Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 17:54 UTC
Google Fantastic initiative by Google. Anna Peirano details: "Google is launching a new campaign called 'Legalize Love' with the intention of inspiring countries to legalize marriage for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people around the world. The 'Legalize Love' campaign officially launches in Poland and Singapore on Saturday, July 7th. Google intends to eventually expand the initiative to every country where the company has an office, and will focus on places with homophobic cultures, where anti-gay laws exist." As proud as I am of living in the first country to legalise same-sex marriage, it's easy to forget we only did so in 2000. Also, it's about time the large technology companies of the world started using their power, reach, and money to do good. Hopefully, this initiative will transcend company boundaries, uniting them behind a common, noble goal.
Thread beginning with comment 526050
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: A few thoughts
by OMRebel on Mon 9th Jul 2012 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: A few thoughts"
OMRebel
Member since:
2005-11-14

As far as I know, this has always been that way in The Netherlands. In fact, I believe this is common in many European countries, and, like so many other civil things, is probably Napoleonic.

The problem with your concept is that because marriage entitles you to state benefits and rights, it must be performed by the state. We have a very, very clear separation between church and state, so the church performing rites or signing documents that give you state benefits and rights is wholly incompatible with out legal system, government structure, and so on.

UPDATE: Turns out it's indeed Napoleonic, but on top of that, the Protestant leader Calvin (deeply religious!), who has had a tremendous amount of influence on Dutch society, also stated that couples should marry before both the church AND the state:

"The Protestant pastor and theologian of Geneva John Calvin decreed that, in order for a couple to be considered married, they must be registered by the state in addition to a church ceremony.
In 1792, with the French Revolution, religious marriage ceremonies in France were made secondary to civil marriage. Religious ceremonies could still be performed, but only for couples who had already been married in a civil ceremony. Napoleon later spread this custom throughout most of Europe. In present-day France only civil marriage has legal validity. A religious ceremony may be performed after the civil union, but has no legal effect."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage


In the US, we have to sign up for, and purchase a marriage license. After the wedding, the pastor (who is licensed by the state) signs the license and it's then filed. If you go to the Justice of the Peace in the US, it's the same process - except it's the Justice of the Peace that signs it, instead of the pastor.

So, the state itself isn't performing the wedding service - that is performed from someone that is licensed by the state to perform it. Anyone here can become licensed to perform marriages. That is clear separation between church and state - to deny someone from being able to perform the marriage would clearly cut over that line as the state would have to bias itself against someone due to their religious beliefs.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: A few thoughts
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 9th Jul 2012 18:26 in reply to "RE[5]: A few thoughts"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So technically, it's exactly the same here as it is in the US; the state is required. Even if you do a religious wedding, you need the state. This is not much different from the quick legal ceremony at city hall followed by the big ceremonial wedding.

It's all pretty similar, it seems.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: A few thoughts
by OMRebel on Mon 9th Jul 2012 18:41 in reply to "RE[6]: A few thoughts"
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

So technically, it's exactly the same here as it is in the US; the state is required. Even if you do a religious wedding, you need the state. This is not much different from the quick legal ceremony at city hall followed by the big ceremonial wedding.

It's all pretty similar, it seems.


I think it really is similar, yes. Each state within the US has varying laws that differ somewhat. Here's a page with a pretty decent summary on how the states differ:

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requireme...

I live in Mississippi, and we are one of the handful of states that require a blood test to be performed.

Reply Parent Score: 2