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1998/1998scc30.html
the Court held that the Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act (which prohibits discrimination in the private sector) had to be read *as if* it included sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination -- because, if that Act did not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, the government would be in violation of the constitutional requirement that it not deny the equal protection and benefit of the law. That is, it would be denying gay men and lesbians -- a disadvantaged and vulnerable group -- the protection that was granted to other disadvantaged and vulnerable groups like racial and religious minorites, for instance.

The exclusion of sexual orientation from the IRPA does not meet the requirements of the Oakes test and accordingly cannot be saved under s. 1 of the Charter. Where a law has been found to violate the Charter owing to underinclusion, the legislation as a whole, the impugned provisions, and the omission itself are all properly considered in determining whether the legislative objective is pressing and substantial. In the absence of any submissions regarding the pressing and substantial nature of the objective of the omission at issue here, the respondents have failed to discharge their evidentiary burden and their case must thus fail at this first stage of the s. 1 analysis. Even if the evidentiary burden were to be put aside in an attempt to discover an objective for the omission from the provisions of the IRPA, the result would be the same. Where, as here, a legislative omission is on its face the very antithesis of the principles embodied in the legislation as a whole, the Act itself cannot be said to indicate any discernible objective for the omission that might be described as pressing and substantial so as to justify overriding constitutionally protected rights.

Far from being rationally connected to the objective of the impugned provisions, the exclusion of sexual orientation from the Act is antithetical to that goal. With respect to minimal impairment, the Alberta government has failed to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for excluding sexual orientation from the IRPA. Gay men and lesbians do not have any, much less equal, protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the IRPA. The exclusion constitutes total, not minimal, impairment of the Charter guarantee of equality. Finally, since the Alberta government has failed to demonstrate any salutary effect of the exclusion in promoting and protecting human rights, there is no proportionality between the attainment of the legislative goal and the infringement of the appellants' equality rights.

Reading sexual orientation into the impugned provisions of the IRPA is the most appropriate way of remedying this underinclusive legislation. ...

Essentially, formal recognition of same-sex marriage rights was the *last* step on the road to formal equality in Canada for gay men and lesbians.