Colombia tries to catch up with 21th century, same-sex marriage legalised

[Dsonsion]

About time, I say. The Catholic Church has already expressed themselves by saying that it's an abuse against society and call to reflexion (whatever that means).

The highest court in Colombia has paved the way for same-sex marriage by ruling in favour of equality.
The Constitutional Court ruled today that same-sex couples have an equal right to marry.

Same-sex couples had previously been granted the right to civil unions, but the new ruling on Thursday means marriages will be available as well.
The court ruled 6-3 in favour of equality, in line with arguments by campaigners and President Juan Manuel Santos.
The court previously ruled in 2011 that same-sex couples should be allowed the same rights as opposite-sex couples when it comes to marriage.
Congress was given two years to pass legislation to legalise equal marriage.
When that didn’t happen, same-sex couples began filing marriage licences, and eventually brought a legal challenge.
Thursday’s ruling was celebrated by campaigners including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
“Today’s ruling by Colombia’s Constitutional Court marks an important moment for LGBT Colombians, and we congratulate the country’s many LGBT advocates who helped make this day possible,” said Jean Freedberg, Deputy Director of HRC Global.
“Following victories for LGBT advocates in Ireland in May and in the United States in June, today’s ruling makes clear that global momentum for marriage equality has continued to grow, and we’re hopeful that other nations will provide same-sex couples the right to marry the person they love in the year ahead.”
The court in November lifted a ban on same-sex couples adopting children.
A bill to legalise same-sex marriage was voted down in Colombia’s Senate in 2013.
Earlier this year, Colombia adopted a new gender recognition law – that allows trans people to gain legal recognition without undergoing surgery or seeing a psychiatrist.


The country’s government had moved to amend laws that previously required individuals to undergo” psychiatric or physical examinations before gaining legal rights.
The new process only requires that people submit a form, a copy of their ID card, and a sworn deceleration that they desire to change their legal gender.

Source: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/07...qual-marriage/

[phillys]

meh, I like my political party's stance on marriage: Government should not be involved in affairs of the heart at all. Marriage should be a symbolic, cultural institution which has nothing at all to do with Government. Government can not therefore regulate who marries who, how many are married etc. Income checks will apply to those seeking financial assistance from Government, but beyond that marriage/de facto relationships will provide no financial benefit nor gain for anyone involved. Religious and marriage celebrants will remain free to uphold their traditions free from Government interference with regards to what marriages they choose to preside over or recognize in that religious/cultural community.

[Deletedaccount1]

meh, I like my political party's stance on marriage: Government should not be involved in affairs of the heart at all. Marriage should be a symbolic, cultural institution which has nothing at all to do with Government. Government can not therefore regulate who marries who, how many are married etc. Income checks will apply to those seeking financial assistance from Government, but beyond that marriage/de facto relationships will provide no financial benefit nor gain for anyone involved. Religious and marriage celebrants will remain free to uphold their traditions free from Government interference with regards to what marriages they choose to preside over or recognize in that religious/cultural community.

Yeah I generally agree. I think that marriage privatization is the best solution but obviously it scares off a lot of liberals who don't want any type of institution privatized.

I get the religious argument against it obviously as I'm Catholic. It would be hypocritical to allow gay marriage in that setting but since some churches have said that they would wed same-sex couples (Episcopalians IIRC) it really shouldn't be outlawed on the state level.

- - - Updated - - -

Also the idea that getting married saves money is ridiculous. Especially with two men, who are both likely to be working since combining income usually puts married couples into a higher tax bracket.

[phillys]

doesn't matter. This particular party wants to scrap income tax. Flat tax, but instead of it being imposed upon earnings it's imposed on spending.
http://www.sovereigntyparty.org.au/p...e#.VwdG2WzRbmg

[Daedius]

21st century? Some states in the USA want to go back to the earlier half of the 20th Century...

[xanzul]

Yeah I generally agree. I think that marriage privatization is the best solution but obviously it scares off a lot of liberals who don't want any type of institution privatized.

I get the religious argument against it obviously as I'm Catholic. It would be hypocritical to allow gay marriage in that setting but since some churches have said that they would wed same-sex couples (Episcopalians IIRC) it really shouldn't be outlawed on the state level.

- - - Updated - - -

Also the idea that getting married saves money is ridiculous. Especially with two men, who are both likely to be working since combining income usually puts married couples into a higher tax bracket.

Marriage isn't the same as holy matrimony. Marriage grants legal rights and financiail benefits regardless of who is and isn't working. Or would you support those financial benefits be removed from couples if both are working? I highly doubt it.

[Deletedaccount1]

Marriage isn't the same as holy matrimony. Marriage grants legal rights and financiail benefits regardless of who is and isn't working. Or would you support those financial benefits be removed from couples if both are working? I highly doubt it.

Yeah I would. The government should have no involvement in marriage. Financial problems that result from marriages and divorces are reason enough for that.

[Independent voter]

The pope saying "who am I to judge?" when they asked him about gays did a lot to soften anti-gay sentiment in those socially conservative countries.

[Crackleslap]

Meanwhile it's still illegal in Australia. -sigh-

[Deleted]

21st century? Some states in the USA want to go back to the earlier half of the 20th Century...

Lots of states already are. The seperation of church and state is about 85 years behind in the US

[Dendrek]

Yeah I would. The government should have no involvement in marriage. Financial problems that result from marriages and divorces are reason enough for that.

You know, there's a really simple solution to that, right? Just don't get a civil marriage. Have your ceremony however you like it, just don't sign any papers or file any legal documents. There. You're "married" and get nothing from the government for it.

What? That's not good enough? You NEED to take away the rights of others in order to be happy? Hmm...

[Deletedaccount1]

You know, there's a really simple solution to that, right? Just don't get a civil marriage. Have your ceremony however you like it, just don't sign any papers or file any legal documents. There. You're "married" and get nothing from the government for it.

What? That's not good enough? You NEED to take away the rights of others in order to be happy? Hmm...

What "rights"?

Legal and financial marriages without a religious foundation cause so much misery in the world. Just keep the practice to a ceremony that is suitable for your culture and personal beliefs as well as that of your partner. The benefits of marriage (if they even apply to the couple in the first place) become a nightmare when that marriage ends.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

What? That's not good enough? You NEED to take away the rights of others in order to be happy? Hmm...

The amount of irony in this statement is incredulous.

[In Ogres We Trust]

21st century? Some states in the USA want to go back to the earlier half of the 20th Century...

The people should be allowed to vote as they will.

[Dendrek]

What "rights"?

Legal and financial marriages without a religious foundation cause so much misery in the world. Just keep the practice to a ceremony that is suitable for your culture and personal beliefs as well as that of your partner. The benefits of marriage (if they even apply to the couple in the first place) become a nightmare when that marriage ends.

Who cares that there are benefits people rely on and enjoy? Who cares that there are plenty of happy, non-religious married couples? Who cares that many of the benefits/rights they receive while married would be inaccessible if they weren't? And who cares that the process of transitioning from a society with civil marriage to one without would be a legal, financial and social nightmare? Nope. Divorce kind of sucks so let's do away with the entire system.

The amount of irony in this statement is incredulous.

Have to wonder if you know what that word means.

[Deletedaccount1]

Who cares that there are benefits people rely on and enjoy? Who cares that there are plenty of happy, non-religious married couples? Who cares that many of the benefits/rights they receive while married would be inaccessible if they weren't? And who cares that the process of transitioning from a society with civil marriage to one without would be a legal, financial and social nightmare? Nope. Divorce kind of sucks so let's do away with the entire system.

There are absolutely no benefits that married couples rely on. In a system of progressive taxation like the United States, two working people who are married and make even remotely similar incomes are likely to be taxed in a higher bracket than before.

Non-religious couples are fine, they should find a place where they can get a ceremony or just stay an unmarried couple. What difference does it make?

The problems that government involvement in marriage have created are so numerous and disgusting that it has ruined marriage entirely for young people who do not want to worry about losing their possessions in case their spouse decides to sleep around.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Have to wonder if you know what that word means.

I think it's more that I misunderstood what you were getting at. It's late, I'm tired, and I apologize.

[Mormolyce]

Get with the times!

I say from a backwards shithole that still hasn't legalised it.

[Synadrasa]

anyone want to join my drug cartel? only gay couples permitted and we stash the coke in our butts

[Gracin]

There are absolutely no benefits that married couples rely on. In a system of progressive taxation like the United States, two working people who are married and make even remotely similar incomes are likely to be taxed in a higher bracket than before.

Clearly you know nothing about tax rates work. The deduction for filing joint taxes as a married couple is nearly twice as much as filing as single.