News Forum - Constitutional Court ruling on marriage a setback for same-sex couples

[Thaiger]

In a setback for the LGBTQ+ community, Thailand’s Constitutional Court ruled that the current law, which says marriage is between a man and a woman, is constitutional. Same-sex marriage activists have argued that the wording of the law, Section 1448 of the Civil and Commercial Code, basically blocks same-sex couples from being legally married.  A petition had been filed with the Court to determine if Section 1448 breaches Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the charter which guarantee equal rights. According to the Bangkok Post, Section 77 calls for laws to be repealed or revised if they are obsolete or […]

The story Constitutional Court ruling on marriage a setback for same-sex couples as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[JohninDublin]

I don't get this "same sex" marriage thing.

For thousands of years, hetero couples have tried it, and it's success can be measured by increasing divorce rates. What makes the Gay community think that it will work for them? 

Leave well alone. Learn from the mistakes of others, and consider this a bullet dodged.

[Paco]

1 thailand racist so probably will not happen 

2 thailand like to stay in the stone age

[longwood50]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

1 thailand racist so probably will not happen 

2 thailand like to stay in the stone age

Racism is based on a persons ethnicity not their sexual preference.  You call it the stone age, others might term retaining historical tradition.  

I see nothing wrong with people having civil unions that provide the same degree of rights and protections afforded to marriages between a man and a woman.  The mantra that two people of the same sex must have a "marriage" in order to preserve their equal rights is a red herring.  

The intent is not to protect any rights but rather create in society the concept that same sex unions are accepted by the general public as completely normal.   The most recent study shows approximately 5.6% of the population considers themselves to be Gay, Lesbian, Bi Sexual or Transgender.  That is a decided minority. Its aim is not equality and it is an attempt to instill a mindset  in  the future generations that LGBT is as widely held as a lifestyle as heterosexuality. The attainment of marriage  has nothing to do with property rights, it has to do with indoctrination of the lifestyle.  A civil union gives same sex couples the same rights but correctly differentiates the union as between two people of the same sex versus marriage a union between two people of the opposite sex. 

 

[DiJoDavO]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

1 thailand racist so probably will not happen 

2 thailand like to stay in the stone age

I didn't know gay/lesbian was a race

[Stonker]

44 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Racism is based on a persons ethnicity not their sexual preference.  You call it the stone age, others might term retaining historical tradition.  

I see nothing wrong with people having civil unions that provide the same degree of rights and protections afforded to marriages between a man and a woman.  The mantra that two people of the same sex must have a "marriage" in order to preserve their equal rights is a red herring.  

The intent is not to protect any rights but rather create in society the concept that same sex unions are accepted by the general public as completely normal.   The most recent study shows approximately 5.6% of the population considers themselves to be Gay, Lesbian, Bi Sexual or Transgender.  That is a decided minority. Its aim is not equality and it is an attempt to instill a mindset  in  the future generations that LGBT is as widely held as a lifestyle as heterosexuality. The attainment of marriage  has nothing to do with property rights, it has to do with indoctrination of the lifestyle.  A civil union gives same sex couples the same rights but correctly differentiates the union as between two people of the same sex versus marriage a union between two people of the opposite sex. 

 

Spot on - the vast majority of gays I know, farangs and Thais, think the obsession by a few with being 'husband and husband' or 'wife and wife' is as absurd as men wanting to breast feed and they prefer the far simpler 'partner'.

 

[Stonker]

5 hours ago, Thaiger said:

Last year, the Cabinet approved a draft of the Civil Partnership Bill, but same-sex unions would not have the same rights and benefits as marriages

I'm far from sure that's correct, and it's not part of the BP source article.

As far as I know it would (will?) confer the same rights and benefits, just as Civil Partnership does in the UK.

The only difference between the two in the UK concerns peerages, where the male partner of a male peer (Sir, Lord, Duke, etc) doesn't get a title in the same way as the female partner (Lady, Duchess, etc) but neither do they with same sex marriage nor do males married to female peers.

[Aidan]

I live here and see a lot of lgbgtdtor stuff going on. But that is the country. But the west is now obsessed with this. And I don’t agree with it. Next will be gender question. Again its unhealthy and admire, rarely, the government for standing against this. Too many woke snowflakes about, why marry? just be happy and stop being anti establishment. You have to make a point because no one has ever said no to you. 

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Racism is based on a persons ethnicity not their sexual preference.  You call it the stone age, others might term retaining historical tradition.  

I see nothing wrong with people having civil unions that provide the same degree of rights and protections afforded to marriages between a man and a woman.  The mantra that two people of the same sex must have a "marriage" in order to preserve their equal rights is a red herring.  

The intent is not to protect any rights but rather create in society the concept that same sex unions are accepted by the general public as completely normal.   The most recent study shows approximately 5.6% of the population considers themselves to be Gay, Lesbian, Bi Sexual or Transgender.  That is a decided minority. Its aim is not equality and it is an attempt to instill a mindset  in  the future generations that LGBT is as widely held as a lifestyle as heterosexuality. The attainment of marriage  has nothing to do with property rights, it has to do with indoctrination of the lifestyle.  A civil union gives same sex couples the same rights but correctly differentiates the union as between two people of the same sex versus marriage a union between two people of the opposite sex. 

 

Stop being a victim snow flake! Facts and figures bollocks

[Artemis080]

46 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Spot on - the vast majority of gays I know, farangs and Thais, think the obsession by a few with being 'husband and husband' or 'wife and wife' is as absurd as men wanting to breast feed and they prefer the far simpler 'partner'.

That's true. But, partnership is not recognised in Thai law even for a hero couple.  

A hetro couple with a registered partnership in Australia or the UK, cannot join as a spouse on a Thai visa or multiple other things including being next of kin. Legalisation of same sex marriage would circumvent the need to change a boat load of other legislation to avail equal standing.

Personally, I'm very happy with a legal partnership certificate to afford those privileges, at least in many western countries. Marriage is a religious institution I don't care for. Everyone to their own.

[Aidan]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Racism is based on a persons ethnicity not their sexual preference.  You call it the stone age, others might term retaining historical tradition.  

I see nothing wrong with people having civil unions that provide the same degree of rights and protections afforded to marriages between a man and a woman.  The mantra that two people of the same sex must have a "marriage" in order to preserve their equal rights is a red herring.  

The intent is not to protect any rights but rather create in society the concept that same sex unions are accepted by the general public as completely normal.   The most recent study shows approximately 5.6% of the population considers themselves to be Gay, Lesbian, Bi Sexual or Transgender.  That is a decided minority. Its aim is not equality and it is an attempt to instill a mindset  in  the future generations that LGBT is as widely held as a lifestyle as heterosexuality. The attainment of marriage  has nothing to do with property rights, it has to do with indoctrination of the lifestyle.  A civil union gives same sex couples the same rights but correctly differentiates the union as between two people of the same sex versus marriage a union between two people of the opposite sex. 

 

Woke snowing

[Paco]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Racism is based on a persons ethnicity not their sexual preference.  You call it the stone age, others might term retaining historical tradition.  

I see nothing wrong with people having civil unions that provide the same degree of rights and protections afforded to marriages between a man and a woman.  The mantra that two people of the same sex must have a "marriage" in order to preserve their equal rights is a red herring.  

The intent is not to protect any rights but rather create in society the concept that same sex unions are accepted by the general public as completely normal.   The most recent study shows approximately 5.6% of the population considers themselves to be Gay, Lesbian, Bi Sexual or Transgender.  That is a decided minority. Its aim is not equality and it is an attempt to instill a mindset  in  the future generations that LGBT is as widely held as a lifestyle as heterosexuality. The attainment of marriage  has nothing to do with property rights, it has to do with indoctrination of the lifestyle.  A civil union gives same sex couples the same rights but correctly differentiates the union as between two people of the same sex versus marriage a union between two people of the opposite sex. 

 

it is a way of being a Racism because they ' different' either way people should be a bit more simple instead of doing difficult over such things, people want to marry etc. so let them, the problem is caused by an outdated government that lives 50 years back...  and historical tradition, we live now, history is history, Learn to move on and not stay hanging in the past with old things that should already have been updated 10 years ago

[Stonker]

28 minutes ago, Artemis080 said:

That's true. But, partnership is not recognised in Thai law even for a hero couple.  

A hetro couple with a registered partnership in Australia or the UK, cannot join as a spouse on a Thai visa or multiple other things including being next of kin. Legalisation of same sex marriage would circumvent the need to change a boat load of other legislation to avail equal standing.

Personally, I'm very happy with a legal partnership certificate to afford those privileges, at least in many western countries. Marriage is a religious institution I don't care for. Everyone to their own.

You've overlooked my subsequent post concerning the Thai Civil Partnership Bill which, if passed, would reportedly give all the same "privileges" as marriage here and Civil Partnership / same-sex marriage in Aus and the UK.

The Bill has already been approved by the Cabinet, last year, but those opposing it include LGBT activists who only want 'equality' and same-sex marriage.

Stonewall UK raised the same objections to Civil Partnership in the UK.

[Artemis080]

9 hours ago, Stonker said:

You've overlooked my subsequent post concerning the Thai Civil Partnership Bill which, if passed, would reportedly give all the same "privileges" as marriage here and Civil Partnership / same-sex marriage in Aus and the UK.

The Bill has already been approved by the Cabinet, last year, but those opposing it include LGBT activists who only want 'equality' and same-sex marriage.

Stonewall UK raised the same objections to Civil Partnership in the UK.

My apologies. Yes, that Bill would be a great step forward, if it ever made the light of day.  I agree, the objections of activists are well intentioned, but in reality likely hinder broader acceptance of social change.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Artemis080

[Stonker]

13 minutes ago, Artemis080 said:

My apologies. Yes, that Bill would be a great step forward, if it ever made the light of day.  I agree, the objections of activists are well intentioned, but in reality likely hinder broader acceptance of social change.

No problem at all 

- the Bill's been 'on-again / off-again' for a decade, but this is the first time it's ever got anywhere near this far and even passed some of the religious objections from some Muslim organisations which, to be fair, were argued against by others. A Civil Partnership route is clearly the way to go pragmatically, at least initially, but the more extreme elements are in a lot of ways being the gay community's worst enemy as in normal circumstances the Bill should have been passed a year ago with wide cross party support and now little other opposition.

[longwood50]

15 hours ago, Paco said:

it is a way of being a Racism

No you might say it is discrimination based on sexual preference but racism as its name very clearly indicates is "Race"  

[longwood50]

15 hours ago, Paco said:

earn to move on and not stay hanging in the past with old things that should already have been updated 10 years ago

Using your "logic" which of these should be updated?  They have not been updated in a couple of thousand years. 

https://res.cloudinary.com/vop/image/fetch/w_800,c_lfill,g_center,f_auto//https://bibleinfo.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/images/commandments/10-commandments-icon-smaller.jpg

[longwood50]

15 hours ago, Paco said:

Learn to move on and not stay hanging in the past with old things that should already have been updated 10 years ago

Using your "logic" if it has not been updated in 10 years that any historical norm needs to be "updated"

Which one are you going to start with?

1. Though shall not kill
2. Though shall not steal
3. Though shall not bring false witness

Those haven't been updated in a couple of thousand years. 

This idea that it has to be called a "marriage" is a red herring.  Whether I call a region a Province or a District if it covers the same thing they are equivalent.  If I say you won first prize or the grand prize the names are different but they mean the same thing.  A gift, and a donation are the same. 

If I say same sex unions are civil unions while heterosexual unions are a marriage they accomplish the same thing.  The LGBT community is not asking for "fairness" they are trying to indoctrinate future generations into believing that their life style is advocated by society as a lifestyle.  That lifestyle is preferred by less than 6% of the population.  The idea that government should some how connote that as the norm is preposterous.  

If they wish to have same sex partnerships so be it.  No one is saying they can't  As for any preferential rights given to married couples those can be eliminated by formal legal civil union recognized by the government.  

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

5 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Using your "logic" if it has not been updated in 10 years that any historical norm needs to be "updated"

Yes … about time we got another God or False idle to worship. I’m sure we can add another one to the 30 odd Thousand that is already peppered throughout earth’s history. 
 

Like with any law … go where you can live under the laws that people make that satisfy your needs …. You may then just be happy  

[Stonker]

56 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

The LGBT community is not asking for "fairness" they are trying to indoctrinate future generations into believing that their life style is advocated by society as a lifestyle.

Well actually the LGBT community IS asking for "fairness" so that they can have the same rights to be with the one they love, visit them in hospital as Next of Kin, leave them a pension, etc, etc, in exactly the same way as anyone else.

... and they're NOT trying to "indoctrinate" anyone or to get anyone to "advocate" anything - just trying to get the same rights as anyone else has, which doesn't affect anyone else.

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

The idea that government should some how connote that as the norm is preposterous.

Just as well that no-one has ever suggested that "idea" then !

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

If they wish to have same sex partnerships so be it.  No one is saying they can't. 

Well ... umm ... yes they are, since it's not legal here and in many other countries ! 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, AdvocatusDiaboli said:

Like with any law … go where you can live under the laws that people make that satisfy your needs …. You may then just be happy  

Well, I suppose that's one option, for all Thais who are LGBT to go elsewhere ... along with all those who aren't but think LGBT should have the same rights as everyone else ... along with all those who don't like the current government ... etc, etc ...

... alternatively they could stay here and try to change the laws to try to make things better, just like the people who made the laws tried to do ... .

[Paco]

8 hours ago, longwood50 said:

No you might say it is discrimination based on sexual preference but racism as its name very clearly indicates is "Race"  

yeah confused the words here probably because i make 18 hour days.... :)

[Stonker]

On 11/18/2021 at 8:23 PM, Aidan said:

I live here and see a lot of lgbgtdtor stuff going on. But that is the country. But the west is now obsessed with this. And I don’t agree with it. Next will be gender question. Again its unhealthy and admire, rarely, the government for standing against this. Too many woke snowflakes about, why marry? just be happy and stop being anti establishment. 

The government isn't "standing against this" - on the contrary, the Cabinet has approved the Civil Partnership Bill, which is more than any previous government has done (not that that means a great deal).

[longwood50]

8 hours ago, Stonker said:

Well ... umm ... yes they are, since it's not legal here and in many other countries

I am not sure of Thailand in terms of what I term "civil unions"  However it the intention is to somehow grant visitation rights, property rights, becoming an heir in the case of death of one of the partners, I am pretty well convinced that an attorney even here in Thailand can draft a will and other related documents granting both partners the same sort of protections/rights as those granted to married couples.  Perhaps they would not term it a civil union here in Thailand but again, is the concern having "equal rights and protection" or is it merely the symbolic name of the partnership what is important.  

 

[longwood50]

8 hours ago, Stonker said:

Well actually the LGBT community IS asking for "fairness"

No I totally disagree.  Many states allow civil unions and yet the mantra is still to demand it be called a marriage.  I know of no right or preference that an attorney can not draft into documents granting two same sex partners the same rights of visitation, being an heir, and any other right granted by marriage not available to same sex couples. 

There are numerous examples of pets being named as beneficiaries in wills.   If the lawyers can draft documents granting rights to animals, I am quite certain that they could provide whatever right two people wanted to grant to each other without having the moniker of "married" from the government. 

 

https://www.insider.com/richest-pets-in-the-world-2018-11#the-star-trek-heiress-gave-her-pets-more-than-3-million-1

[Stonker]

46 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

I am not sure of Thailand in terms of what I term "civil unions"  However it the intention is to somehow grant visitation rights, property rights, becoming an heir in the case of death of one of the partners, I am pretty well convinced that an attorney even here in Thailand can draft a will and other related documents granting both partners the same sort of protections/rights as those granted to married couples. 

You may not be sure, but I suggest you talk to an attorney before being so "pretty well convinced".

You can, of course, make a will leaving your property to whoever you choose since Thailand has no laws about statutory heirs, but as for visitation rights, pensions, visas. and anything else "granting both partners the same sort of protections/rights as those granted to married couples" those aren't in your remit so are a complete non-starter.