fff

fff

Twistys Presents: Jana Cova

I'm not sure why we would expect that local laws will harmonize on any social issues.

Most of these questions seem easy to answer!

adoption: one cannot adopt, gay or straight, from countries that don't allow it.

'clash of civilizations': it pays to be cautious, with or without a 'clash'

around the world: I'm not sure that any contract is enforceable outside the jurisdiction in which conferred it. It seems to me that disputes of this kind would go to the embassy, not the local courts ... I could be mistaken, however.

international conventions (break treaties)?: you are just adding some humor, right? Nations that seem to discriminate wrongfully will probably end up on Human Rights watch reports.

crimes: gay & lesbian people are rightly advised NOT to travel to places where they are considered criminals (that's not American and Britain, however).

companies: companies abide by local laws, unless there are exceptions. They cannot morally recruit gay people to work in nations (Saudi Arabi?, Tehran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, etc.) where the State would kill them or the religious police force 'teach them a lesson'. If a gay couple accepts the local legal limitations on their relationship, that is their choice/risk. If not, it is a loss to the host country in terms of available talent.

declare their religious affiliation: oh please, many (most?) gay people already pay all kinds of taxes for state services they will never need, why would they obsess about paying a 'church tax' any more than the other local residents? Besides, in Switzerland, not all cantons have what you describe, and I believe you can officially opt out, if you choose.

change to religious texts (adam and steve): (eyes roll) They might provide them with a ceremony for blessing same-sex couples, one that reflected their unique theological perspective on that relationship ...

might take centuries: you mean as long as it took the world to get rid of slavery as a norm? Who can say? The world is smaller every day.

Two legal points:
(1) Dr. Ettefagh seems unaware that a few years ago the U.S. Supreme Court held state laws criminalizing homosexual acts to be unconstitutional.
(2) Dr. Ettefagh lauds the nordic countries'"alternative civil contracts" as a way of conferring legal benefits on gay couples while avoiding the controversies over gay marriage.

There are two problems here:

Private contracts cannot confer state benefits such as tax deductions. Also, these private contracts are expensive to prepare and are subject to individualized interpretation of each contract.

Much better are the Civil Unions in my state of Vermont. They are entered into as simply as marriage, automatically confer state benefits like tax deductions, have uniform provisions for all couples, require no lawyers'fees to draw up, and do not require the indivualized interpretation of meaning that private contracts do. One size happily fits all with minimum expense.