In the UK there is the concept of a Civil Ceremony. Typically this is a non-religious legal ceremony where people get wed, either cos they have been married before, and the church doesn't want them back, or they cant be doing with the church thing anyway.

So all the talk of legal partnerships for gay couples or two trannies for that matter seems fine to me. But the orginal concept of marriage does have religious origins, whatever faith people may be (Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc). I think to extend Civil ceremonys here the UK would be a fine thing, leaving church marriage alone, so as not to offend religious ceremonies.

I think most of us seem to be largely in agreement.

Incidently I did get married in church and did get to wear the dress (... but only later!).

Hi all!

Uhhh...this wanders into my daily work, as well as personal life. So I will try not to be too inflammatory.

These days, I sometimes wonder why we have marriages at all. They are largely a religious ceremony at their core, regardless of one's relgious beliefs. And since much of the "Developed" nations feel they are really past the point where religion has much serious sway over them, I find myself favoring a marriage ONLY if one is a serious adherant of that religion--be it Christian, Judiaism, Islam, Buddhist, whatever. Otherwise, there should just be a non-religious, non-sectarian thing, held wherever convienient, if you MUST have a ceremony. (Stevie, if I EVER renew my vows, you--and the rest of my Trannyweb family--are all invited. Dresses/gowns are expected, as are dress shoes and hose. Boobs, however, are optional--and leave your weapons at the door, please! ;D)

In many faiths, tha act of marriage is symbolic. Christianity states that, "What God has joined together, let no man tear asunder", and rightfully so. (I am sure that many faiths would echo these sentiments, using their respective deity. Having never performed a non-Christian marriage, I cannot say for sure.) We are starting to see the awful consequences of an extreme divorce rate in the children, as just one consequence.

In short, and to a limited point, I agree with Sarah: We might just as well go to a system of Partnership Registration, similar to what is done in California--where they can register as domestic partners. Not elegant, but simple.

I want you all to catch something: I have purposely not tackled much on the idea of G/L/BI marriage. I am attempting to deal with matters of faith in this area in my own life right now, so I must withdraw from the "right or wrong" argument...for now. I think there are arguments for both sides, both equally valid, both equally beneficial to society at large.

TG marriages, on the other hand, are a unique item.

Here's the example: I choose to think of myself as a woman. Therefore, if I choose to marry a man (and providing I was living totally, day to day as a woman--i.e, 24/7/365 en femme), then I should have the right to do so. (Some question, since that is the case, do my S.O. and I actually have a lesbian relationship. Let's not go there right now; I may come back to it later on.)

Using the example above, would that be a gay marriage? No, I don't think so...because I am living full time as a woman, and have done so, then that should be allowed. If I were to suddenly start living as a man again (Ick!), then there could be problems. The same is true in reverse.

Can two trannies get married? That depends--is one FTM and the other MTF? Are both FTM or MTF? Are they just cross dressers, or are they making a living as drag queens/kings? Again, this is a grey area. SHOULD they register as domestic partners? Why not?

I think you are starting to see why I favor the domestic partnership registration thing...it just smooths all that crap out.

Some might say, "But if two people really love each other..." (I hear this a lot, usually in terms of premarital/extramarital affairs.) Folks, I hate to be blunt, but that arguement is so much male bovine excrement it just isn't funny. People fall into and out of love daily. Sometimes several times a day. There are times I wake up, look at my S.O., and feel...absolutely nothing.

And this is where my personal level of commitment comes in. I am (mostly) committed to this person, regardless of how I feel. (There are reasons that it is not a total commitment, but that is by mutal consent. My S.O. understands, that as a gender dysphoric, there are just some things she cannot do for me.) Yes, there are times where I would just love to walk out and start all over. But I don't, because there is a strong level of commitment there.

Now, from what I have seen in many G/L/Bi relationships, some of these last for years. Some of them last months.

And some of them last the weekend, if you are lucky. (Do you see where this is headed?)

I have said before: Why go to all the trouble of a ceremony, the cost, etc. if in five to seven years (on average) you are going to do it all over again? With a 50% divorce rate, I just don't see why one would go through all that.

By the way, I am against "trial marriages" on principle. If you think it isn't going to work out, you have started on the wrong foot already. You might just as well hang it up now, sweetie.

Okay, I'll get out of the pulpit now--

Luv 'n hugs,
(Rev.) Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Well, I don't like weddings (I'm not one for ceremonies), but I do want to marry, assuming I meet the right woman. Maybe we could have a private ceremony, just so I could wear that dress.  http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Smile01.gif

Hi Stevie

Speaking as an outsider, yet again, I would ask what we think "marriage" is?

There is a fundamental religious element to it. Most ceremies seem to have the "...in the sight of God" as their basis. Having no faith myself I would not weigh this at all but to those who do I guess this is the overriding factor.

There is the societal element of a "lifelong relationship" yet there seems to be a lot of evidence that humanity is inherently not monogamous. Nowadays, it seems, that hardly any marriages go full term.

There is a legalistic element which, in my view, and maybe controversialy, gets to the heart of the matter. Marriage, or any partnership, is about making two people into one unit, at least as far as resources, responsibilities and accountabilities go. Making two into one is easy; dissolving one into two is much more difficult. This, together with the "lifelong" expectation, seems to me to be what causes most of the emotional difficulties.

There is the child-rearing element. This used to sway me, the belief that children are best brought up in a loving family environment. But increasingly the evidence seems to be that that does not have to be the case. Children are extremely resiliant creatures and, by and large, seem to thrive in a loving environment and shrivel in an antagonistic one. I don't think you can assert that the traditional family is automatically loving, nor that any other types of relationship are automatically antagonistic.

OK. To distil this rag bag of thoughts into my views. I think there is every case for a "Partnership Registration" scheme, to put it that coldly, that can be any mix of gender or, indeed I guess, number of partners (to allow for the Utah factor). I think this is the way the British Government is going albeit only for couples.

The peoples of faith (well most faiths) will always have problems with this so we can keep their ceremonial marriages.

I'm sure this is the basis for a sensible way forward, I'm equally sure that it will please almost nobody. Largely because of the word "Marriage". Peoples of faith will not want it associated with any unusual arrangement. Whilst people who would benefit from unusual arrangements may still want their arrangements blessed in the sight of God.

Words are a real bugger, aren't they.

Finally, Stevie, as a consequence of this approach you may never get to wear that wedding dress. Still, no pain, no gain. ;D ;D ;D

Hugs

Sarah

I have two other things to add.  First, laws regarding marriage and transgendered people vary from state to state, just like everything else over here.  In Utah, the state allows a person to legally marry someone of the opposite sex, as it is legally defined in the state.  It is legal for a person in Utah to change gender on the birth certificate - after an operation.  Therefore, a male-to-female transsexual who has SRS can legally change gender to female, and marry a man.  It is not obligatory to change gender legally, even after SRS.  If a male-to-female transsexual does not legally change gender, then she can legally marry a woman.  I know of a few legally married couples in the state in which one is a TS.  If I remember correctly, there is even a couple here in which both are male-to-female TSs, and only one has legally changed her gender - they are legally married.

Second, an issue somewhat related to marriage is adoption.  There have been attacks in many states, including Utah, on the rights of gay couples to adopt children.  Certainly, these problems could apply to couples in which one or both are transgendered.  As far as I am concerned, the government, in regulating adoptions, has an interest in determining, by objective criteria, that the prospective parents are fit.  Obviously, someone with a history of abusing children should not be allowed to adopt.  The government is overstepping its bounds when it makes sweeping moral judgments against people based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

Heather H.

I do not believe that the government has any business deciding who can or cannot get married, with one exception - the government should set a minimum age.  Here in Utah, we have a rather unique history.  Polygamy was common here until 1890, when the LDS Church gave in to the government and banned it in their ranks.  It does, however, continue to this day in offshoot fundamentalist groups.  I believe that, subject to all participants being consenting adults, any two or more people should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender or transgender status.  (In plural cases, issues of insurance and government benefits could get tricky; I don't know how to resolve that at this point.)



When the government injects itself into such personal matters, freedom is at stake.

Heather H.

Hi girls

We just got (1.1.2003) a new law about TS matters in Finland. If married you may continue the marriage even after the GRS if your partner says yes. Earlier the marriage was automatically cancelled with the legal change of gender.
So, together with this, also gay marriages are now legal.
This concerns the government, the church hasn´t made its mind yet.
We all hope this new law would help the life of many people, but unfortunately the treatment of TS-people seems to continue its governmantal and concentrated existence in a neostalinistic spirit.

hugs

Laura

UK laws are currently under review.At present,one of the prerequisites for SRS is the annulment of a marriage.I know that for sure!
I think I'm right in saying under the proposed new rules TG marriage will be allowed,so that may change as well.Same sex marriages also come under the umbrella,and adoption is under consideration.Change of Birth Certificate will be permitted,that being the only paperwork that you cannot alter at present.
Still can't retire any earlier though!
There is more,but I can't remember it all at the moment. Anyone else want to add or correct me,feel free.
Sue.X

I'm with you on the ceremonies. I don't even go to weddings of friends and family members, and they understand it's not an insult - I'm just not a traditional ceremony person.

However, playtime ceremonies and rituals in the privacy of one's own home are another story. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif

We've successfully discussed some political issues that are at least somewhat tranny-related (Defending Ourselves and The Recent US Elections), so I thought I'd bring up another: Homosexual Marriages. I've mentioned this in passing before, but I don't think it's been discussed at length. Of course, most of us might wind up agreeing on this issue.

I'm for legalizing them, and I'm surprised that with all the progress we've made in the USA, marriage is still not a legal option for homosexual couples in most states (I know of only two states that have recently considered changes - Hawaii and Vermont). As a heterosexual, I don't think that allowing homosexual marriages would constitute a danger to the structure of our society. I'm assuming that most objections to recognizing gay couples come from religious beliefs, as some claim that marriage is supposed to be a union between a male and a female for the purpose of raising a family. I think there's more to marriage than that, and I know many happily married couples who do not have children (and who have no intention of having any). Besides, some homosexual couples choose to raise families, too.

Even for those who don't actually like the idea of legalizing gay marriages, I think there are some practical matters to consider. Gay couples will continue to exist, regardless of their marital status. As with straight couples, there will always be legal issues regarding partners, such as insurance, inheritance, living arrangements, separations, palimony, etc. Over time (and it's already happening with both straight and gay couples), unmarried couples will be allowed many of the same benefits as married couples. I do consider marriage an important institution in our culture, and I wouldn't like to see its value diminished. I think marriage does promote commitment, responsibility, obligation, and a stable environment for raising children, and I think couples who want to be recognized as legal couples should be willing to commit to marriage. However, the more couples we exclude from enjoying the legal and social benefits of marriage, the more we encourage a whole new set of special rights for unmarried couples, and I do think that is potentially harmful. For this reason, I think legalizing gay marriages would have a stabilizing influence on our society, instead of the opposite result claimed by some.

Anyway, practical reasons aside, I think it's just plain wrong deny any consenting adult couple the right to marry. The denial of that right to homosexual couples is an insult that suggests only heterosexual couples are capable of love and commitment. Also, from what I understand, marriages in which one spouse is a transsexual are usually made null and void under our current laws in the USA (please correct me if I'm wrong about that), which is what makes this topic relevant to Trannyweb. I'm interested in hearing how the laws in other countries deal with this issue.  Have any of you lost your legal marital status because you've had SRS? Assuming you and your partner had planned to stay together after SRS, has the change in your marital status caused serious hardships?

Does anyone have a valid reason for not legalizing homosexual marriages?

H'lo again...

I agree that families are important. I also agree that the concept of mating for life is hardwired into our very essences, especially as women.

Where I am having problems isn't even the terminology. It's the whole concept of the ceremonial.

See, as I understand it from the Social Sciences folks, rather than just shacking up, because we are somewhat terriorial and like to mark stuff as ours, we have this little ritual called a wedding ceremony. We trade rings and vows,and then go off and...mmmm...never mind; Mabel would blank everything for the next few paragraphs if I went on.

I guess this is why I favor the idea of registering, as opposed to a ceremony. Because so many do not mate for life but for as long as they have the warm fuzzies, there's lots of cash, and you're good looking, I have a problem with exchanging of vows.

(Insert: Stevie, you are mostly correct in stating "love alone is nowhere near enough to form a workable relationship"---it is strong enough to start one, but it is not enough to maintain one.)

To me, a vow is serious business. As a former sailor, I took an oath (a form of vow) to uphold and defend, blah blah blah. In a court of law, one is placed under oath to tell the truth. (You can see how well that works, all you Enron/Global Crossing/WorldCom stockholders...) Oaths, vow--this is serious stuff. Break an oath, you have broken your word. In my line of work, if you break your word, you starve, because nobody wants to--nor can they!-- trust you ever again. (Liars are not tolerated in religious work.)

Which is why I feel that a registration, as inelegant as it is, is where we need to look. (You can have a ceremony if you want, but again, I feel that a religious ceremony should be between two committed believers of like faith.)

Back into my hobbit hole I go...

Luv 'n hugs,
(Rev.) Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

My definition of marriage in this article would relate primarily to the civil partnership.  I am not a member of any religion, so I personally do not recognize any religious component in marriage.

Marriage as churches define it should be no business of the government.  Any church has the right to define marriage as it sees fit.  But the government should not allow the churches to control the definition of marriage for everyone - that is what is going on nowadays, and it needs to change.  Perhaps abandoning the word "marriage" for "civil union" or some other term for the legal, government-recognized portion of the partnership would be appropriate.  Then, "marriage" could be left to the churches to define for themselves.

To me, "marriage" and "civil union" are exactly the same thing, but to others they may be quite different.

Heather H.

Some of you brought up a few things I didn't expect.

I use the term marriage, but I believe I'm thinking along the same lines as you girls, with the registered domestic partnerships and civil ceremonies. I know that our current concepts of marriage, and the ceremonies and traditional roles that go with them, have religious roots. However, I'm not affiliated with any organized religion myself, and I still want to form a legally recognized union with someone, if I find the right person one of these days. I see both practical and idealistic benefits in the institution of the union, and I think those benefits apply to both the couples involved as well as society as a whole, regardless of the presence of any religious elements. Of course, for many, the religious element is a big part of marriage, and that's fine for those who's religions come into play there.

Whatever we call it, I just think there should be one type of legal union for couples, instead of various levels of legally recognized togetherness. Also, I think any type of couple (gay, straight, trans, whatever) should be able to form such a union, and religious involvement should always be optional, from a legal standpoint.

Whether we are primarily a society of nuclear families or extended families, I think families are an extremely important part of our social structure, and marriages are the foundations of families. Perhaps I'm too romantic, but as an adult who never wants to have children (yuch), I still like the idea of pairing off and mating for life (at least plan on it lasting that long) with someone I love. I agree strongly with Jayne that love alone is nowhere near enough to form a workable relationship (I hope I interpreted your comments correctly there, Jayne), but with the right person, marriage can be a great thing. If I wanted to be a parent, I would certainly want a partner to help me raise my children, and I don't think parents are nearly as effective when working separately. My parents divorced, and I did notice a decline in their parental skills after the divorce because they were no longer acting as a unit.

I do hate that divorce has become so common, but I hope we (Western culture) aren't outgrowing marriage. Maybe some couples don't stay together as much these days because marriage isn't as vital to our survival as it used to be. Perhaps the need for marriages is what kept the divorce rates lower in the past, and the desire for marriages (now that need isn't such a factor) isn't strong enough to hold couples together over time. Then again, maybe individuals are just more selfish today, or maybe they don't take the time to get to know each other because our culture is too fast-paced. I still don't think that marriage is an outdated concept, but I thought I'd throw that out there for the responses. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Wink01.gif