Gay Marriage in Canada battle

[TotallyOz]

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/07/samesex_opponents030707

 

Above is the link for an interesting story from cbc for those of you interested in the Canadian marriage ruling.

[trilingual]

The "Real Women of Canada?" As opposed to whom? Do you suppose this group has more than 20 actual members? Puh-leeze!

 

As for going to the Supreme Court, my Canadian law is way rusty, but it seems to me these groups would have a standing problem, as the lawsuit was against the government for not issuing marriage licenses and it was the government that chose to let the Ontario ruling stand and not to appeal. Since the "Real Women" and those other outfits don't issue marriage licenses and weren't parties to the original lawsuit, it's not clear to me what standing they would have to raise the issue with the Supreme Court (or any other Canadian court, for that matter). I suspect this is a lot of sputtering and frothing by the disgruntled and it's the last we'll hear about it.

 

BTW, pray that a bunch of people get married in Canada right away, and that the Massachusetts and New Jersey cases come out positively in the U.S. and a lot of people get married there as soon as it's legal. That will go a long way towards reducing the risk of a heterosexual marriage amendment to the Constitution, because whether they like it or not, legislators who would have to approve such an amendment would find it very difficult to vote in favor of something that would nullify valid marriages that have already taken place!

[taylorky]

jeff went home about an hour ago,and just before he left my dad said "so when are you two going to canada and make it legal".

 

my folks are so frigging cool!!!!

[VaHawk]

Of course they are! They have a cool son don't they or did you think that was just an accident of nature?

[Guest fukamarine]

RE: THINGS ARE CHANGING RAPIDLY

 

Things are changing rapidly in Canada - and getting better all the time!

 

Up until today if you wanted to get married in Canada the only venue was in Ontario.

 

B.C. had given the Federal Government one year to change the law before it would allow a gay marriage in this province.

 

In light of the Ontario ruling and the Federal Government's proposal of presenting a bill to parliament later this year, B.C. has waived the wait and announced today that gay marriages will be performed here with immediate effect - and the first one has already occured.

 

So - all you guys from the western states have no need to travel to Ontario - just head north to Vancouver (which, by the way is a great place for the honeymoon too)

 

fukamarine

[axebahia]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful "out" there!

 

>So - all you guys from the western states have no need to

>travel to Ontario - just head north to Vancouver (which, by

>the way is a great place for the honeymoon too)

 

Jul. 13, 2003. 05:19 PM

 

U.S. gays urged to think twice before marrying here

 

 

FROM CANADIAN PRESS

 

American same-sex couples are advised to pause and consider the strength of their love before flocking north to get hitched, especially because a marriage in Canada could be permanent.

 

"The problem for gays and lesbians is that while they may have the right to get married, they may not have the right to get divorced," says Toronto lawyer Douglas Elliott, lead counsel in the case that legalized same-sex marriage in Ontario last month.

 

While there is no residency requirement to get married in Canada, a year's residency is needed to divorce here.

 

That means a same-sex couple living in a country that won't recognize their marriage may not be able to legally separate unless one partner moves to Canada, "so it's a very serious commitment indeed," Elliott said in an interview.

 

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled June 10 that the law's failure to recognize same-sex marriages was unconstitutional and a similar ruling followed in B.C.

 

The federal government will not appeal and will submit an amended law permitting same-sex unions to the Supreme Court for review before it is dealt with by Parliament.

 

Elsewhere in the world, only Belgium and the Netherlands recognize same-sex marriage.

 

Since the court decisions, dozens of American couples have flocked to Canadian wedding chapels.

 

The rulings, which U.S. advocates are calling the "Canadian earthquake" because of their shattering impact on the gay rights movement, has galvanized efforts to force U.S. courts to accept same-sex marriages as well.

 

But activists are advising American couples be cautious before taking advantage of the new Canadian law.

 

Soon after the Ontario decision, a coalition of five key advocate groups issued a joint advisory saying American couples "should absolutely not race across the border just to set up lawsuits; the wrong case could set us back years."

 

The worry is that the fight to legalize same-sex marriage in the U.S. could get bogged down as smaller cases are dealt with, says Evan Wolfson of New York, executive director of Freedom to Marry, one of the five coalition groups.

 

"We need to approach the end of discrimination carefully," said the high-profile lawyer, adding that shouldn't discourage American couples from getting marrying in Canada.

 

Canadian marriage licenses have always been honoured in the United States but it is still unclear if individual states will recognize the matrimonial unions of gay and lesbian couples.

 

While the legal implications of same-sex marriage have not been sorted out, public opinion in the United States is mixed.

 

Most Americans say same-sex marriages should not be legally valid or hold the same rights as traditional marriages, according to a poll released by CNN and USA Today earlier this month. Fifty-five per cent of the 1,000 people polled said gay marriages should not be valid while 39 per cent said they should be.

 

Wolfson said American couples should expect a mixed reception from employers, governments and the courts when they return from Canada with a marriage licence.

 

"We wanted people to know that when they come home from Canada married, they will likely, at least for a time, encounter a mix of respect but also discrimination and uncertainty," he said.

 

Elliott said he has had numerous calls from same-sex couples in the United States and other countries seeking legal advice before they marry in Canada. He has several recommendations.

 

"First thing is you have to consider whether you want to be married to your partner. It's a very serious commitment with lots of legal consequences so it's not something that should be done lightly," he said.

 

"The second thing is you have to make sure that you're qualified to marry here. That is, if you were previously married, that you're now properly divorced," he said, adding that he's been surprised by the volume of calls from people who want to marry their same-sex partner but haven't officially dissolved their previous heterosexual marriage.

 

Elliott echoed Wolfson's caution that people should also prepare for resistance from their employers, governments and the courts when they go home.

 

"As long as they are sure about what they are doing and are aware of the legal consequences, I'd say, `Welcome to Canada.' "

 

At the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, wedding co-ordinator Bill Estey said he has seen at least a dozen American same-sex couples walk down the aisle, and all were well-informed about their legal rights.

 

"The advice we say to them, is that it's valid in Canada but you'd better check with the lawyers involved in the state in which you are living to verify what that does to you in the United States," he said.

[trilingual]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

I think there's less risk of becoming "permanently" married that this article implies.

 

If an American same-sex couple marries in Canada, but the state they actually live in doesn't recognize same-sex marriages (and many have passed laws specifically stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman) then they're not now and never have been married in the eyes of their state, regardless of what they did in Canada or any other foreign jurisdiction. Therefore, if they split up they don't need to get a divorce, because in the eyes of their home state they were never married to begin with. Of course, unless they obtain a valid Canadian divorce, they won't be able to remarry in Canada. But that would be the only risk I can think of and would only have any real legal consequences if either (or both) of the partners subsequently moves to Canada.

 

On the other hand, if the couple's state of residence DOES recognize same-sex marriages (and it will be interesting to see whether Vermont, Hawaii and any other states recognize Canadian marriages as valid, or if the U.S. federal government finds itself obliged to honor valid same-sex foreign marriages) then the couple can be divorced in their own state, under its own procedures. They won't have to return to Canada to be divorced. Canada recognizes valid U.S. divorces, so the members of the former couple could remarry in Canada, if the need every arose again.

 

In case you're wondering, the U.S. may find itself forced to recognize valid same-sex foreign marriages because, in the eyes of the foreign jurisdiction, all of its marriages are equally valid. If the U.S. doesn't recognize the validity of all of its marriages, then the foreign country isn't obliged to recognize the validity of U.S. marriages. That could lead to enormous complications for heterosexual American married couples who visit or move to such a foreign jurisdiction, because they could find that in the eyes of that country's government they aren't legally married and have no rights there as married persons! Hopefully, Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands will do exactly that, in order to pressure the U.S. to recognize ALL of their marriages!

[axebahia]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>If an American same-sex couple marries in Canada, but the

>state they actually live in doesn't recognize same-sex

>marriages (and many have passed laws specifically stating that

>marriage can only be between a man and a woman) then they're

>not now and never have been married in the eyes of their

>state, regardless of what they did in Canada or any other

>foreign jurisdiction.

 

Then why bother going to Canada to get married in the first place?

 

>Of course, unless they

>obtain a valid Canadian divorce, they won't be able to remarry

>in Canada.

 

>Once again, paralegals should not practice law without a license. The isssue would not just be marriage, but potentially the disposition of property in the divorce, and freezing orders on property until proceedings in both countries are settled. These would be very messy cases, and I would doubt that anyone could predict the outcome at this stage.

 

>In case you're wondering, the U.S. may find itself forced to

>recognize valid same-sex foreign marriages because, in the

>eyes of the foreign jurisdiction, all of its marriages are

>equally valid.

 

No, there has always been a public policy exception to the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements and decrees.

[woodlawn]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>>If an American same-sex couple marries in Canada, but the

>>state they actually live in doesn't recognize same-sex

>>marriages (and many have passed laws specifically stating

>that

>>marriage can only be between a man and a woman) then they're

>>not now and never have been married in the eyes of their

>>state, regardless of what they did in Canada or any other

>>foreign jurisdiction.

 

>>Once again, paralegals should not practice law without a

>license. The isssue would not just be marriage, but

>potentially the disposition of property in the divorce, and

>freezing orders on property until proceedings in both

>countries are settled.

 

 

I'm afraid Axe is right. If a couple is married in a foreign jurisdiction it is possible that the courts of that jurisdiction could issue orders regarding the disposition of the couple's property on dissolution of the marriage (whether by divorce or death) and that those orders would be given effect by the courts of an American state even if the legality of the marriage is not recognized by that state. Americans who get married in a foreign jurisdiction should be quite sure they understand the legal ramifications of doing so beforehand.

 

 

>>In case you're wondering, the U.S. may find itself forced to

>>recognize valid same-sex foreign marriages because, in the

>>eyes of the foreign jurisdiction, all of its marriages are

>>equally valid.

 

>No, there has always been a public policy exception to the

>reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements

>and decrees.

 

He's right again.

[Rick Munroe]

>my dad said

>"so when are you two going to canada

>and make it legal".

>

>my folks are so frigging cool!!!!

 

You got that right. I just hope you don't have to hear what my mother keeps saying to Derek and me ("Sooo....when are ya gonna make me a grandmutha?") :o

[trilingual]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

With regard to the first issue, I think it's possible but not probable. First, if an American couple were married in a foreign country but never resided there and never owned property there, it's not clear that the courts in that country would rule on the disposition of property here. It's also unlikely that American courts (at least in states that explicity do not recognize same-sex marriages) would honor a foreign judgement in such a situation because it would put them in the untenable position of having to recognize a relationship that is explicitly not possible under the laws of their state. Of course, in any state that establishes same-sex marriages or unions, or that doesn't explicitly forbid same-sex marriages, the courts may recognize a foreign judgement based on such a valid marriage in the foreign jurisdiction. But then there wouldn't be the inherent contradiction mentioned above. So I don't think the situation is as cut-and-dried as our "international lawyer" would have you believe, because the legal outcomes would most likely vary on a state-by-state basis, depending on the political and legal situation in each state.

 

With regard to the second issue, I also disagree. First of all, a marriage isn't a foreign judgement or decree. Secondly, there is a strong public policy interest in assuring that U.S. marriages are considered valid in foreign jurisdictions. If a state (or the U.S. government) determines that not all of a foreign jurisdiction's are valid and refuses to recognize them, the foreign jurisdiction has every right to refuse to recognize U.S marriages. This flows from the principle known as reciprocity or comity, with which U.S. courts are certainly familiar. By definition, reciprocity/comity is a two-way street. I believe a U.S. court would think very carefully before issuing a decision which could lead a foreign jurisdiction to refuse to recognize the American jurisdiction's own marriages! As I said earlier, I hope Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands and any other nation that recognizes same-sex marriages or unions have the courage to take exactly that position, in order to pressure the U.S. and its states to recognize ALL of their valid marriages, and not just some of them.

 

In the present situation, there is more than one public policy interest at stake, and the courts will have to decide which one is more important: holding the line against same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, or having their own marriages considered null and void in foreign jurisdictions. The latter possibility would affect every heterosexual married couple from that state (or the entire U.S., depending on what the foreign jurisdiction decides to do). If Canada, which is next door to the U.S. and receives tens of millions of visits each year by Americans, decides to apply the principle of reciprocity against the U.S., that could affect an enormous number of Americans. In this case, and given the number of people potentially affected, a U.S. court could easily decide that public policy requires assuring that there is no question in Canada about the validity of its own jurisdiction's marriages, so (reluctantly, of course) it must recognize all valid Canadian marriages. Granted, it may not play out this way when an actual case arises, but I think this is an eminently reasonable analysis and scenario, and the odds are good that this will be the result in at least some American jurisdictions when and where the issue arises. So don't touch your remote, because this show isn't over yet!

[axebahia]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>With regard to the first issue, I think it's possible but not

>probable. First, if an American couple were married in a

>foreign country but never resided there and never owned

>property there, it's not clear that the courts in that country

>would rule on the disposition of property here.

....

>With regard to the second issue, I also disagree. First of

>all, a marriage isn't a foreign judgement or decree.

>Secondly, there is a strong public policy interest in assuring

>that U.S. marriages are considered valid in foreign

>jurisdictions.

 

What law school did you go to? You are wrong about the property issue, the legal status of foreign "marriages" and about public policy. I seriously hope that people out there are not going take your legal musings seriously.

 

It is one thing to be a blowhard about Brazil - a subject of which you have some knowledge but not as much as you often claim - but when it comes to Zionism or legal questions your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance.

[woodlawn]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>With regard to the first issue, I think it's possible but not

>probable. First, if an American couple were married in a

>foreign country but never resided there and never owned

>property there, it's not clear that the courts in that country

>would rule on the disposition of property here. It's also

>unlikely that American courts (at least in states that

>explicity do not recognize same-sex marriages) would honor a

>foreign judgement in such a situation

 

 

If you were a practicing attorney, with responsibility for advising clients on these issues, you might realize how unsatisfactory it is from the client's point of view to be told that "it's not clear" or "it's possible but not probable" that certain negative consequences can result from the course of action he's contemplating. What are the chances that these negative consequences will occur? You don't know. So how can you advise the client in good conscience to pursue that course of action? You can't.

 

What is the point of going through a state-sanctioned marriage ceremony in the first place? If it's not to introduce an element of certainty and permanence into the legal relationship between the parties then what is it? The point you seem to be missing is that the legal ramifications of such a ceremony remain extremely uncertain.

 

 

>With regard to the second issue, I also disagree. First of

>all, a marriage isn't a foreign judgement or decree.

 

Yes, it is.

 

>Secondly, there is a strong public policy interest in assuring

>that U.S. marriages are considered valid in foreign

>jurisdictions. If a state (or the U.S. government) determines

>that not all of a foreign jurisdiction's are valid and refuses

>to recognize them, the foreign jurisdiction has every right to

>refuse to recognize U.S marriages.

 

States routinely refuse to recognize legal relationships (including marriages) created by other countries that do not conform to their laws. That foreign jurisdictions might reciprocate is a consideration that has seldom if ever weighed with them in making such decisions. I don't think anyone in this country believes (or cares) that Canada might respond to a refusal to recognize same-sex marriages by refusing to recognize U.S. marriages.

[axebahia]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>States routinely refuse to recognize legal relationships

>(including marriages) created by other countries that do not

>conform to their laws.

 

Don't worry with him. He must think our courts honor polygomous marriages, child marriages, and human-beast marriages too! No matter what you say, he won't understand that public policy just is not what he wants it to be, at least not now and not yet!

[woodlawn]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>>States routinely refuse to recognize legal relationships

>>(including marriages) created by other countries that do not

>>conform to their laws.

>

>Don't worry with him. He must think our courts honor

>polygomous marriages,

 

 

Trilingual seems like a fairly well-informed person, but when it comes to gay issues he has this tendency to ignore or discount any facts that don't support the result he wants. In a recent discussion of gays in the American military he said there was no evidence that allowing gays to serve had caused any problems in the units in which they served. When it was pointed out to him that some gay service personnel had been assaulted and even killed by other members of their units he didn't seem to realize (or want to admit) that this is a striking example of the phenomenon for which he had just said there is no evidence.

 

Speaking of the military issue, I suppose you have read about the suit initiated by an officer who was involuntarily discharged when evidence of his homosexuality (a videotape he made of himself having sex with a man) was found by the military in his home, which was searched after it was destroyed by arson. He is now suing to overturn the discharge on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence. Any thoughts?

[trilingual]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

Just to be clear, I'm an LSDO (Law School Drop-Out) and not a lawyer. However, I've worked in legal and quasi-legal fields my whole life, so I'm not completely ignorant.

 

I'm not giving advice in this thread. I'm just commenting on what I think possible outcomes might be. I don't think they're as cut-and-dried as our resident bigot "international lawyer" claims they are. It's going to depend on the legal situation in each American jurisdiction where the question of the validity of a Canadian marriage arises. In a state where there's no legal impediment to such recognition (like a state law explicitly mandating that only opposite-sex marriages may be recognized) it's possible that a court will recognize a foreign same-sex marriage as valid. In states with restrictive/discriminatory laws, the results may be different, but there is an ensuing risk that the foreign jurisdiction in question might retaliate by refusing to recognize marriages from that American jurisdiction.

 

I think a lot of people care whether Canada recognized American marriages as valid, especially people who live in border states, and married Americans who reside in Canada. Courts also will have an interest in the possible ramifications and consequences of their decisions. Judges don't decide cases in a complete vacuum, as the Lawrence decision demonstrated.

 

The outcome of the army discharge case you mentioned will be interesting, indeed. It would seem hard to sustain the discharge after Lawrence, but the traditional deference of the courts to military judgement is notorious. This case may end up at the Supremes, too, where we'll find out just how far the justices believe the Lawrence principles extend.

[trilingual]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

And I see that the deceptively nicknamed "axebahia" (aka Auntie Semitic) is falling off the wagon with his bitch and bigoted remarks again.

 

With respect to my knowledge of Zionism, neither Auntie S. nor anyone else on this board has ever demonstrated that my knowledge is faulty. Some posters, especially Auntie S., have violently disagreed with my interpretation or presentation of the facts, often in a manner that demonstrates their outright bigotry against Jews, but they've never shown that I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

As for Brazil, I have no idea what Auntie S. could mean. Regular readers will recall that the native/resident Brazilian contributors to this site have repeatedly said that my knowledge of their country and culture is near-native. My credentials with respect to where and how I acquired my knowledge of Brazil and Latin America have been repeated on this site several times. Auntie S, to the contrary, other than alleging to be a jet-setting "international lawyer" (whatever that means) has never put his credentials on the table (although many of his postings suggest that he's a paid shill for Hamas/Hezbollah) and certainly none relating to any special knowledge of Brazil or Latin America.

 

But, hey, believe whoever you like. Just note that far more people seem to be following my travel advice on Brazil and the Spanish-speaking world, and having a good time as a result, than those who follow/comment upon Auntie S's travel advice!

[Bilbo]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

I personally feel that the fact that the videotape was inadvertantly found should count for something, too. He was neither asked, nor did he voluntarily tell.

 

I also think that this subject is so interesting I wish you, Woody, would start a separate thread on it as there are people who might care about it who do not care about the marriage issue and so would miss it.

[woodlawn]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>I'm not giving advice in this thread. I'm just commenting on

>what I think possible outcomes might be.

 

That seems to me a pointless exercise. It certainly is of no value to U.S. same-sex couples who want to know whether there is anything to be gained (or lost) by going to Canada to get married. An accurate answer is that there is no way of knowing what the legal ramifications are for such couples at this point. It may be that states that do not recognize same-sex marriage will not give effect to orders of a Canadian court affecting a division of property between a couple married in Canada, or the result may be otherwise. There are many U.S. states that do not recognize the concept of community property, but a spouse who gets married and acquires property while residing in a community property state can't avoid his obligation to divide it with the other spouse upon dissolution of the marriage simply by moving to a non-community property state.

 

 

>I think a lot of people care whether Canada recognized

>American marriages as valid, especially people who live in

>border states,

 

I don't think there is even the slightest chance that Canadian courts or legislatures would try to hold American marriages hostage in retaliation for the refusal of a given American state to recognize a Canadian same-sex marriage.

 

>The outcome of the army discharge case you mentioned will be

>interesting, indeed. It would seem hard to sustain the

>discharge after Lawrence,

 

On the contrary, I think the case is an excellent illustration of the problems with allowing gays to serve in the military, and as such it is very unfortunate that the case was brought. According to The Times, the officer in question had his house set on fire by a private soldier who was trying to destroy nude photographs that the officer had taken of him. In searching through the wreckage, authorities discovered a videotape the officer had made of himself having sex with a man. If ever there was a case that validates the concerns of those who think allowing gays to serve would be disruptive, this is it. I can't imagine what this guy was thinking when he decided to sue.

[trilingual]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

There have been no significant reported problems relating to gays serving in the military in countries where it has been made legal. Among NATO nations and other U.S. allies, the U.S. is one of the few nations (if not the only remaining nation) that denies gay people the right to serve. There's no evidence that "unit cohesion" has suffered at all in the militaries where gays serve openly. There was no problem of "unit cohesion" when the U.S. military was integrated decades ago, in spite of the bigoted attitudes of some members of the military towards African-American servicemen. It's been more than fifty years since the services were integrated, and there have still been racial incidents, some quite shocking. They're dealt with through the military discipline system and that's that. There's no moaning that "unit cohesion" has somehow broken down because people of different races serve together. The troublemakers and misfits are identified and weeded out, and "unit cohesion" then reigns supreme. The same would be the case if gays could serve openly and legally.

 

The problems you've mentioned are not evidence of a widespread breakdown of unit cohesion in the U.S. military because gays serve in the armed forces. Both of the cases you've mentioned are ugly incidents, but they're hardly commonplace situations. The Winchell case arose because of the Army's willful refusal to properly implement "don't ask, don't tell," and because the base where it occurred turned out to have an exceptionally poisonous anti-gay culture, which the Army was on notice about but to which it turned a deliberately blind eye. The case involving the videotape would probably never have occurred if the private whose pictures were taken had no reason to fear the consequences of their surfacing in public. Where the private sex lives of armed services members are off limits to the military authorities, there's no basis for blackmail or threatened expulsion. The private who burned down the house was very likely panicked by the thought that the videotape might surface and would result in his discharge. If there had been no basis for such a fear (i.e., if gay people could serve openly in the U.S. military without fear of official reprisal) the entire incident would probably never have happened, because there would be no reason for the private who was photographed to freak out.

 

(Of course, given the differences in rank involved, the issue of fraternization could raise its ugly head here, as it has in a number of other cases in the recent past, but I've not heard that the military has alleged that in the present case. If it turns out to be an issue, that could cloud the outcome of the case.)

[axebahia]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>Some posters, especially Auntie S., have

>violently disagreed with my interpretation or presentation of

>the facts, often in a manner that demonstrates their outright

>bigotry against Jews, but they've never shown that I don't

>know what I'm talking about.

 

I think your knowledge of history has been shown to be defective often here, but one should not expect a blow hard to admit that.

 

>Regular readers will recall that the native/resident Brazilian

>contributors to this site have repeatedly said that my

>knowledge of their country and culture is near-native.

 

It seems to me some Brazilians on this site have expresed offense from your counsel to people here to rip off their escorting countrymen. OIn the other hand, many have thanked me for my hotel and restaurant suggestions.

[axebahia]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>Speaking of the military issue, I suppose you have read about

>the suit initiated by an officer who was involuntarily

>discharged when evidence of his homosexuality (a videotape he

>made of himself having sex with a man) was found by the

>military in his home, which was searched after it was

>destroyed by arson. He is now suing to overturn the discharge

>on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence. Any

>thoughts?

 

I don't see the point of gay marriages, and I don't see the thrill in serving in the military. I would prefer if "our leaders" spent more time on legalizing prostitution so that prices would come down to consumers.

[axebahia]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>Just to be clear, I'm an LSDO (Law School Drop-Out) and not a

>lawyer.

 

Quod est Demonstrandum or was that Res Ipsa Loquitur?!

[woodlawn]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

>Among NATO nations and other U.S. allies, the

>U.S. is one of the few nations (if not the only remaining

>nation) that denies gay people the right to serve.

 

The U.S. does not deny gay people the right to serve. It merely denies them the right to serve openly.

 

> There's no

>evidence that "unit cohesion" has suffered at all in the

>militaries where gays serve openly.

 

That has nothing to do with the question in the U.S., where both the civilian and military culture are quite different.

 

 

>There was no problem of

>"unit cohesion" when the U.S. military was integrated decades

>ago, in spite of the bigoted attitudes of some members of the

>military towards African-American servicemen. It's been more

>than fifty years since the services were integrated, and there

>have still been racial incidents, some quite shocking.

 

 

This is a great example of your tendency to ignore or discount facts that don't support the outcome you want. In fact virtually every military historian agrees that racial integration did create serious problems of unit cohesion during the Vietnam era, and that lives were lost because of it. We as a society made the decision that we were willing to endure those problems in order to end racial segregation. The question is, are we ready to make the same sacrifices in order to allow gays to serve openly?

 

>The problems you've mentioned are not evidence of a widespread

>breakdown of unit cohesion in the U.S. military because gays

>serve in the armed forces. Both of the cases you've mentioned

>are ugly incidents, but they're hardly commonplace situations.

 

But advocates for gay service personnel have repeatedly contended that harassment of personnel suspected of being gay is commonplace. Are they just making that up? A report produced by Secretary Cohen's office during the last year of the Clinton administration supports what they said.

 

 

> The Winchell case arose because of the Army's willful refusal

>to properly implement "don't ask, don't tell," and because the

>base where it occurred turned out to have an exceptionally

>poisonous anti-gay culture, which the Army was on notice about

>but to which it turned a deliberately blind eye.

 

 

That's right. And it supports exactly the opposite conclusion to the one you're trying to reach: there is an enormous amount of homophobia in the military, hence an enormous amount of resistance to allowing gays to serve either openly or discreetly on the part of the very people who are supposed to be enforcing the policy. That bodes ill, very ill, for a policy of allowing gays to serve openly.

 

 

>The case

>involving the videotape would probably never have occurred if

>the private whose pictures were taken had no reason to fear

>the consequences of their surfacing in public. Where the

>private sex lives of armed services members are off limits to

>the military authorities, there's no basis for blackmail or

>threatened expulsion.

 

But the private sex lives of service members ARE supposed to be off limits to the military authorities -- that is exactly what "Don't ask, don't tell" means. Any service member is free to engage in whatever sex acts he wishes in his private moments, and military authorities are not supposed to be investigating soldiers' sex lives absent some incident that occurs to bring the issue to their attention.

 

Given the culture of homophobia in the military it's ludicrous to suppose that a soldier would be fine with the disclosure of his homosexual activity to his fellow soldiers so long as it would not mean that official action would be taken against him. Again, you just seem to want to ignore the elephant in the room -- the fact that many straight service personnel don't want to serve with gays. Even if Congress decides gays can serve openly, that fact is going to create serious problems. Racial integration of the military created serious problems. Allowing women to serve also has -- surely you have read of the sexual assault scandal at the Air Force Academy? The question is not whether there will be serious problems, but whether the objective is worth dealing with those problems.

[trilingual]

RE: You can marrry, but not divorce - be careful

 

I definitely see the point in gay (or even straight) marriages: they provide many legal benefits to the married couple, and many protections that aren't available to the unmarried.

 

I don't see what the "thrill" is of serving in the military, myself, but then I'm not a poor/working class gay kid who sees the military as a means of gaining an education, skills, social advancement and an employment record. For them, military service may not be a "thrill," either, but it's a means to an end, and I don't begrudge them the opportunity. Some may also feel a patriotic duty to serve, in spite of the unwelcoming environment. Those are all legitimate reasons to go into military service.

 

For once, I find myself agreeing with "axebahia" on something: I, too, wish the U.S. would legalize and regulate prostitution, as so many other countries do. Who knows? We've lived long enough to see sodomy laws repealed and now declared unconstitutional. We may eventually see the U.S. come to its senses about prostitution.

 

As for "woodlawn," your argument isn't very convincing. The logical conclusion is that the U.S. military should never have integrated, either racially or sexually, because of the bigoted attitudes of many of its members, and because of the generally discriminatory cultural environment at the time. And we wouldn't ever have wanted that to change, would we? No, I'm not blind to the fact that there have been problems arising from integration of the military, but the benefits have far outweighed the problems. Should we tolerate the continuing discrimination against gays in the military just because some soldiers are bigots? In my opinion we shouldn't, and gay people should expect to enjoy exactly the same opportunities that racial minorities and women have had in the military. And as someone who's pretty well traveled, I don't think U.S. culture and attitudes are so different from those in other countries that we can safely argue that we're somehow a "special case" where it's OK to legally endorse bigotry. Allowing gays to serve in the U.K., Israel and Canadian military was controversial in those countries, too, and there was similar opposition and cultural antipathy towards the change, but the changes took place and in none of those countries did the military establishment crumble. Furthermore, studies following the admission of gays to their militaries didn't demonstrate any adverse effect on "unit cohesion."

 

Also, the U.S. military does ask, and forces people to tell, in spite of the policy. It also interferes regularly in the private sex lives of military members, including heterosexual ones. Or don't you recall the whole messy episode a couple of years ago involving a woman air force officer who was drummed out of the service because of an adulterous love affair? I think there have been some similar, if less publicized, cases like that since that time.