Victory for Poland's gays' rights before the ECHR!

[Neil]

Just for having sex with someone I get to inherit her things? Wow, where's the line... I want to get them first...

Poland still gets to interpret a 'marriage-like relationship'.  That should invalidate the decision for most gays.

[garbon]

WHEN DID SEX BECAME THE SYNONYM OF MARRIAGE?

I've been married all over town.

[Martinus]

The trolls are coming out of the woodwork, I see.

[Razgovory]

The trolls are coming out of the woodwork, I see.

No, they have a point.  The way the way you have explained it two heterosexual people who are roomates would be considered in a marriage like situation.

[Martinus]

Well, if two heterosexual roommates who have sex with each other, run a common household (e.g share costs) and this is over an extended period of time, this is a "marriage-like relationship" (well, maybe except the "having sex" part poom poom ).

[Razgovory]

Well, if two heterosexual roommates who have sex with each other, run a common household (e.g share costs) and this is over an extended period of time, this is a "marriage-like relationship" (well, maybe except the "having sex" part poom poom ).

Yeah, and if they don't have sex with each other but just live with one another for economic necessity it would be really awkward if they suddenly find the law considers them married.

[ulmont]

That's a moronic decision. What the hell does a "marriage-like 'factual' relationship" mean in a country where same-sex marriages are not recognized by law? Is it enough I'm your roomate, that we have only one bed? Or the turning point is that we have sex with one another, therefore we are in a relationship that resembles marriage? WHEN DID SEX BECAME THE SYNONYM OF MARRIAGE?

No and no. The ECHR decision pointed out that a de facto marriage was one with "emotional, physical and also economic bonds between the partners."

This is not very different from the old common-law marriage idea, which generally required "(1) the present intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declaration that the parties are husband and wife."

So if you're living with your roommate and calling him your husband in public, and he agrees to the marriage, yay.

[Martinus]

That's a moronic decision. What the hell does a "marriage-like 'factual' relationship" mean in a country where same-sex marriages are not recognized by law? Is it enough I'm your roomate, that we have only one bed? Or the turning point is that we have sex with one another, therefore we are in a relationship that resembles marriage? WHEN DID SEX BECAME THE SYNONYM OF MARRIAGE?

No and no. The ECHR decision pointed out that a de facto marriage was one with "emotional, physical and also economic bonds between the partners."

This is not very different from the old common-law marriage idea, which generally required "(1) the present intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declaration that the parties are husband and wife."

So if you're living with your roommate and calling him your husband in public, and he agrees to the marriage, yay.

The public element is not required in the ECHR ruling, for obvious reasons.

[Alexandru H.]

That's a moronic decision. What the hell does a "marriage-like 'factual' relationship" mean in a country where same-sex marriages are not recognized by law? Is it enough I'm your roomate, that we have only one bed? Or the turning point is that we have sex with one another, therefore we are in a relationship that resembles marriage? WHEN DID SEX BECAME THE SYNONYM OF MARRIAGE?

No and no. The ECHR decision pointed out that a de facto marriage was one with "emotional, physical and also economic bonds between the partners."

This is not very different from the old common-law marriage idea, which generally required "(1) the present intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declaration that the parties are husband and wife."

So if you're living with your roommate and calling him your husband in public, and he agrees to the marriage, yay.

If I'm living with a roomate and I borrowed some money from him, forgot to pay him back which resulted in physical injury and emotional tears, then had to call him "husband" in public as a sort of punishment for not getting his dough, we're technically married?

But let's say that's the case... why in hell are the homosexuals so angry for not getting to be in traditional marriages? If it's so easy to be married (we just live together and hold hands in public), why don't they just take that easy and convenient route? Is it because they like to be beaten up by rednecks? Is it because they want to be similar to heterosexuals, down to their downright hatred of marriage? Or is it because holding hands in public can be called many things (including icky) but not marriage?

[Jaron]

You are clutching at straws Alexandru. Your trolling is so transparents I can see straight through you to the jesus stains on your walls.

Social consequences should never be a deciding factor on not pursuing ones full and equal rights.

I can just imagine you half a century ago arguing "Why do black people need to vote? Do they enjoy being terrorized and hanged from trees?"

[garbon]

Alexandru once touched my hand in public. It was icky!

[ulmont]

If I'm living with a roomate and I borrowed some money from him, forgot to pay him back which resulted in physical injury and emotional tears, then had to call him "husband" in public as a sort of punishment for not getting his dough, we're technically married?

No, since there's no intent to be married, and no sex.

But let's say that's the case... why in hell are the homosexuals so angry for not getting to be in traditional marriages? If it's so easy to be married (we just live together and hold hands in public), why don't they just take that easy and convenient route?

There are only 11 states left that allow common-law marriage, and none of them to my knowledge allow a common-law same-sex marriage.  In addition, the IRS does not recognize a same-sex marriage, common-law or not.  So there's quite a ways to go.

The ECHR's ruling only says, essentially, that had this been an unmarried straight couple in the same circumstances the survivor would have been eligible for the lease, the plaintiff was denied the lease based solely on being gay, therefore the action violates the plaintiff's rights.

[Sheilbh]

It's something similar to a common law marriage in the Anglo Saxon law or cohabitation under certain civil law syste,s - it is not a formal marriage, but the state recognizes that it gives the partners certain rights.

Essentially this ruling says that even though the Polish constitution defines the "legal" marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman, this does not mean the Polish state can refuse to recognize a de facto cohabitation of same sex partners.

So simply living with someone long enough you can just inherit their stuff?

Marriage-like matters in the UK.  If, for example, you lose your job and claim benefits you'll be turned down if you're living with someone who is earning and married to you, your civil partner or in a 'marriage like relationship with you'.  It means living and sleeping with.

[garbon]

Also, what kind of friend forces you to call him your husband in public?

[Alexandru H.]

Alexandru once touched my hand in public. It was icky!

I never touch homosexuals. Somehow it's icky to touch people that enjoy golden showers or ass-rimming.

The ECHR's ruling only says, essentially, that had this been an unmarried straight couple in the same circumstances the survivor would have been eligible for the lease, the plaintiff was denied the lease based solely on being gay, therefore the action violates the plaintiff's rights.

Hmm... first of all, it's weird that the law allows someone to retain the lease just because he was the last to fuck the deceased. A lease is a legal act, signed by two parties and I can't see how fucking someone makes you part of the deal. So if I'm the owner of the building, I'm forced to accept someone to lease the apartment, at the same value as the last one, instead of being able to auction it to the highest bidder? That's fucked up...