FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-L Archives

Archiver > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS > 2007-05 > 1178561338


From: "Patrick Cracroft-Brennan" <>
Subject: Re: [FHU] Same sex marriage partners
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 19:08:58 +0100
In-Reply-To: <9D727B24DC6BD74EA32F098B70C9BF3B022212FC@mapibe05.exchange.xchg>


Roger

I am, in part, on your side here. As a Catholic I cannot accept that a
civil partnership is the same as a marriage, which is the sacramental union
between a man and a woman.

But a civil partnership is not inferior to a marriage in any way, it is just
different. As genealogists we cannot hide our head in the sand and hope
that same-sex partnerships will go away. They won't. So we have to be
pragmatic and look for a way to incorporate them into our family histories.
Your comment about boyfriends and girlfriends is a bit of a red herring, as
their relationships are not recognized by the State nor do they carry with
them substantial legal ramifications.

Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Roger
Mitchell
Sent: 07 May 2007 19:00
To:
Subject: Re: [FHU] Same sex marriage partners

Patrick

I appreciate your take on this and you are, of course, entitled to live
your life as you see fit. My religion does not permit me to accept this
as a marriage (to use Lynne's terminology) and as such, I cannot accept
it even as a legal entity. I know that we must not allow personal
beliefs to cloud our purpose, ie genealogy, but it is inevitable to some
extent. You mentioned murder's, thieves, etc. On that I accept your
point but then to go to the extreme, perhaps we should document
everyone's girl and boyfriend's as to them, these relationships are just
as serious at the time and actually, from a legal standpoint, can never
be considered to be a "marriage", even if the 2 co-habited.

I agree that that prejudice mustn't come into this, and I am trying very
hard to keep it out. I accept that same-sex relationships are part of
everyday life but I cannot accept the legal and sacred entity we call
"marriage" between people of the same sex.

This is not a personal attack on anyone's beliefs, ideals, or lifestyle,
so please take it as just an old-fashioned opinion from an old-fashioned
guy. Patrick, good luck to you in your relationship. You won't hear me
criticising you.

Regards
Roger



-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Sent: 07 May 2007 18:39
To: ;
Subject: Re: [FHU] Same sex marriage partners

I am assuming it would be very difficult to change the GEDCOM record
structure but presumably not impossible.

I note your comment about same sex legal unions not being marriages -
I'm
not sure anyone is arguing that they are. They are in fact a new third
type
of legal relationship and, IMHO, should be recognized in the GEDCOM
record
structure.

Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Adrian
B
Sent: 07 May 2007 18:25
To:
Subject: Re: [FHU] Same sex marriage partners

Ouch. Quite a bit of controversy raised last time this was discussed.

The GEDCOM Family record structure has a HUSB and WIFE. E.g.
0 @F106@ FAM
...
1 HUSB @I376@
1 WIFE @I375@

That rather confines things if you are going to comply with the GEDCOM
standard - things can be added but the structure that's there cannot be
altered if you want to stay compliant.

Yes the GEDCOM standard is falling behind reality - but no comments
please
that its origins in a church are why it won't accept same-sex families.
If
that were true it wouldn't accept unmarried couples.

Is it now important? Some suggested not, because in the UK, same-sex
"marriages" are not marriages per se. I don't see that as necessarily
holding true forever across the world. The point is that there ARE other
reasons to flex the 1 M, 1F rule - there are adoptions in this country
now
that are to ONE person and current logic rather assumes the missing
partner
is unknown rather than non-existent. What I'm not clear on is whether
the
adoptions alleged to be to two same sex partners are recognised by law -
in
which case it should require a same-sex family.

And then - there's polygamy. (Which is curious, because which religion
in
the USA practiced it once?)

Maybe we need a NEW Level 0 grouping to supplement Family...

Adrian B


-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Lynne
and
Thomas
Sent: Mon 07 May 2007 16:00
To:
Subject: [FHU] Same sex marriage partners

Hi

I was wondering if there was anyone else that has the same problem as me
where by a relative has married a long term same sex partner, I cannot
add
them unless I put one down as male. Is there any thought for the future
to
change this so that we can have same sex marriages?

Lynne Bee
Sweden

-

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/791 - Release Date:
06/05/2007
09:07



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe'
without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe'
without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe'
without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: