heywill

heywill

19p

4 comments posted · 7 followers · following 0

2 years ago @ Equality on Trial - 4/6 No new SCOTUS news... · 0 replies · +2 points

Of course, I understand the history of Andorra. I just think that it is not an excuse for the politicians. We're in 2020 now, so i think that they should do their job, not hiding behind the past to prolong injustice.

Regarding the veto power, I've just downloaded the Constitution of Andorra from the website of the General Council (the Andorran Parliament), and I've found no veto power on ordinary laws by the Co-Princes.
See articles 45 and 63.

(cat) http://www.consellgeneral.ad/fitxers/documents/co...
(es) http://www.consellgeneral.ad/fitxers/documents/co...
(en) http://www.consellgeneral.ad/fitxers/documents/co...

Wikipedia english confirms:
"They have no veto power over legislation passed by the General Council, though they do retain a veto over certain international treaties".
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Princes_of_Andor...

I'm not an expert, but i don't see a real reason for this (cruel) word game.

The situation is very simple. The Andorran law says that marriage (matrimoni) can be state-sanctioned (matrimoni civil) or religious (matrimoni canònic).
The State has no role in religious marriage, it simply registers and gives legal effect to the catholic nuptial vows.
So... There is no confusion whatsoever.
And the end of marriage exclusion would not impose anything on the Church.
To me, there is absolutely no excuse.

2 years ago @ Equality on Trial - 4/6 No new SCOTUS news... · 0 replies · +2 points

Yes, i think that Dos Manzanas provided a good description of it. To be 100 % sure, we should read the text of the bill, but it seems unavailable at the moment. I couldn't find it. And i think that you got it right when you talked about the proposed changes as a word game. It is in fact a word game, designed to keep same-sex couples out of marriage. I think that after all these millennia of discrimination it's very cruel to make these games. Same-sex couples should finally be able to get married, not just to wed.

2 years ago @ Equality on Trial - 4/6 No new SCOTUS news... · 0 replies · +3 points

The word "marriage" is fundamental for a true equality. It provides a level of dignity, of respect, that no other word provides. And that's why those politicians are trying to approve a law like that.. they're trying to find a way to deprive same-sex couples of this recognition. We have just seen the civil union vs marriage debates. Here's the same story. How we call things matter.

You write: "Currently, in a religious sense, only straight couples can 'matrimoni.' Under the new law, I suspect it will remain the same". That's exactly why they're trying to give same-sex couples 'casament civil' instead of letting them have 'matrimoni civil'. The purpose of all this is to keep same-sex couples out of 'matrimoni' (marriage).

"The bill's absolute prohibition of the use of the word "marriage" by "spouses" who are the same sex is more than semantic. The dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status [...] The bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits. It would deny to same-sex "spouses" only a status that is specially recognized in society and has significant social and other advantages."
(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts - Opinions of the Justices to the Senate)

2 years ago @ Equality on Trial - 4/6 No new SCOTUS news... · 5 replies · +3 points

Hi, i really thank you all for the updates. This is a very good source of equality news.

I hope i can contribute a bit.

The distinction between "casament" and "matrimoni" is like the distinction between "wedding" and "marriage". Same thing in spanish, with "casamiento" and "matrimonio". The first word indicates the ceremony; the second word indicates the institution (marriage).
See wikipedia links: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casament - https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimoni https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boda - https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonio

In Andorra, the current law states that marriage (matrimoni) can be secular (matrimoni civil) or religious (matrimoni canònic). There's no legal confusion.
Same-sex couples have a civil union (uniòn civil) with the same rights. When the current law talkes about the civil union it uses the verb "casar-se" ("to wed"): "Dues persones del mateix sexe tenen també dret a casar-se, mitjançant la formalització d’una unió civil...".

If politicians want equality, they can and should end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, without forcing the church to marry anyone of course. If they do something else, it means that they want to find a way to deprive same-sex couples of the word "marriage" and the dignity that this word provides, reserving it to straight couples.
In Andorra, there could be this scenario if that new law is approved:
- casament for both same-sex and different-sex couples;
- matrimoni for straight couples.
To me this is not equality. It's legal humiliation.