Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But... rights not important because you're not using them this week? Really?
Yes, because that is so what I was saying.
-
What Bart said. And isn't it marvellous that the noble internal email happened to be leaked to the media? What a happy turn of events!
-
Hahaha. Very droll.
-
Why can't we do both?
I think we should. But in the meantime, I also think that nobody should get married. (Just like nobody should send their kids to private school, etc. Let's refuse choice until it's truly open to everyone.)
-
They're not legally equivalent, currently. It's not marriage in all but name. It's the sort of "marriage" where you can't legally adopt.
Yes, of this I am aware. But making civil unions truly on a par with marriage and opening up marriage to same-sex couples are different issues.
I also wonder to what extent it's possible to rectify the adoption issue. Are there any NZ children up for adoption? And if there aren't, isn't it still going to be predicated on the countries where the children are from recognising civil unions or same-sex arrangements (whether marriage or civil union or indeed both) before adoption can proceed? As the Italian consular authorities are fond of reminding me, my civil union means nothing at all back home, and entitles me to bupkis.
(Italians, they love the Yiddish.)
-
(To which my personal corollary would be: couldn't the answer be simply that we all start drinking from the fountain marked "Coloured"?)
-
Why can't we just make sure that everyone has the same opportunities, the same choices, and then get out of the way, let them make them, and mind our own fucking business?
Because nothing comes without a struggle, and we had to pick a fight. And it wasn't simply a matter of appeasement, of aiming for what we thought we could get - "marriage in all but name" (which does indeed make civil unions sound like a crappy token concession). It's also that a number of campaigners wanted nothing to do with marriage. And I'm aware that perversely of course the fact that now we do have civil unions means it's harder to galvanise people on the other just fight of making marriage available to all. But the existing discrimination in itself still doesn't place civil unions and marriage on an objective continuum of value.
-
and I understand the idea of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
That is assuming that marriage is the perfect and civil union are the good. A lot of gay campaigners beg to differ on that one. And I agree with them, insofar as we collectively are the ones who get to decide which institution is more meaningful than the other. That's really all I'm saying.
-
If it has an "a" on the end of it the word is feminine.
Correct me if I'm wrong Giovanni.
Languages with genders.You are, indeed, correct.
-
I believe Giovanni's wish is for marriage to cease to exist as a legal institution. So everyone would have to get civil unions.
Then marriage would only exist as a social institution
This is already the case. If you have two legal institutions that are exactly equivalent (not quite the case yet, I know), then for all intents and purposes they're social institutions. It's up to us to reject one in favour of the other.
On a not unrelated note: I just came back from Italy, where I received some sad news: our dear friends Franco and Doris got married. We look up to these guys a lot - they made some of our choices (not getting married, being a conscientious objector in Franco's case) when they meant actual hardship; but as soon as they became retirees, they couldn't put off getting married any longer without giving up the right to each other's pension, and that was the one risk they cound't afford to run. There is still no legal alternative to marriage in Italy, and so they bit the bullet. I still feel a lot sadder for people who are forced to make that decision, than for those who have two institutions available to them, and regret not being able to opt for the one that has always discriminated them (and treated women in general as property).